Skip to main content

Full text of "A history of the Papacy during the period of the Reformation"

See other formats 


=  CN 


I  CD 


<- 


STUDIES 


CHURCH    HISTORY 


THE  RISE  OF  THE  TEMPORAL  POWER.— BENEFIT 

OF  CLER  G  Y.—EXCOMMUNICA  TION.—THE 

EARLY  CHURCH  AND  SLAVERY. 


BY 

HENRY   C.  LEA. 


I 


Ahi  Costantin,  di  quanto  mal  fu  matre,  / 

Non  la  tua  conversion,  ma  quella  dote, 
Che  da  te  prese  il  prinio  ricco  patre  ! 

Inferno,  XIX. 


PHILADELPHIA: 

HENRY   C.    LEA'S    SON   &   CO. 
1883. 


Entered  according  to  the  Act  of  Congress,  in  the  year  1883,  by 

HENRY    C.    LEA, 
in  the  Office  of  the  Librarian  of  Congress.    All  rights  reserved. 


PHILADELPHIA: 
COLLINS,  PRINTER,  705  JAYNE  STREET. 


PREFACE. 


THE  first  of  the  following  essays  has  already  appeared,  in  a 
less  extended  form,  in  the  North  American  .Review,  It 
records  the  establishment  of  principles  of  which  the  subsequent 
development  is  traced  in  the  two  succeeding  essays.  Throughout 
the  whole  I  have  sought  rather  to  present  facts  than  to  draw 
inferences,  and  I  have  endeavored  to  confine  myself  to  points 
•which  illustrate  the  temporal  aspect  of  ecclesiastical  history, 
showing  how  the  church,  in  meeting  the  successive  crises  of  its 
career,  succeeded  in  establishing  the  absolute  theocratic  despot 
ism  which  diverted  it  so  strangely  from  its  spiritual  functions. 

If  in  this  I  have  appeared  to  dwell  too  exclusively  on  the 
faults  and  wrong-doing  of  the  church,  it  has  arisen  from  no 
lack  of  appreciation  of  the  services  rendered  to  humanity  by 
the  organization  which  in  all  ages  has  assumed  for  itself  the 
monopoly  of  the  heritage  of  Christ.  Yet  if  we  ask  what  would 
have  been  the  condition  of  the  world  if  that  organization  had 
not  succeeded  in  bearing  the  ark  of  Christianity  through  the 
wilderness  of  the  first  fifteen  centuries,  in  summing  up  the 
benefits  which  man  lias  derived  through  the  church,  we  may 
also  not  unreasonably  inquire  how  much  greater  would  have 
been  our  advance  in  all  that  renders  us  worthy  of  the  precepts 
of  the  Gospel  had  that  church  always  been  true  to  its  moment 
ous  trust. 

Lactantius,  rejoicing  over  the  conversion  of  Constantine,  in- 


IV  PREFACE. 

dulges  in  glowing  anticipations  of  the  approaching  regenera 
tion  of  mankind,  when  the  false  gods  shall  all  be  overthrown, 
and  he  alone  be  worshipped  whose  temples  are  not  of  clay 
or  of  stone,  but  are  men  fashioned  in  the  image  of  their 
Creator :  "  If  God  alone  were  worshipped,  then  would  war 
and  dissensions  be  no  more,  for  men  would  know  that  they 
are  all  children  of  the  same  Divine  Father.  Bound  together 
in  the  sacred  and  inviolable  bonds  of  heavenly  truth,  they 
would  no  more  plot  in  secret  against  each  other,  when  they 
would  know  the  punishments  prepared  for  the  slayers  of  souls 
by  an  omniscient  God,  to  whom  all  hidden  evil  and  the  inner 
most  secrets  of  their  hearts  are  revealed.  Fraud  and  rapine 
would  be  no  more,  for  men  would  have  learned  of  God  to  be 
content  with  what  they  have,  and  to  seek  for  the  lasting  gifts 
of  heaven  rather  than  for  the  perishable  things  of  earth.  Adul 
tery  and  prostitution  would  cease  when  they  were  taught  that 
God  had  forbidden  disorderly  appetites  ;  nor  would  woman  be 
forced  to  sell  her  virtue  for  a  wretched  subsistence,  when  men 
would  control  their  passions,  and  charity  would  minister  to 
all  the  wants  of  the  poor.  These  evils  would  vanish  from  the 
earth  if  all  were  brought  unto  the  law  of  God,  and  all  should 
do  what  now  our  people  alone  are  found  to  do.  How  blessed 
would  be  that  golden  age  among  men  if  throughout  the  world 
were  love  and  kindness  and  peace  and  innocence  and  justice 
and  temperance  and  faith  !  There  would  then  be  no  need  of 
many  and  subtle  laws,  where  innocence  would  need  only  the 
one  law  of  God.  Neither  prisons  nor  the  sword  of  the  judge 
would  be  wanted,  when  the  hearts  of  men,  glowing  with  the 
divine  precepts,  would  of  themselves  seek  the  works  of  justice. 
If  they  are  evil  now,  it  is  through  ignorance  of  right  and  truth."1 

1  Firm.  Lactant.  Divin.  Instit.  Lib.  v.  cap.  viii. 


PREFACE.  V 

Read  after  the  lapse  of  fifteen  centuries,  crowded  with  crime 
and  misery,  these  glowing  day-dreams  of  a  Christian  who 
looked  for  their  speedy  realization  may  excite  the  sneer  of  the 
cynic  or  the  smile  of  the  unbeliever ;  but  no  one  ivho  feels  the 
sublime  beauty  and  truth  of  the  precepts  of  Christ  can  fail  to 
mark  with  sorrow  the  immeasurable  distance  which  has  ever 
separated  Christendom  from  the  ideal  of  its  aspirations.  That 
our  imperfect  nature  should  be  able  to  attain  this  ideal  is  of 
course  impossible,  but  that  we  should  still  be  so  hopelessly  afar 
from  it  may  not  unreasonably  be  attributed  to  that  organiza 
tion  which  assumed  to  be  gifted  with  supernatural  powers  as 
the  direct  representative  of  Christ,  and  in  His  name  sought 
and  obtained  complete  authority  over  the  souls  and  consciences 
of  men.  Had  it  been  true  to  the  law  which  it  professed  to  ad 
minister  ;  had  it  spurned  the  vulgar  ambitions  of  power  and 
wealth,  and  had  it  taught  by  precept  and  example  the  evangel 
of  love,  Christendom  would  not  now,  in  the  nineteenth  century 
after  the  birth  of  the  Redeemer,  be  groping  as  blindly  as  ever 
over  the  yet  insoluble  problems  of  existence. 

PHILADELPHIA,  November,  1869. 


IN  reprinting  this  volume  occasional  additions  have  been 
made  which  serve  to  illustrate  still  further  the  statements  in 
the  text.  I  have  also  appended  a  short  essay  on  the  relations 
of  the  early  church  towards  slavery — a  sphere  of  action  in 
which  it  was  more  nearly  true  to  its  principles  than  in  tnose 
discussed  in  the  earlier  sections  of  the  volume. 

MARCH,  1883. 


CONTENTS. 


THE  RISE  OF  THE  TEMPORAL  POWER. 

THE  CHURCH  AND  THE  EMPIRE. 

PAGE 

Subordination  of  the  church  under  Christian  emperors       .         .        13 
Gregory  II.  defies  Leo  the  Isaurian 25 

T  H  E  C  II  U  R  C  H     AND    THE    C  A  R  L  O  V  I  N  G  I  A  N  S  . 

Allegiance  of  the  church  transferred  from  Constantinople  to  the 

Franks 3l 

Alliance  between  Pepin.le.Bref  and  Rome 

Charlemagne  carries  out  his  father's  policy  ....  35 
But  maintains  at  all  points  the  supremacy  of  the  secular  power  36 
Advantage  to  the  church  of  reviving  the  Western  Empire 
Louis  le  Debonnaire  maintains  the  subordination  of  the  church  41 
Lothair  I.  represses  the  attempted  papal  emancipation  .  .  43 
Opportunities  of  the  church  in  the  failure  of  civil  government  .  44 
l 

THE  FALSE  DECRETALS. 

Frequent  use  of  forgery  by  the  church        ",,.,.  4(> 

Riculfus  of  Mainz  probably  the  originator  of  the  False  Decretals  48 

The  Canons  of  Ingilram      ........  48 

Charlemagne  disregards  the  new  doctrines          ....  50 

They  become  established  in  the  anarchy  consequent  on  the  divi 
sion  of  the  empire     ........  52 

Speculations  concerning  the  False  Decretals        ....  53 

Their  influence  on  European  institutions    .....  54 

Their  pretensions  still  maintained  by  the  church        .  .  f>9 


Vlil  CONTENTS. 

THE  CHURCH  AND  THE  STATE. 

PAGE 

Subordination  of  the  church  under  the  Barbarians    ...  61 

Secular  supremacy  enforced  by  Charlemagne  and  his  descendants  62 

Adverse  theories  of  the  forgeries 67 

Immunity  of  the  clergy  from  secular  accusation  and  trial  .         .  69 

Spiritual  jurisdiction — its  origin  and  extension           ...  74 
Asserted  in  the  Forgeries  and  favored  by  the  decline  of  the 

royal  power 82 

Episcopal  investiture — election  in  the  primitive  church      .         .  87 

Nomination  of  bishops  by  the  Merovingians    ....  89 

And  by  the  Carlovingians        .         .         .          .         .         .         .92 

Disputed  by  the  church  after  the  middle  of  the  ninth  century  97 

The  popes  endeavor  to  obtain  the  nominating  power        .         .  98 

The  bishops  also  strive  to  secure  it           .....  99 

The  metropolitans  likewise  take  advantage  of  the  general  con 
fusion  ..........  102 

Division  of  the  spoils  between  the  sovereigns  and  the  papacy  104 

Episcopal  oaths  of  fidelity            .....  107 

Their  binding  force  under  Charlemagne           ....  107 

The  bishops  endeavor  to  escape  them       .....  109 


T  H  E    P  A  P  A  r  Y    AND    T  II  E    C  H  U  K  C  H  . 

Local  autonomy  of  the  primitive  churches  .         .         .         .112 

Causes  of  the  gradually  increasing  power  of  Rome     .          .          .113 
Yet  local  independence  is  preserved  in  theory     .          .          .          .116 

A  central  head  becomes  necessary       .         .         .         .         .         .117 

General  councils  prove  insufficient  for  this          .          .         .          .117 

Opportunities  afforded  to  Rome  by  the  quarrels  of  the  East          .     118 
The  rise  of  the  Constantinopolitan  church  ....     119 

Conflicts  between  Alexandria,  Antioch,  and  Constantinople        .     120 

Triumph  and  downfall  of  Alexandria 121 

Failure  of  Rome  to  reduce  Constantinople  to  obedience       .         .     122 

It  is  more  successful  in  the  West         .....  123 

Vicissitudes  of  the  struggle         .....  124 

Universal  appellate  jurisdiction  claimed  for  Rome      .          .         .     125 

It  has  no  foundation  in  the  primitive  church  .         .         .         .126 

But  is  temporarily  granted  by  the  council  of  Sardica      .          .     129 

The  Sardican  canons  destitute  of  authority     ....     130 

Rome  attempts  to  attribute  them  to  the  council  of  Nicrea  333 


CONTENTS.  ix 

PAGE 

Appellate  jurisdiction  over  Gaul  obtained  by  Rome         .          .     135 
Valentinian  III.  confers  universal  jurisdiction  on  the  Roman 

church 136 

But  it  is  refused  by  the  East 137 

And  by  the  Barbarian  conquerors  of  the  West         .         .         .140 

Use  of  the  Pallium  introduced  to  strengthen  the  papal  authority  142 
St.  Boniface  endeavors  to  make  the  pallium  obligatory  .  .  144 
The  Prankish  prelates  resist  its  introduction  .  .  .  144 

Special  privileges  accorded  to  render  the  pallium  attractive    .     146 
Application  for  it  enjoined  on  all  metropolitans       .          .          .     148 

Appellate  jurisdiction  claimed  in  the  False  Decretals          .         .     149 
Futile  attempts  to  exercise  it  .          .          .         .         .          .          .151 

It  is  vigorously  enforced  by  Nicholas       .          .         .          .          .152 

Evils  of  the  new  system  ........     155 

Efforts  of  the  church  to  escape  from  it     .         .          .         .          .157 

Finally  established  by  Innocent  III 158 

Corruptions  and  injustice  wrought  by  it  .         .         .         .     159 


PAPAL  OMNIPOTENCE. 

Applications  of  the  power  to  bind  and  to  loose  .          .         .          .161 

Supremacy  of  the  papacy  over  secular  rulers      .         .         .          .164 

The  donation  of  Constantine       .......     165 

Nicholas  I.  reduces  to  practice  the  principles  of  the  False  De 
cretals       168 

Papal  omnipotence  established  by  the  case  of  Lot  hair  and  Teut- 

berga 169 


BENEFIT  OF  CLERGY. 

Importance  of  the  privilege  of  clerical  immunity        .         .         .     177 
Claim  of  its  origin  in  the  council  of  Nicsea          .         .         .         .178 

Partial  and  temporary  immunity  granted  by  some  of  the  Em 
perors        ..........     179 

Disallowed  by  others  .         .         .         .         .         .         .         .179 

Justinian  allows  restricted  immunity  in  certain  cases          .         .     181 
Successful  efforts  of  the  popes  to  obtain  it  ....     182 


CONTENTS. 


PAGE 


It  is  refused  by  the  Burgundians  and  Wisigoths         .         .         .183 

Admitted  by  the  Christian  Britons 183 

And  by  the  Franks 

But  is  practically  disregarded     .... 

Restored  in  principle  by  the  early  Carlovingians         .         .          .  186 

But  not  admitted  in  practice        .         .         •         •         •         •         .187 

Charlemagne  and  Louis  maintain  the  supremacy  of  secular  law  188 

Charles  le  Chauve  forced  to  admit  clerical  immunity 

Persistence  of  the  church  in  asserting  its  claim  to  immunity      .  191 

Finally  acceded  to  throughout  Europe 193 

Legislation  of  England 195 

Benefit  of  clergy  not  abolished  until  the  nineteenth  century  .  199 

Legislation  of  Germany — triumph  of  the  church         .         .         .  200 

Naples  and  Sicily — restrictions  imposed  on  immunity         .         .  202 

Lombardy — tardy  recognition  of  the  privilege    ....  203 

Spain — the  privilege  finally  established      .....  205 

France — prolonged  struggle  to  obtain  clerical  immunity      .         .  206 

Abuses  of  the  system— ineffectual  efforts  at  reform           .         .  209 

Compromise  between  the  church  and  the  state         .         .         .  212 

Cases  illustrative  of  the  protection  afforded  to  criminals           .  213 

Protests  of  the  church  against  encroachments  of  the  state      .  217 

The  church  maintains  its  ground  until  the  Reformation     .         .219 

Corruption  in  the  church  caused  by  immunity  ....  220 

Attacks  of  the  reformers     ........  221 

The  church  attempts  internal  reform 

Remonstrances  of  the  orthodox  at  the  council  of  Trent       .          .  224 

Efforts  of  the  council  to  evade  the  demand  for  reform 

Conservative  policy  tin  ally  adopted 226 

Resolute  determination  to  maintain  abuses          ....  227 

Corruption  consequently  flourishes  unchecked    ....  228 

Independent  spirit  aroused  in  the   laity — restrictions  laid  on 

clerical  immunity      ........  229 

The  church  maintains  its  pretensions  to  the  present  time            .  231 


CONTENTS.  XI 

EXCOMMUNICATION. 

PAGE 

Power  arising  from  the  control  of  the  sacraments        .          .         .     235 


PRIMITIVE  DISCIPLINE. 

The  doctrines  of  the  Gospels 236 

Temporary  character  of  the  apostolic  regulations        .         .          .  238 

Nature  of  the  Eucharist  in  the  primitive  church — the  agapse     .  239 

Substantial  character  of  the  Eucharistic  repast           .         .         .  241 

It  becomes  the  symbolic  bond  of  union 243 

Its  deprivation  entails  expulsion  from  the  church  and  segrega 
tion  .     .  244 

Necessity  of  coercive  legislation  within  the  church    .         .         .  245 

Growth  and  application  of  spiritual  penalties     ....  247 

The  church  interposes  between  man  and  God      ....  248 

Expulsion  from  the  church  entails  perdition       ....  248 

Temporal  penalties — segregation         ......  249 

Repentant  excommunicates — penitence       .....  252 

Simplicity  of  penance  in  the  early  church           ....  253 

Gradual  increase  of  severity 254 

The  church  assumes  the  functions  of  a  lawgiver         .         .         .  255 

Prolongation  of  penitence— disabilities  connected  with  it  .         .  256 

Refusal  of  death-bed  communion — varying  policy  of  the  church  258 

The  church  assumes  complete  control  over  salvation  .         .          .  259 

Commencement  of  belief  in  purgatory 262 

Variation  of  practice  as  to. death-bed  reconciliation    .         .          .  262 

Its  insufficiency  in  cases  of  recovery  ......  263 

Excommunication  of  the  dead — varying  practice  of  the  church  .  264 
Limitations  on  use  of  excommunication       .         .         .          .         .266 

Formal  trial  required           ........  267 

Lex  talioiiis  applied  to  unsuccessful  prosecutor  ....  269 

Disregard  of  these  rules — abuses        ......  270 

Excommunication  degraded  by  its  frequency       .         .         .         .271 

Interference  of  the  state  to  prevent  abuses          ....  272 

Police  of  the  church — litterse  commendatitiae       ....  273 

Enforcement  of  respect  for  excommunication       ....  274 

Policy  of  the  church  towards  heretics — persecution    .         .          .  276 

The  organization  of  the  church  gradually  becomes  despotic        .  277 


X11  CONTENTS. 

PAGE 

Minute  supervision  of  the  hierarchy  .....  279 

Control  acquired  over  potentates — Synesius,  Chrysostom    .  .     280 

St.  Ambrose — excommunication  of  Theodosius  .         .         .  282 

His  example  not  imitated — subordination  of  the  church     .  .     285 

Courtly  toleration  of  imperial  sins      .         .         .  286 


THE   PAPACY. 

Transmutation  of  spiritual  into  temporal  power  .  288 
Rendered  effective  by  concentration  in  the  papacy  .  .  .  289 
Sources  of  papal  authority— original  and  appellate  jurisdictions  289 
No  supreme  jurisdiction  in  the  early  church  .  .  .  290 
Gradual  assumption  of  supremacy  by  Rome  .  .  .  291 
Ineffectual  rivalry  of  Alexandria  ....  292 
Struggle  between  Rome  and  Constantinople  ....  292 
Papal  use  of  excommunication  in  the  East — humiliation  of  Con 
stantinople  .....  293 
Papal  use  of  excommunication  in  the  West— Maximus  of  Salona  298 


THE  CHURCH  AND  THE  BARBARIANS. 

Dissociation  of  the  clergy  from  the  laity     ....  300 

Necessity  of  supernatural  protection  for  the  clergv     .          .  .30] 

Increased  use  of  excommunication  consequent  thereon       .  .     302 

Miraculous  interpositions  for  the  protection  of  the  church  .     304 

Reverence  inculcated  for  relics  and  for  the  Eucharist          .  .     308 

Fearful  punishment  for  disregard  of  excommunication       .  .     309 

Use  of  excommunication  to  control  the  Merovingians           .  .     310 
Difficulty  of  enforcing  obedience — introduction  of  the  Interdict  .     311 

Commencement  of  interpellation  of  secular  power      .         .  .     313 

Secularization  of  the  church  under  the  later  Merovingians  .     314 

C  A R  L  O  V  I  N  G  1  A  X    RECONSTRUCTION. 

Use  made  of  the  church  as  a  civilizing  agent      .         .  315 

The  state  undertakes  to  enforce  the  censures  of  the  church  316 

Especially  with  respect  to  its  control  over  marriages  .         .  318 

And  to  protect  it  from  spoliation          .         .         .  324 

Yet  Charlemagne  restrains  the  abuses  of  excommunication  325 


CONTENTS.  Xlll 


CHURCH  AND  STATE. 

PAGE 

Louis  le  Debonnaire  allows  the  church,  to  control  him         .          .  326 

Confusion  of  secular  and  spiritual  jurisdiction  ....  327 

Lothair  I.  pledges  the  power  of  the  state  to  enforce  excommuni 
cation        ..........  328 

Increased    authority  of  the    church — degradation    of   Louis    le 

Dehonnaire 329 

The  church  claims  the  right  to  call  upon  the  secular  power        .  331 

Spiritual  censures  disregarded  in  the  increasing  anarchy  .          .  333 

The  state  seeks  support  from  the  church    .....  334 

And  relies  on  excommunication  for  enforcement  of  the  law         .  337 

Yet  still  controls  the  jurisdiction  of  the  church          .         .         .  338 
Prerogatives  enuring  to  the  church  from  its  alliance  with  the 

state                                                                 ....  339 


THE  CHURCH  AND  FEUDALISM. 

Struggle  of  the  church  for  self-preservation         ....  342 

Ferocity  of  anathema  arising  from  desperation  ....  343 

Interposition  of  Providence  to  vindicate  the  anathema        .         .  348 

Case  of  Robert  the  Pious  of  France 349 

Opportunities  of  the  church  in  the  reorganization  of  society      .  354 
Use  made  of  conflicting  interests  to  break  down  each  in  turn 
and   establish    the    theories    of    the    Forgeries — Case    of 

Henry  IV 355 

Cases  of  Hugh  of  Gapencais  and  Philip  I.  of  France  .         .  373 

Triumph  of  the  church  over  the  empire      .....  377 

Power  acquired  to  intervene  in  the  affairs  of  states     .         .          .  381 

And  to  nominate  to  clerical  preferment       .....  383 

Illimitable  authority  thus  conferred  on  the  church     .         .          .  384 

Concentrated  in  the  person  of  the  pope       .         ...          .          •  385 

Who  is  regarded  as  a  God  on  earth     ......  387 

Corruptions  arising  from  this  irresponsible  power       .         .         .  391 


TEMPORAL  PENALTIES. 

Disabilities  and  punishments  inflicted  011  excommunicates          .     392 
Segregation — penalties  for  intercourse  with  excommunicates      .     393 
2 


XIV  CONTENTS. 

PA(iK 

Secular  legislation  punishing  excommunicates — in  England       .  396 

in  France        ........  399 

in  Spain 495 

in  Germany    ........  408 

in  Italy 413 

in  Poland        ........  415 

in  Sweden       ........  415 

in  Hungary 41(j 

ABUSE  OF  EXCOMMUNICATION. 

Power  of  oppression  conferred  by  excommunication   .          .         .416 
Insufficiency  of  monitions  to  be  guarded  in  its  use      .          .         .417 

It  is  valid  however  wrongfully  abused         ....  418 

Its  prostitution  for  private  ends           .          .         .  419 

Secularization  of  its  penalties     ....  422 

Refusal  of  sepulture   .......  423 

Subjection  of  nature  to  the  anathema 426 

It  becomes  simply  a  ban  or  curse          ....  427 

Excommunication  of  animals      ....  428 

Its  use  in  supplementing  the  secular  law 435 

Employed  for  recovery  of  stolen  property   .  437 

And  for  the  collection  of  debts 439 

Aggravation  of  abuses  caused  by  papal  supremacy     .         .          .  449 

And  by  ipso  facto  '^communications    ...  457 

EMANCIPATION. 

Impossibility  of  internal  reform  in  the  church    ....  459 

Gradual  tendency  to  resistance  by  the  laity        .         .          .  450 

Complaints  of  the  abuses  of  excommunication    ....  462 

Reactionary  spirit  of  the  council  of  Trent  ....  455 

Conservative  character  of  its  reforms           ....  466 

Rapid  growth  of  insubordination  towards  the  church          .  469 

Final  emancipation  of  the  state 471 

Benefits    to    the    church    from    the    abolition    of   its    temporal 

Power 474 

Reactionary  efforts  of  its  leaders          .         .         .  475 


CO  NTENTS. 


THE  R  E  F  o  ii  M  E  n  CHURCHES. 

PAGE 

Inevitable  insubordination  of  heretics         .....  479 

Wickliffe's  views  on  excommunication          .          .    •      .          .         .  479 

Followed  by  Huss 480 

Lutheran  doctrine  and  practice  .......  480 

Calvinist  practice  in  France         .......  494 

in  Scotland — abuse  of  power  by  the  church  .  498 

The  Anglican  Church — abuse  of  power  by  the  state  .         .         .  508 


THE  EARLY  CHURCH  AND  SLAVERY. 

Slavery  in  Rome          .  524 

Influence  of  Christianity     ........  537 

The  Eastern  Church 549 

The  Latin  Church 553 

The  ordination  of  slaves  571 


THE    RISE 


TEMPORAL    POWER 


THE  CHURCH  AND  THE  EMPIRE. 

WHEN  Constantine  embraced  Christianity,  nothing  was 
further  from  his  intention  than  to  abandon  to  the 
Church  any  portion  of  his  imperial  prerogative.  He  could 
not,  it  is  true,  be  the  Pontifex  Maximus  of  his  new  religion, 
but  it  mattered  little  whether  he  personally  performed  the 
sacred  rites  so  long  as  he  retained  supreme  control  over  those 
who  were  privileged  to  do  so.  By  the  organic  law  of  the 
Empire,  the  people,  from  the  highest  to  the  lowest,  were  all 
equally  at  the  mercy  of  the  monarch,  whose  powers  were  only 
limited  by  his  own  sense  of  prudence  and  justice,  and  against 
whom  the  only  remedy  was  assassination  or  revolution.1  Least 
of  all  could  his  autocracy  be  doubted  by  Christians  who,  even 
in  times  of  persecution,  had  taught  that  their  pagan  sovereigns 
ruled  by  divine  right  and  were  second  only  to  God.2 

The  church,  therefore,  formed  no  exception  to  this  universal 
subordination,  and  fully  acquiesced  in  its  condition.      Its  faith 

1  Even  in  the  sixth  century,  Justinian  asserts  autocracy  to  be  the  fun 
damental  constitution  of  the  empire.     "  Sed  et  quod  principi  placuit, 
legis  luibet  vigorem,  cum,  lege  regia,  qu»3  de  ejus  imperio  lata  est,  popu- 
lus  ei  et  in   eurn   omnem  imperium  suurn  et  potestateni  concedat."- 
Institt.  I.  ii.  6. 

2  Colimus  ergo  et  imperatorem,  sic,  quomodo  et  nobis  licit,  et  ipsi  ex- 
pedit  ut  hominem,  a  Deo  secundum,  et  quicquid  est  a  Deo  consecutum. 
solo  Deo  minorem. — Tertull.  Lib.  ad  Scapulani  cap.  ii. 

2 


14  THE    RISE     OF     THE     TEMPORAL     POWER. 

and  discipline,  its  internal  policy  and  its  external  privileges, 
were  all  subjected  to  the  supremacy  of  the  imperial  power. 
Even  when  it  gathered  together  in  its  most  august  and  authori 
tative  assemblies,  the  presumed  inspiration  of  the  Holy  Ghost 
afforded  it  no  exemption  from  this  domination.  The  confirma 
tion  of  the  sovereign  was  requisite  to  confer  validity  on  the 
canons  of  general  councils,  nor  was  that  consent  by  any 
means  given  as  a  matter  of  course.  Thus  we  find  Constantius 
vetoing  a  portion  of  the  canons  of  the  synod  of  Rimini  in  3(50, ! 
and  the  acknowledgment  of  this  subordination  was  expressed 
at  the  council  of  Tyre,  during  the  heat  of  the  Arian  contro 
versy,  in  33o,  when  the  Catholic  bishops  appealed  to  Count 
Dionysius,  the  imperial  commissioner,  asking  him  to  reserve 
the  questions  discussed  for  the  decision  of  Constantine,  whose 
prerogative  it  was  to  legislate  for  the  church  and  its  members.2 
How  complete  was  the  control  thus  centred  in  the  person  of 
the  emperor  is  manifest  in  the  rescript  of  Theodosius  II. 
and  Valentinian  III.  respecting  the  disgraceful  scenes  which 
marked  the  opening  of  the  council  of  Ephesus  in  431,  under 
the  lead  of  St.  Cyril.  The  tumultuous  conduct  of  the  holy 
fathers  is  rebuked,  and  the  intention  is  expressed  of  sending 
an  officer  of  the  palace  to  review  the  proceedings,  and  to  set 
aside  what  may  prove  to  be  improper,  while  none  of  the 
bishops  are  to  leave  Ephesus,  either  for  the  purpose  of  return 
ing  home  or  of  visiting  the  court,  under  pain  of  the  imperial 
displeasure.3  In  fact,  the  business  of  general  councils  was 
regulated  by  imperial  commissioners,  who  were  laymen,  and 
when  the  council  of  Chalet-don,  in  451,  had  sat  from  the  8th 
to  the  30th  of  October,  we  iind  these  officials  informing  the 
assembled  prelates  that  the  work  in  hand  must  be  hurried  to 
completion,  as  grave  affairs  of  state  required  their  presence 
elsewhere,  and  they  could  not  devote  more  time  to  the  church.4 
Of  course,  under  these  conditions,  all  general  synods  were  con- 

1  Lib.  XVI.  Cod.  Theod.  Tit.  n.  L  15. 
'2  Concil.  Tyrium  aim.  335  (Harduin.  Coucil.  I.  513). 
3  Conciliab.  Epheein.  cap.  v.  (Harduin.  I.  153S-9). 
*  Concil.jChalced.  Act.  xii.  (Ibid.  II.  .>>!)). 


THE  CHURCH  AND  THE  EMPIRE.         15 

vened  by  the  authority  and  in  the  name  of  the  sovereign;1  and 
the  pretensions  of  the  Roman  see  to  supreme  authority  in  con 
voking  and  presiding  over  these  bodies  were  too  late  in  their 
origin  and  too  fraudulent  in  their  proof  to  merit  extended  ex 
amination.  The  lost  canon  of  Nicuea — "  non  debere  praster 
sententiam  Romani  Episcopi  concilia  celebrari" — might  be  al 
leged  on  the  authority  of  endless  texts  drawn  from  the  False 
Decretals,  but  no  more  substantial  proof  could  be  adduced  in 
its  support.2  Ultramontane  writers,  it  is  true,  are  fond  of 
quoting  from  Socrates  and  Sozomen  a  statement  that,  in  341, 
Julius  1.  angrily  told  the  synod  of  Antioch  that  no  council 
was  lawful  to  which  the  Roman  bishop  had  not  been  invited, 
nor  its  decrees  valid  without  his  confirmation  ;3  and  critics  have 
endeavored  to  explain  the  reception  of  that  synod  as  canonical, 
in  the  absence  of  such  conditions  precedent,  by  suggesting  that 
two  synods  were  held  at  Antioch  in  that  year,  one  orthodox 
and  the  other  Arian.  The  Greek  historians,  however,  were  dis 
posed  to  give  to  the  action  of  the  Roman  bishop  as  arrogant  a 
character  as  possible.  It  was  in  the  height  of  the  Athanasian 
controversy,  and  the  text  of  the  letter  of  Julius  shows  that  he 
complained  simply  of  the  proceedings  as  irregular,  since  the 
matter  concerned  the  church  at  large,  involving  the  loftiest 
Apostolic  sees,  and  therefore  the  judgment  of  the  whole  church 
should  have  been  taken  on  it.  He  did  not  demand  that  they  should 
have  written  to  him,  but  "us  all,  so  that  a  just  decision  should  be 
rendered  by  all."4  Even  these  moderate  pretensions,  however, 

1  For  the  proof  of  this,  with  respect  to  the  first  four  general  councils — 
Nicaea,  Constantinople,  Ephesus,  and  Chalcedon — see  Hardouin,  T.  I. 
pp.  845,  807,  1354  ;  T.  II.  p.  54. 

2  Pseudo-Julii   Epist.   2 ;    Pseudo-Marcclli   Epist.    1 ;    Pseudo-Damasi 
Epist.  4  cap.  2.— Pseudo-Pelagii  II.  Epist.  ;  Capitular.  Lib.  vi.  cap.  381. 
—The  argument  in  favor  of  the  prerogative  may  be  found  briefly  stated 
in  Cabassut's  Synopsis  Concil.  sub.  Concil.  Chalced. 

3  Socrat.  H.  E.  ir.  17.— Sozomen.  II.  E.  in.  10. 

4  Julii  PP.  I.  Epist.  ad  Antiochenos  cap.  xxii. — "  Wei  ypA^vA!  irZnv  Hpti, 
iv*.rir(*c-ra.t:ivdv<raov  W&ji  TO  <#**«»."     The  whole  letter  is  expostualtory 
and  not  dictatorial. 


16  THE     RISE     OF     THE     TEMPORAL     POWER. 

were  disregarded  by  the  second  general  council,  held  at  Con 
stantinople,  in  381,  which  decided  the  weightiest  questions  of 
faith  and  discipline,  and  which  has  always  been  acknowledged 
as  cecumenic,  even  by  Kome.     The  signatures  to  its  decrees 
are  headed  by  Nectarius,  of  Constantinople,  and  they  contain 
the  names  of  no  representatives  of  Pope  Damasus.      Its  pro 
ceedings  were  submitted  for  confirmation   to  Theodosius  the 
Great  and   not  to  Damasus  ;  and  in   the  synodical  letter  ad 
dressed  to  the  bishops  assembled  at  Rome,  including  Damasus, 
St.  Ambrose,  and  others,  the  Eastern  fathers  give  their  reasons 
for  not  attending  the  Roman  synod,  while  they  simply  express 
the  hope  that  the  latter  will   rejoice   over   the  restoration   of 
orthodoxy  in  the  East.      There  is  nothing  in  their  proceedings 
to  suggest  that  they  imagined  that  Rome  had  any  voice  in  con 
firming  the  validity  of  their  action.1      When,   indeed,  the  ex 
tension   of  Constantinopolitan    prerogative,  founded  upon   the 
action  of  this  council,  became  alarming  to    Rome,  Leo  I.  ex 
pressly  denied  that   its  decrees  had  ever  received  her  assent,2 
without,   however,  weakening   their  claim    to   be   respected   as 
the  voice  of  the;  church  universal;  and  this  council  is  included 
in  the  list  of  those   to  which   the  popes  were  obliged  in   their 
installation  oath  to  swear  allegiance.3     In  fact,  even  when  the 
Western  portion  of  the  synod  of  Sardica  sent  a  report  of  their 
proceedings  to  Julius  I.  they  did  so   in  terms  which  show  that 
it  was  a   novel   thing,  requiring  to  be   explained;    and  they 
ordered  him  to  communicate  the  results  of  their  action   to  the 
bishops  of  Italy,  Sardinia,  and  Sicily  in  a  tone  which  excludes 
all  supposition  of  any  papal  control   over  them  and  their  acts.4 
If,  therefore,  the  representative  of  Leo  I.,  Paschasinus,  Bishop 
of  Lilybaeum,  had  the  honor  of  presiding  nominally  over  the 
council  of  Chalcedon,  it  was   not   in  virtue  of  any  recognized 
prerogative,  but  because  the  pope  had  artfully  requested  it  of 
the  Emperor   Marcian  on  the  ground  that,  as   Paschasinus  had 

1  Harduin.  I.  807-20.  2  Leo.  I.  Epist.  cvi.  cap.  5. 

3  Concil.  Constant.  Sessio  XXXIX.  (Von  dor  Hardt  T.  IV.  p.  UiO). 

4  Epist.  Synod.  Sardiceiis.  §§  i.,  iv.  (Migne's  Patrol.  VI  If.  010,  02;>). 


THE  CHURCH  AND  THE  EMPIRE.        17 

not  been  personally  involved  in  the  quarrels  connected  with  the 
Eutychian  heresy,  his  appointment  would  be  unexceptionable.1 
How  little  this  presidency  amounted  to  was  shown  when  Euse- 
bius  of  Dorylrcum  appealed  in  the  council  from  the  condemna 
tion  inflicted  on  him  by  the  Robber  Synod  of  Ephesus,  and 
addressed  his  prayer,  not  to  the  council,  but  to  the  emperor, 
whose  special  attribute  he  asserted  to  be  the  protection  of 
ecclesiastics  from  injustice.2 

That  the  sovereign  should  intervene  authoritatively  in  eccle 
siastical  disputes  was  therefore  a  matter  of  course.  When,  for 
instance,  the  apostolic  see  of  Antioch  was  claimed  by  two  rival 
bishops,  St.  Meletius  and  Paulinus,  and  a  synod  was  held  in 
377  to  decide  between  their  pretensions,  it  was  Sapor,  the  im 
perial  representative,  to  whom  both  parties  appealed,  and  who 
approved  and  enforced  the  extraordinary  proposition  of  Mele 
tius  which  gave  two  concurrent  patriarchs  to  the  church  ot  the 
East.3  So  when,  a  few  years  earlier,  the  contested  election  of 
Damasus  and  Ursinus  filled  the  streets  of  Rome  with  carnage, 
the  disgraceful  strife  was  only  put  an  end  to  by  the  Prefect 
Maximin,  who  pronounced  in  favor  of  Damasus  and  inflicted 
severe  punishment  on  both  the  lay  and  clerical  adherents  of 
his  rival.4  About  fifty  years  later,  when  a  similar  disgraceful 
quarrel  arose  between  Eulalius  and  Boniface  I.,  the  decision 
was  referred,  as  a  matter  of  course,  to  the  miserable  shadow  of 
an  emperor,  Honorius,  who  appointed  a  vicar  to  act  as  tempo 
rary  bishop  of  Rome  during  his  examination  of  the  question, 
and,  after  settling  it  in  favor  of  Boniface,  issued  an  edict  to 
prevent  the  recurrence  of  scenes  so  unchristian,  by  providing 
that  if  two  candidates  should  be  consecrated,  both  should  be 
driven  from  the  city.5 

The  most  unequivocal  evidence  of  the  imperial  autocracy, 

1  Leon.  PP.  I.  Epist.  S9  (Ed.  Ballerin). 

2  Concil.  Chaleed.  Act,  I.  (Harduin.  II.  70). 

3  Theodoreti  Hist,  Eccles.  Lib.  v.  cap.  3. 

4  Socrat.  Hist.  Eccles.  Lib.  iv.  cap.  !29. 

5  Goldast.  Const.  Imp.  T.  III.  pp.  587-9;).— ITarduin.  I.  123S. 

2* 


18  THE     RISE     OF    THE     TEMPORAL     POWER. 

however,  is  to  be  found  in  the  legislation  of  the  period.  The 
laws  of  the  Christian  emperors,  from  Constantine  to  Leo  the 
Philosopher,  manifest  the  absolute  subordination  of  the  spiritual 
to  the  temporal  authority.  The  minutiae  of  church  govern 
ment,  the  relations  of  the  clergy  among  themselves,  and  to  the 
state,  their  duties,  their  morals,  and  their  actions,  monastic 
regulations,  the  suppression  of  heresies — all  the  details,  in  fact, 
of  ecclesiastical  life,  internal  and  external,  are  prescribed  with 
the  assurance  of  unquestioned  power,  and  with  a  care  which 
shows  how  large  a  portion  of  the  imperial  attention  was  de 
voted  to  the  management  of  the  church. 

Under  this  despotic  authority,  the  loftiest  prelates  were  but 
subjects,  whose  first  duty  was  obedience,  and  a  long  succession 
of  feeble  and  worthless  Caesars  was  requisite  before  the  able 
and  vigorous  men  who  occupied  the  bishopric  of  Rome  could 
begin  to  emancipate  themselves  from  the  traditions  of  imperial 
authority.  The  persecution  of  Liberius  by  Constantius,  for 
his  bold  adherence  to  the  Athanasian  creed  under  Arian  pre 
ponderance,  may  perhaps  be  regarded  as  exceptional,  since  it 
was  the  work  of  an  Arian;  but  no  such  exception  can  be  taken 
to  the  council  of  Rome  in  378,  when,  under  the  lead  of  St. 
Ambrose,  it  petitioned  the  Emperor  Gratian,  as  a  favor,  that 
the  Roman  bishop,  when  accused,  might  always  be  tried  by 
the  imperial  council,  and  urged,  as  a  precedent  of  binding  force, 
the  trial  and  acquittal  of  Sylvester  I.  by  Constantine.1 

With  the  fall  of  the  Western  Empire,  the  church  made  some 
feeble  efforts  to  assert  its  independence.  Thus  Odoacer,  king 
of  the  Ileruli,  enacted  a  law  forbidding  the  alienation  of  church 
property.  Great  as  was  this  favor,  the  fact  that  it  was  the  act 
of  a  layman  rankled  in  the  ecclesiastical  mind,  and,  alter  the 
fall  of  the  Barbarian  king,  the  Roman  synod  of  f>02  pronounced 
it  null  and  void  on  the  ground  that  no  layman  had  a  right  to 
interfere  with  the  affairs  of  tin1  church.2  The  absurdity  of  this 

1  Epiist.  Concil.  Roman,  ad  Impp.     (ITarduin.  T.  842.) 

2  Synod.  Roman.  IV.  arm.  50:2,  e.  M. 


THE  CHURCH  AND  THE  EMPIRE.         19 

protest  was  manifest,  for  four  years  earlier,  when  Symmachus 
and  Laurence  contested  each  other's  claims  to  the  pontifical 
throne,  Theodoric  the  Ostrogoth  had  intervened  with  all  the 
authority  of  old,  though,  as  an  Arian,  he  was  little  better  than 
a  pagan  in  the  eyes  of  the  orthodox.  He  elevated  Symmachus 
to  the  papacy,  and  gratified  with  a  bishopric  the  defeated  as 
pirant  ;  and  then,  assembling  a  council,  he  caused  the  adoption 
of  a  canon  designed  to  restrain  the  criminal  ambition  which 
brought  so  much  dishonor  on  the  Christian  name.1  When, 
moreover,  a  synod  was  convened  in  501  to  consider  certain 
accusations  against  Symmachus,  it  was  done  in  the  name  and 
by  the  authority  of  Theodoric,  and  when  the  assembled  bishops- 
demurred  to  sitting  in  judgment  on  their  superior,  Theodoric 
reassured  them  by  stating  that  Symmachus  had  requested  him 
to  convoke  them  for  that  purpose,  thus  showing  that  the  pope 
recognized  the  power  as  belonging  to  the  king  and  not  to  him 
self.  Yet  the  appointment  by  Theodoric  of  an  ecclesiastic  as 
"  visitor,"  with  authority  to  reform  the  disorders  of  the  Roman 
church,  was  objected  to  by  the  synod  as  subversive  of  discipline  ; 
and  the  indignation  which  could  not  be  gratified  on  the  king 
was  freely  poured  forth  on  the  unfortunate  visitor,  who,  in  the 
exercise  of  his  office,  had  doubtless  earned  the  ill-will  of  in 
fluential  prelates.2 

/The  futility  of  these  pretensions  was  shown  when  Theodoric 
sent  Pope  John  I.  on  an  embassy  to  the  Emperor  Justin,  and, 
being  dissatisfied  with  his  performance  of  its  duties,  on  his  re 
turn  threw  him  in  prison,  where,  by  opportunely  dying,  he 
won  the  honors  of  martyrdom.3  The  next  Ostrogothic  mon 
arch,  Athalaric,  was  no  less  absolute  in  his  control  of  eccle- 

1  Synod.  Roman.  I.  aim.  498.— Cf.  Athalar.  Const,  10.  (Goldast.  III.  05, 
613.) 

2  Synod.  Roman.  III.  ami.  501. 

3  Anastas.  Biblioth.  No.  55.— Cf.  Martyrol.  Roman.  Maii  27.— The  as 
sertion  that  John  perished  under  the  persecuting  zeal  of  the  Arians  comes 
with  an  ill  grace  from  those  who  for  thirty  years  had  enjoyed  the  tolera 
tion  of  Theodoric — a  toleration  of  which  Arians  alone  were  capable. 


20  THE     RISE     OF     THE     TEMPORAL     POWER. 

siastical  affairs.  Among  his  constitutions  is  one,  addressed  to 
John  II.,  respecting  the  simony  prevalent  in  episcopal  and 
papal  elections,  in  which,  under  a  thin  veil  of  courtesy,  he 
regulates  these  tender  points  of  discipline  in  a  manner  suffi 
ciently  imperious  to  show  that  the  pope  was  his  subject  as  com 
pletely  as  any  other  dignitary,  and  that  his  jurisdiction  over 
the  church  was  as  unquestioned  as  over  the  state.1 

Whether  the  royal  power  was  wielded  by  the  heretic  or  the 
orthodox  made  little  difference.  The  kingdom  of  Italy,  which, 
under  the  genius  of  Theodoric,  had  for  a  brief  space  rivalled 
the  civilzation  of  former  ages,  soon  became  the  battle-field  on 
which  Goth  and  Greek  and  Lombard  by  turns  exercised  a  pre 
carious  dominion.  When  the  victorious  lieutenants  of  Justinian 
overthrew  the  Gothic  dynasty,  the  popes  were  transferred  anew 
to  the  sovereignty  of  the  emperors,  and  the  unlucky  occupant 
of  the  pontifical  throne  during  the  revolution  was  the  sport  of 
both  parties.  Silverius,  who  had  bribed  the  Arian  Theodatus 
to  force  him  on  the  unwilling  Romans,  redeemed  his  character 
by  refusing  to  obey  the  commands  of  the  orthodox  Justinian 
with  regard  to  the-  Patriarch  Anthemius  of  Constantinople. 
His  apocrisarius,  or  agent,  at  the  imperial  court,  Yigilius,  con 
spired  with  the  Empress  Theodora  for  his  removal.  A  charge 
of  treason  was  readily  fabricated,  under  color  of  which  Silverius 
was  deposed  and  exiled  by  Belisarius  ;  and,  notwithstanding 
the  irregularity  of  his  installation,  was  duly  canonized  as  a 
martyr.2 

Theodora  fulfilled  her  bargain  with  Yigilius,  who  was  duly 
installed  in  the  pontifical  chair  by  Belisarius,  but  he  was  no 
more  fortunate  than  his  predecessor.  The  throne  which  lie 
had  gained  by  apostasy,  simony,  and  false  witness,  he  was  ob 
liged  to  secure  by  murder ;  and  though  he  endeavored  to  elude 
the  payment  in  gold  and  heresy  which  lie  had  pledged,  he  was 
not  allowed  to  escape  by  his  imperial  masters.  In  5  14  the 
fulfilment  of  his  written  promise  was  exacted  of  him,  and  on 

1  Cassiodor.  Yariar.  Lib.  ix.  cap.  15.         2  Anastas.  Biblioth.  No.  GO. 


THE  CHURCH  AND  THE  EMPIRE.         21 

his  refusal,  he  was  summoned  to  Constantinople,  where  he  was 
subjected  by  Justinian  to  the  depth  of  humiliation.  Whether 
it  was  for  his  contumacy  w7ith  regard  to  the  Three  Chapters, 
or  for  the  crimes  alleged  against  him  by  the  Romans,  is  of 
little  moment ;  and  if  his  persecution  was  due  to  the  vindic- 
tiveness  of  the  empress,  the  degradation  was  the  more  bitter, 
as  inflicted  by  a  courtesan  on  the  successor  of  St.  Peter.1 

Perhaps  the  most  important  feature  of  his  career  is  the  con 
tradiction  which  it  affords  to  the  pretension  that  the  concur 
rence  of  a  pope,  cither  in  person  or  by  legate,  has  always  been 
requisite  to  the  validity  of  an  cecumenic  council.  The  Fifth 
General  Synod  was  held  in  Constantinople  in  553,  to  condemn 
Theodore  of  Mopsuestia  and  the  Three  Chapters.  Vigilius 
was  then  in  the  imperial  city,  and  had  assented  to  the  assem 
bling  of  the  council,  but,  after  many  tergiversations,  he  declined 
to  be  present,  and  refused  to  join  in  the  condemnation  of 
Theodore.  The  council,  after  spending  a  day  or  two  in  urging 
his  presence,  proceeded  to  business  without  him.  The  holy 
fathers  not  only  anathematized  Theodore,  but  also  all  those 
who  should  refuse  to  join  in  the  anathema  ;  his  defenders  were 
stigmatized  as  Jews,  and  his  followers  as  pagans.'^  They 
registered  a  decree  of  Justinian  ordering  the  removal  from 
the  diptychs  of  the  name  of  Vigilius,  thus  excommunicating 
hini,3  and  the  canons  were  issued  in  the  name  of  Eutychius, 
Patriarch  of  Constantinople.  This  was  so  thoroughly  at 
variance  with  the  claims  of  spiritual  leadership  which  Rome 
was  nowr  beginning  to  assert,  that  the  West  hesitated  at  first 
to  receive  the  proceedings  of  the  council  as  tiie  unques 
tioned  inspiration  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  but  it  yielded  ere  long, 
and  placed  the  assembly  in  the  same  rank  with  those  of  Nica?a 
and  Chalcedon.4 

1  Ejusd.  No.  01. — Victor.  Tunenens.  Chron.  ami.  542-44. — Liberat.  Bre- 
viar.  cap.  22. 

'2  Condi.  Constantinop.  IT.  Collat.  in.     (Harduin.  III.  91.) 

»  Ejusd.  Collat.  vii.    (Ibid.  p.  187.) 

4  Quintum  quoque  concilium  pariter  veneror.  .  .  .  Quisquis  aliter  sapit 
anathema  sit.— Gregor.  PP.  I.  Lib.  i.  Epist.  25. 


22  THE     RISE     OF     THE     TEMPORAL     POWER. 

Even  the  vigor  of  Gregory  the  Great  did  not  venture  to 
question  the  supremacy  of  the  temporal  power.  When  the 
Emperor  Maurice  in  593  issued  an  edict  reviving  the  old  laws 
which  prohibited  the  reception  of  soldiers  in  monasteries,  Gre 
gory  felt  acutely  the  blow  thus  dealt  at  the  inviolability  of  the 
monastic  vow,  but  the  timid  remonstrance  which  he  uttered 
showed  how  implicit  was  the  obedience  to  which  he  was  bound. 
"What  am  I,"  he  exclaimed,  "but  a  worm  and  dust,  thus  to 
speak  to  my  masters?  ...  I  have  done  what  was  my  duty  in 
every  particular;  1  have  obeyed  the  emperor,  and  have-  not 
hushed  in  silence  what  I  felt  to  be  due  to  God  !'" 

The  subordination  of  the  papacy  to  the  Eastern  Empire 
during  this  period  is  further  shown  by  the  necessity  imposed 
on  the  popes  of  keeping  a  resident  agent,  or  apocrisarius,  at 
Constantinople,  thus  placing  them  on  the  same  footing  as  the 
patriarchs  of  the  East,  whose;  subjection  has  never  been  ques 
tioned.  By  a  law  of  Justinian,  bishops  were  required  to  keep 
these  apocrisarii  ,at  the  residence  of  their  metropolitan,  and 
metropolitans  with  their  patriarchs.2  Agapet,  who  ascended 
the  pontifical  throne  in  535,  seems  to  have  been  the  first  pontiff 
subjected  to  this  regulation,  which  could  hardly  but  be  regarded 
as  an  humiliation.3  The  emperors,  moreover,  reserved  to 
themselves  the  right  of  confirming  the  election  of  the  popes, 
and  thus,  in  most  instances,  had  practically  the  power  of  ap 
pointment.  In  fact,  the  election  itself,  under  such  circum 
stances,  was  probably  as  idle  a  form  as  that  of  the  Merovingian 
bishops  ;  and  the  number  of  apocrisarii  who  attained  the  papal 
throne — Vigilius,  Pelagius  I.,  Gregory  the  Great,  Sabinian, 
Boniface  III.,  Martin  I.,  etc. — shows  how  well  were  under 
stood  the  opportunities  which  that  position  conferred  of  obtain 
ing  the  imperial  favor. 

When  Justinian  concluded  to  provide  a  successor  for  Vigilius 
without  awaiting  his  death,  the  application  of  the  Romans  for 

1  Gregor.  PP.  I.  Lib.  in.  Epist.  05.  2  Novell.  123,  cap.  25. 

3  Thomassin,  Anc.  Discip.  de  1'Kglise,  P.  u.  Lib.  1,  chap.  51. 


THE     CHURCH     AND     THE     EMPIRE.  23 

Pelagius  I.  indicates  that  his  appointment  was  virtually  in  the 
hands  of  the  emperor  ;l  especially  as  an  expression  of  Victor 
Tunenensis  warrants  the  belief  that  the  prospect  of  obtaining 
the  splendid  prize  converted  Pelagius  from  a  stern  supporter  of 
the  Three  Chapters  into  a  courtly  impugner  of  their  orthodoxy.2 
The  same  power  is  confessed  when  Gregory  the  Great  desired 
to  avoid  the  burden  of  the  papacy,  and,  to  accomplish  his  ob 
ject,  secretly  entreated  the  Emperor  Maurice  to  refuse  his  con 
firmation  of  the  election.3  Indeed,  the  form  of  supplication  by 
whicli  the  election  of  a  pope  was  notified  to  the  emperor  and 
his  permission  was  humbly  requested  for  the  consecration  shows 
that  the  decision  was  unreservedly  in  the  hands  of  the  Caesar.4 
During  this  disastrous  reunion  of  Italy  with  the  Empire  the 
interminable  Monothelite  controversy  followed  close  upon  the 
Monophysite  heresy,  and  lent  its  powerful  aid  in  embittering 
the  relations  between  Rome  and  Constantinople.  Among  the 
ecclesiastical  privileges  of  the  CaDsars  had  always  been  assumed 
the  right  of  dictating  to  the  church  its  form  of  belief;  and, 
whether  the  reigning  conscience  were  orthodox  or  Arian, 
Eutychian  or  Monothelite,  efficacious  means  were  always  found 
of  enforcing  conformity  on  the  part  of  the  hierarchy.  The 
Western  Emperors,  for  the  most  part,  had  troubled  themselves 
but  little  with  the  subtleties  of  theological  speculation,  and  the 
Arian  Goths  had  tolerantly  respected  the  established  worship 
of  Rome,  so  that  the  popes,  as  the  primates  of  Latin  Christian 
ity,  had  gradually  come  to  consider  themselves  as  the  guar 
dians  of  orthodoxy.  When  Italy,  therefore,  found  herself 
under  the  despotic  rule  of  the  successors  of  Justinian,  the  pre 
tensions  of  the  Holy  See,  as  the  arbiter  of  Christian  doctrine, 
led  to  long  and  intricate  quarrels.  It  would  be  unnecessary 
here  to  enter  into  these  dreary  details  ;  suffice  it  to  say  that 
the  arbitrary  rule  of  the  sovereign,  when  it  could  not  enforce 

1  Atiasta?.  Biblioth.  No.  61. 

2  Victor.  Tunenens.  Chron.  ami.  558. 

3  Greg.  Turon.  Hist,  Franc.  Lib.  x.  cap.  1. 

4  Lib.  Diurn.  Roman.  Pontif.  cap.  r.  tit.  in. 


24  THE     RISE     OF     THE     TEMPORAL     POWER. 

an  unworthy  submission,  bad  no  hesitation  in  inflicting  exem 
plary  chastisement,  as  Martin  I.  experienced  when  in  655  he 
ended  his  days  in  exile  for  anathematizing  the  Type  by  which 
Constans  II.  endeavored  to  end  the  Monothelite  controversy — 
and  this  in  spite  of  the  miracle  which  had  protected  the  Holy 
Father  from  the  first  unhallowed  attempt  upon  his  person.1 
Yet  at  the  same  time  the  immense  extension  of  ecclesiastical 
prerogative  accruing  to  the  papacy  from  the  ceaseless  wrang- 
lings  of  the  East  is  shown  by  the  act  of  the  same  Martin  I., 
when  in  649  he  appointed  John  Bishop  of  Philadelphia  apos 
tolic  vicar  over  the  dioceses  of  Antioch  and  Jerusalem,  with 
power  to  consecrate  bishops  and  ordain  priests  throughout  those 
extensive  regions,  nt  that  time  devastated  by  the  conquests  of 
the  Saracens.2 

If  the  next  Emperor,  Constantine  Pogonatus.  remitted  to 
the  popes  the  payment  previously  exacted  of  them  on  their  in 
stallation  by  the  emperors,  he  was  careful  to  retain  the  right  of 
confirming  their  election.3  The  diminishing  power  of  Con 
stantinople,  however,  was  manifest  in  the  failure  of  Justinian 
II.,  when  he  endeavored  to  follow  the  example  of  his  grand 
father  and  to  punish  Pope  Sergius  for  his  contumacy  with  re 
gard  to  the  acts  of  the  Qainisext  in  Trullo ;  and  Sergius  en 
joyed  the  rare  and  holy  triumph  of  rescuing  his  intended 
captor,  Zacharius  the  Protospatharius,  from  the  enraged  Italian 
soldiery.* 

As  the  power  of  Greece  declined  in  the  West,  the  influence 
of  the  Apostolic  See  was  making  steady  progress.  The  Greeks 
were  foreign  masters,  exercising  an  odious  despotism,  and 

1  Anastas.  Biblioth.  Xo.  76.  2  Martin,  PP.  I.  Epist.  5. 

3  Auastas.  Biblioth.   No.  81.     It  is  true  that  Constantine  some  years 
later,  in  684,  ordered  that  the  popes  should  be  consecrated  without  delay 
on  their  election  (Anastas.  No.  83)  ;  but  this  lasted  only  two  years,  for  in 
686  we  find  that  Conon,  "  ut  mos  est,"  was  obliged  to  submit  his  election 
to  Theodore  the  Exarch   (Ibid.  No.  85).     In  fact  at  times  the  imperial 
power  of  confirmation  seems  to  have  been  intrusted  to  the  Exarchs  of 
Ravenna  (Lib.  Diurn.  cap.  i.  tit.  iv.-vii.). 

4  Ejusd.  No.  86. 


THE  CHURCH  AND  THE  EMPIRE.         25 

unable  to  defend  Italy  from  the  constantly  widening  ravages  of 
the  Lombards.  Between  the  Greek  and  the  Barbarian,  almost 
equally  hateful,  stood  the  popes,  the  sole  representatives  of 
nationality,  the  sole  defenders  against  tyranny.  As  the  one 
permanent  institution  amid  incessant  change,  the  papacy  was 
the  only  centre  around  which  a  national  spirit  could  rally  ;  and 
the  increase  of  its  temporal  as  well  as  spiritual  authority  might 
well  appear  to  be  the  only  feasible  remedy  for  the  pervading 
and  increasing  anarchy.  This  conviction  was  doubtless 
strengthened  by  the  rule  of  celibacy  which  rendered  it  impos 
sible  for  any  occupant  of  the  Holy  See  to  found  a  dynasty  ; 
and  the  quasi-elective  nature  of  the  office,  which  made  the 
popes  in  some  sort  representatives  of  the  popular  feelings, 
strengthened  them  in  their  struggles  for  common  interests,  and 
diminished  the  jealousy  with  which  a  new  line  of  hereditary 
rulers  might  have  been  regarded. 

Thus  the  time  at  length  came  for  a  formal  declaration  of  in 
dependence,  and  under  such  leadership  independence  meant 
ecclesiastical  supremacy.  The  occasion  was  well  chosen,  and 
the  leader  was  not  wanting.  When  Leo  the  Lsaurian,  in  his 
iconoclastic  zeal,  decreed  that  image-worship  should  cease 
throughout  the  empire,  the  obedience  which  after  some  trouble 
he  enforced  in  the  East  was  refused  him  in  the  West.  Less 
accustomed  than  the  Greeks  to  mould  their  religious  beliefs  on 
those  of  the  Cresar,  the  Italians  clung  to  their  venerated  sym 
bols  and  effigies,  and  Gregory  II.  as  their  chief  boldly  con 
fronted  the  sacrilegious  emperor.  Times  had  changed,  he 
boasted,  since  Martin  I.  tamely  surrendered  himself  to  the 
heretical  Constans.  All  the  West  now  looked  upon  St.  Peter 
as  an  earthly  deity,  and  was  united  in  abhorrence  of  the  wicked 
sacrilege  perpetrated  throughout  the  East.  If  attempts  were 
made  upon  his  person,  at  four  and  twenty  stadia  from  Rome 
he  would  find  himself  in  safety,  where  the  emperor  might  as 
well  pursue  the  wind.1  The  open  defiance  of  this  address  was 

1  Greo-or.  PP.  II.  Kpist,  12. 


26  THE     RISE     OF     THE     TEMPORAL     POWER. 

not  calculated  to  render  agreeable  the  refusal  of  obedience,  and 
Leo  threatened  to  break  down  his  rebellious  spirit  by  force,  to 
which  Gregory  responded  with  fiery  audacity,  for  the  icono 
clastic  crimes  of  the  Isaurian  could  be  fitly  met  only  with  the 
most  awful  anathema  in  the  ecclesiastical  armory — "Tyranni 
cally  you  persecute  us  with  the  sword  and  arm  of  flesh.  Naked 
and  unarmed,  guarded  by  no  earthly  armies,  we  invoke  the 
Lord  of  hosts,  Christ  on  high,  leader  of  the  heavenly  virtues, 
to  send  unto  you  a  devil,  even  as  saith  the  Apostle,  To  deliver 
such  an  one  unto  Satan  for  the  destruction  of  the  flesh,  that  the 
spirit  may  be  saved."1  After  this  there  was  little  prospect  of 
accommodation,  and  at  length  the  fleets  and  armies  of  the 
insulted  monarch  sought  to  reduce  the  incipient  rebellion. 
Though  Gregory  had  proudly  asserted  that  his  sole  reliance 
was  in  God,  he  did  not,  when  the  persecution  came,  neglect 
the  fleshly  arm.  Charles  Martel  was  too  busy  in  consolidating 
his  power  and  making  head  against  the  Saracenic  invasions  to 
heed  the  appeal  for  assistance  ;  but  the  Lombards  declared  for 
Eome,  and  when  they  in  turn  stood  aloof  a  tempest  shattered 
the  forces  of  Leo,  and  the  orthodox  Latins  were  enabled  to 
enjoy  the  peaceful  satisfaction  of  excommunicating  the  here 
tical  Isaurian  and  his  obsequious  hierarchy.  It  is  true  that 
their  orthodoxy  cost  them  the  separation  of  Southern  Italy  and 
Sicily,  which  were  not  fully  recovered  from  the  Greeks  until 
the  foundation  of  the  Norman  kingdom  of  Naples,  some  three 
centuries  and  a  half  later. 

The  breach  was  evidently  complete,  and  when  a  restora 
tion  of  images  rendered  a  reconciliation  possible,  the  popes  no 
longer  looked  to  the  East  for  their  sovereigns.  By  a  happy 
stroke  of  audacious  policy,  Gregory  had  thus  availed  himself 
of  a  strong  popular  feeling  to  present  himself  as  the  leader  of 
Italy  against  the  domination  of  Constantinople.  In  searching 
for  allies,  his  keen  eye  had  discerned  the  rise  of  a  new  power 
in  Gaul  and  Germany,  and  the  cherished  scheme  of  Rome 

1  Greo-or.  PP.  II.  Epist.  1?.. 


T  fl  E     CHURCH     AND     THE     EMPIRE.  27 

thenceforth  was  to  link  the  fortunes  of  St.  Peter  with  those  of 
the  family  of  Pepin.1 


1  It  is  not  a  little  singular  that  those  to  whom  Gregory  appealed 
for  protection  against  the  Eastern  Iconoclasts,  and  by  whose  influ 
ence  the  Latin  church  was  supported  during  the  quarrel,  were  fully 
as  heretical  in  principle  as  Leo  the  Isaurian  and  Constantino  Co- 
pronymus,  though  not  animated  with  the  persecuting  zeal  which  led 
the  latter  to  enforce  their  tenets  with  such  unrelenting  ferocity.  As 
early  as  the  year  305  the  council  of  Elvira  in  Spain  had  forbidden 
that  churches  should  be  ornamented  with  paintings,  or  that  objects 
of  adoration  should  be  depicted  on  the  walls.1  At  the  beginning  of 
the  seventh  century,  Serenus,  Bishop  of  Marseilles,  destroyed  the 
images  in  the  churches  to  prevent  their  adoration,  whereupon  many 
of  his  flock  withdrew  from  his  communion.  Gregory  the  Great,  in 
602,  addressed  him,  approving  of  his  motives  but  strongly  condemn 
ing  his  acts,  on  the  ground  that  pictures  and  images  were  placed  in 
churches  not  for  adoration  but  simply  to  instruct  the  ignorant  in 
ecclesiastical  history,  as  a  convenient  substitute  for  writing,  and 
that,  therefore,  they  should  not  be  removed.2  The  Synod  of  Gen- 
tilly,  held  by  Pepin  le  Bref  in  707,  while  allowing  pictures  and 
statues  to  remain  as  harmless  ornaments  in  churches,  declared  that 
they  should  not  be  objects  of  any  particular  respect  or  veneration.3 
Nor  was  this  merely  a  temporary  assertion  of  independence,  for 
three  hundred  bishops  in  the  council  of  Frankfort,  held  by  Charle 
magne  in  794,  rejected  with  contemptuous  unanimity  the  canons  of 
tlie  second  general  council  of  Nicrea  ;4  and  Charlemagne  himself 
lent  his  all-powerful  name  to  an  elaborate  refutation  of  the  Roman 
teachings  on  the  subject,  in  the  Caroline  Books,  where  he  stigma 
tized  the  doctrines  of  the  Nicene  council  as  crazy,  and  his  only  con 
cession  was  that  he  would  not  permit  the  wanton  destruction  of 
images.5  As  this  council  of  Nicrea  had  been  held  for  the  purpose 
of  reconciling  the  Eastern  churches  with  Rome,  as  it  was  received 
as  o?cumenic  and  its  acts  had  been  formally  approved  by  Pope 

1  Concil.  Eliberitau.  aim.  305,  can.  86. 

2  Grcgor.  PP.  I.  Rcgist.  Lib.  xi.  Epist.  13. 

3  Goldast.  Const.  Imp.  I.  16— Cf.  Harduin.  III.  2012. 

4  Hartzheim  Concil.  German.  I.  324— Goldast.  op.  cit.  I.  18.— Annal. 
Vet.  Franeor.  aim.  794  (Mart.  Arapl.  Collect.  V.  903-4). 

5  Goldast.  I.  23-114.     Migne's  Patrolog.  T.  98,  pp.  941  sqq. 


28  THE     RISE     OF     THE     TEMPORAL     POWER. 

Adrian,  this  was  rank  heresy.  With  all  his  aggressive  energy, 
however,  Adrian  had  sufficient  discretion  to  gloss  over  this  spiritual 
rebellion  on  the  part  of  his  benefactor,  to  whom  lie  owed  so  much, 
and  to  whom  he  hoped  to  owe  more,  and  he,  therefore,  contented 
himself  with  a  doctrinal  refutation  of  his  patron's  errors.1  So  de 
termined  was  the  resistance  of  the  Western  churches  that  when  the 
reformatory  zeal  of  Claudius,  Bishop  of  Turin,  led  him  to  abolish 
all  the  images  in  his  diocese,  in  spite  of  the  injunctions  of  Charle 
magne,  he  was  exposed  to  nothing  more  formidable  than  the  dreary 
polemics  of  Theutmir  and  Dungal.2  St.  Agobard,  of  Lyons,  who 
was  superior  to  so  many  of  the  superstitions  of  his  time,  was  not 
disposed  to  allow  them  even  as  ornaments  ;3  while  the  council  of 
Paris,  in  82."),  reaffirmed  the  doctrines  of  the  synod  of  Frankfort.4 

Louis  le  Debonnaire  endeavored  to  bring  about  an  accord  on  the 
subject,  and  in  sending  to  Rome  two  bishops  with  the  proceedings 
of  the  Paris  council  he  had  no  scruple  in  expressing  to  his  envoys 
his  dread  of  the  "Roman  pertinacity,"  and  he  cautioned  them  to 
be  careful  lest  by  too  rigorous  an  upholding  of  the  Western  doc 
trine  they.should  lead  the  papal  court  into  irrevocable  antagonism.5 
Not  long  afterwards  Walafrid  Strabo,  Abbot  of  Reichenau,  whose 
character  stood  deservedly  high  for  learning,  piety,  and  orthodoxy, 
treated  of  images  in  a  spirit  identical  with  that  of  the  Caroline 
Books,  showing  that  the  second  council  of  Nicaea  continued  to  be 
held  in  utter  contempt.  He  admits  the  propriety  of  placing  pictures 
and  statues  in  churches  as  objects  of  art  and  decoration,  but  is  care 
ful  to  deprecate  the  veneration  with  which  they  were  often  foolishly 
regarded  ;  he  will  not  concede  to  them  any  special  sanctity,  but 
compares  them  to  the  ornaments  of  Solomon's  Temple— flowers, 
trees,  and  beasts.  At  the  same  time  he  objects  strongly  to  icono- 

1  Hadriaui  PP.  I.  ad  Carolum  Epist.  (Harduin.  IV.  7?o). 

2  Mag.  Biblioth.  Patrum,  Ed.  Colon.  1018,  Saee.  IX.  ii.  875. 

3  Agobardi  de  Pict.  et  Imagin.     This  is  to  be  found  in  the  edition  of 
Papire  Masson  (Paris,  1605,  p.  212),  but  the  edition  was  consequently  at 
once  put  in  the  Index  Expm'gatorius,  "  donee  corrigatur,"  by  decree  of 
Dec.  16,  1605.      The  treatise  was  therefore  carefully  suppressed  in  the 
works  of  Agobard  as  given  in  the  Magna  Biblioth.  Patrum,  but  may  be 
found  in  Migne's  Patrologia,  Tom.  104. 

4  Goldast.  Const.  Imp.  I.  154.     The  proceedings  of  this  synod  are  not 
admitted  into   the  great   collections   of  councils,   but   Migue   gives   it 
(Patrolog.  T.  98,  p.  1293),  with  ample  apparatus  to  correct  its  hetero 
doxy. 

5  Baluz.  I.  663  (Ed.  Venet.). 


THE  CHURCH  AND  THE  EMPIRE.        29 

clasin,  and  is  very  severe  on  Claudius  of  Turin,1  whose  logic  was 
distasteful  to  reverent  minds  when  lie  argued  that  if  the  cross  is  to 
be  adored,  girls  should  be  a'dored  because  the  Virgin  bore  Christ, 
and  so  also  stables  because  Christ  lay  in  one,  and  asses  because  he 
rode  on  one.2 

It  is  true  that  the  council  of  Trent  draws  very  delicate  distinctions 
between  worship,  adoration,  veneration,  etc.,  and  points  out  the 
exact  quality  of  respect  due  to  paintings  and  images  with  a  refine 
ment  not  easily  appreciated  by  the  popular  mind  which  naturally 
transfers  to  the  representation  the  veneration  due  theoretically  only 
to  the  thing  represented.3  The  organ  of  the  new  school  of  liberal 
Catholics  in  Italy  defines  the  orthodox  doctrine  taught  by  the  church 
to  be  that  God  alone  is  to  be  adored,  the  saints  are  to  be  venerated, 
and  images  only  to  be  respected,  but  it  admits  that  adoration  of 
images  is  largely  practised,  and  that  it  is  encouraged  as  a  "  useful 
superstition"  by  many  whose  position  renders  it  difficult  for  the 
church  to  escape  responsibility  for  their  acts.4  In  fact,  when  special- 
miraculous  powers  are  attributed  to  certain  images  or  pictures, 
which  a*e  thus  rendered  the  objects  of  particular  veneration,  the 
worship  of  the  holy  subject  infallibly  merges  into  the  worship  of  the 
representation.  The  image  becomes  no  longer  merely  a  vehicle  to 
elevate  the  grosser  intellects  incapable  of  abstraction,  and  the  wor 
ship  before  the  specially  sacred  object  becomes  so  nearly  idolatrous 
that  it  is  impossible  to  draw  a  definite  line  of  demarcation.5  In  the 
middle  ages  there  was  no  attempt  to  draw  such  a  line,  nor  were 
special  miracle-working  images  requisite  to  call  forth  authoritative 
commands  for  image  worship.  How  little,  indeed,  these  subtleties 
\v;ere  appreciated  previous  to  the  Reformation  is  manifested  by  the 
remark  of  Geroch  of  Reichcrsperg,  in  the  twelfth  century,  that  the 
cross  is  rightly  put  forward  by  the  church  to  be  adored  by  both  the 
wise  and  the  simple  ;5  and  what  this  adoration  was  is  shown  in  the 

1  Walaf'rid.  Strabon.  de  Rebus  Eecles.  cap.  viii. 

2  Chrou.  Turonens.  arm.  878  (Martene  Amp.  Coll.  V.  973). 

3  Concil.  Trident.  Sess.  XXV.  De  Invoc.  Sanctor.     See  also  the  distinc 
tion  between  latria,  duiia,  and  hyperdulia  in  Alphonso  de  Silva's  Forta- 
liciwn  Fidei  Lib.  iii.  Consid.  4  (Ed.  1494,  fol.  106  6). 

4  Esamiriatore,  Fireuze,  1  Agost.  18(57,  p.  237. 

5  Mr.  Lecky  has  treated  this  matter  with  his  accustomed  clearness  and 
acuteness  in  his  admirable  "  History  of  Rationalism,"  Chap.  III. 

6  Gerhohi  Lib.  de  Gloria  Filii  Hominis  (Fez  Thesaurus,  T.  I.  P.  ii.  p. 
197). 

b* 


30  THE     RISE     OF     THE     TEMPORAL     POWER. 

oath  imposed,  in  1396,  on  the  iconoclastic  Lollards — "that  fro  this 
day  forthward  I  shall  worship  ymages,  with  praying  and  offering 
unto  them  in  the  worschop  of  the  saintes  that  they  be  made  after."1 
And  in  1400,  at  the  trial  of  William  Sawtree  for  Lollardism,  by  the 
convocation  of  the  province  of  Canterbury,  the  first  article  alleged 
against  him  was  "that  he  will  not  adore  the  cross  on  which  Christ 
suffered,  but  only  Christ  suffering  on  the  cross."2  So,  in  1414,  one 
of  the  heresies  imputed  to  the  branch  of  the  flagellants  known  in 
Thuringia  as  Brethren  of  the  Cross  was. that  they  refused  to  wor 
ship  the  cross  of  Christ,  and  the  images  of  the  Virgin  and  saints,  de 
nouncing  all  such  worship  as  idolatry.3  About  the  same  time,  the 
clear  intellect  of  Gerson  perceived  the  danger  to  which  the  purity  of 
faith  was  exposed  by  these  decided  tendencies  of  the  ultra-orthodox, 
and  in  his  enumeration  of  the  reforms  necessary  to  the  church  he  says: 
"Judge  whether  it  is  well  to  have  so  great  a  variety  of  pictures 
and  images  in  the  churches,  and  whether  they  do  not  pervert  many 
simple  folks  to  idolatry."4  And  it  was  probably  owing  to  his  influ- 
em  e  that,  in  the  second  trial  which  he  urged  forward  against 
Jerome  of  Prague,  at  the  council  of  Constance,  the  propeY  doctrine 
was  incidentally  expressed  that  pictures  and  images  are  only  meant 
to  stimulate  the  religious  feelings.6  Even  after  the  council  of  Trent, 
however,  the  orthodox  Simancas,  Bishop  of  Badajos.  in  a  book 
dedicated  to  Gregory  XIII.  and  printed  in  Rome,  ••cum  permissu 
superiorum,"  declared  that  the  same  veneration  and  adoration  is  to 
be  paid  to  images  as  to  the  saints  which  they  represent — "  Eadem 
autem  veneratio  exhibenda  est  imagini,  qmu  sanclis  ipsis  ;  honor 
siquidem  imagini  exhibitus  ad  prototypum  rei'ertur  ;  et  qui  adorat 
imaginem  adorat  et  sanctum  ilium  cnjus  forma  et  figuraest  imago." 

(Jacob.   Simancre    de    Calhol.  Instit.   Tit.   xxxiu.   No.   !). Romte 

1575.) 

During  the  progress  of  the  Reformation,  the  council  of  Frankfort 
and  the  Caroline  Books  were  duly  appealed  to  by  the  Protestants 
in  support  of  their  doctrines  as  to  images.  At  the  Colloquy  of 
Poissy  they  formed  a  prominent  subject  of  debate,  when  the 

1  Wilkins  Concil.  Anglic.  III.  ±25.  *  Ibid.  p.  25o. 

3  Quod  crucem  Christi  et  imagines  gloriosoe  virginis  aliorumque  sanc 
torum  nullus  debeat  adorare,  quia  in  ipsorum  adoratione  committatur 
idolatria.— Artie,  xlvi.  ap.  Theod.  Vrie,  Hist.  Concil.  Constant.  Lib.  iv. 
Dist.  xiii. 

4  Gersoni  Declarat.  Defect.  Viror.  Ecclesiast,  Xo.  GT. 

5  Von  der  Hardt  T.  IV.  p.  CT-t. 


THE  CHURCH  AND  THE  CARLOVINGIANS.    31 

Catholics,  instead  of  accepting  the  principles  set  forth  in  them, 
endeavored  to  impugn  their  authenticity,  and,  moreover,  alleged 
that  the  council  was  merely  provincial  and  not  cecumenic,  and 
that  the  tract  of  Charlemagne  had  never  received  the  approbation 
of  Adrian  I.1 


THE  CHURCH  AND  THE  CARLOVINGIANS. 

The  policy  of  Gregory  II.  in  seeking  the  support  and  alli 
ance  of  the  Barbarians  of  the  West  was  fully  appreciated  by 
his  successor,  Gregory  III.  After  some  overtures  to  Constan 
tinople,  couched  in  terms  which  insured  their  rejection,  he 
followed  in  the  same  path.  So  subordinate,  however,  was  the 
position  of  the  ecclesiastical  power,  that,  until  after  the  middle 
of  the  century,  the  Roman  councils  and  the  papal  rescripts 
continue  to  bear  the  dates  of  the  reigns  of  the  heretical  em 
perors.  It  is  true  that  when,  on  the  death  of  Leo,  the  usurper 
Artavasdes  obtained  temporary  possession  of  the  throne,  the 
Roman  notaries  eagerly  seized  the  opportunity  of  using  the 
name  of  an  orthodox  monarch  ;  but  when  the  son  of  Leo  put 
down  the  rebellion,  they  obediently  adopted  his  date  in  turn, 
until  the  Frankish  alliance  raised  a  rival  to  the  elder  empire. 
Up  to  772  the  papal  documents  bear  the  name  and  date  of  the 
hated  Constantine  Copronymus,  the  vigorous  upholder  of  the 
Iconoclastic  sacrilege.2 

So  little  thought,  indeed,  had  the  popes  of  maintaining  their 
position  of  independence,  that  a  new  lord  paramount  was  im 
mediately  sought  as  soon  as  they  had  successfully  defied  the 

1  Letterc  del  Cardinale  di  Ferrara  (Baluz.  et  Mansi  Miscell.  T.  IV.  pp. 
385-6).     The  question  of  idolatry  seems  to  be  settled  to  the  satisfaction 
of  the  orthodox  in  a  recent   discussion  on   the  subject  of  Mariolatry, 
wherein  it- is  proclaimed  that  other  objects  besides  God  can  properly  be 
worshipped,  provided  it  be  not  "  divine"  worship,  and  divine  worship  is 
defined  to  consist  in  the  sacrifice  of  the  Mass.     Everything  short  of  this 
is  therefore  permissible. 

2  Jafie,  Ilegcsta. 


32  THE     RISE     OF     THE     TEMPORAL     POWER. 

heretic  Leo.  Assuming  the  disposal  of  thrones,  Gregory  III. 
offered  to  Charles  Martel  the  sovereignty  of  Rome  and  of  Italy 
as  the  price  of  active  assistance  against  the  encroaching  and 
detested  Lombards.  The  services  of  Luitprand,  however,  were 
too  recent,  and  their  common  enemy,  the  Saracens,  too  active 
and  dangerous,  to  permit  the  wary  Frank  to  dazzle  himself 
with  visions  of  transalpine  conquests,  and  in  return  for  the 
keys  of  St.  Peter  laid  at  his  feet  he  returned  only  flattering 
words  and  rich  presents.1 

Of  old  the  weighty  javelin  of  the  Franks  had  earned  for  itself 
the  respect  of  Northern  Italy,  when  the  Merovingian  chiefs 
found  leisure  amid  family  dissensions  for  a  wild  foray  across 
the  Alps.  The  empire  of  Clovis,  so  long  rendered  powerless 
for  foreign  aggression  by  ceaseless  civil  wars,  was  now  consoli 
dating  its  forces  under  the  stern  and  able  hands  of  its  Austra- 
sian  dukes,  and  the  time  soon  came  when  common  interests  and 
reciprocal  services  elevated  the  aspiring  leaders  of  church  and 
state  to  the  summit  of  flieir  respective  ambitions.  When  Pepin 
le  Bref,  disdaining  at  length  the  farce  of  delegated  power  under 
which  for  two  generations  his  family  had  ruled  the  state,  sought 
to  unite  the  dignity  with  the  reality  of  royalty,  he  seems  to  have 
felt  that  some  unusual  solemnity  was  requisite  to  consecrate  to 
himself  and  his  children  the  election  which  placed  a  usurper  on 
the  Merovingian  throne.  The  facility  with  which  the  allegi 
ance  sworn  to  Childeric  was  transferred  to  a  new  suzerain  was 
not  reassuring  to  the  founder  of  an  upstart  dynasty,  and  some 
novel  sanction  was  felt  to  be  necessary  to  guarantee  the  per 
petuation  of  a  new  race.  Every  consideration  conspired  to 
lead  the  pope  to  gratify  the  wishes  of  Pepin.  The  Lombards 
were  a  perpetual  menace,  and  the  persuasiveness  which  had 
converted  King  Rachis  from  a  conqueror  to  a  monk  could 
hardly  be  relied  upon  as  a  safe  precedent  for  the  future.  To 

1  Gregor.  PP.  III.  Epist.  5  (Cod.  Carolin.).— Fredegar.  cap.  110.— 
Chron.  S.  Bertin.  cap  iv.  P.  ii.  cap.  v.— Annal.  Yet.  Francor.  (Martene 
Ampl.'ss.  Collect.  V.  888). 


THE  CHURCH  AND  THE  CARLOVINGIANS.   33 

bind  a  new  and  powerful  ally  with  the  strongest  ties  of  grati 
tude,  and  to  secure  for  the  successor  of  St.  Peter  the  disposal 
of  thrones  and  the  judgment  of  the  destinies  of  kings,  were 
advantages  not  lightly  to  be  despised.  When  the  deputation  of 
the  Franks  asked  the  Vicegerent  of  Christ  what  choice  was  to 
be  made  between  a  king  without  power  and  a  king  without 
title,  the  answer  was  therefore  unhesitating  ;  and  the  Carlo- 
vingian  historians  are  careful  to  specify  that  the  transfer  of 
royalty  and  the  enforced  tonsure  of  the  degraded  regal  spectre 
were  commanded  by  the  unerring  wisdom  of  the  Supreme  Pon 
tiff'.1  The  buckler  of  the  Field  of  Mars — the  warlike  installa- 

1  Eginhart.  Annal.  arm.  752. — Ejusd.  Vit.  Car.  Mag',  cap.  1. — Anna!. 
Fuldens.  arm.  752. — Ado  Viennens. — How  dangerous  were  the  favors  of 
the  church  is  well  exemplified  by  this.  When  came  the  struggle  which 
eventually  laid  the  empire  prostrate  at  the  feet  of  tfie  papacy,  this  depo 
sition  of  Childeric  did  not  fail  to  be  adduced  in  proof  of  the  supremacy 
of  the  spiritual  over  the  temporal  power.  Christendom  was  hardly  pre 
pared  for  the  extension  of  jurisdiction  claimed  by  Gregory  VII.  when,  in 
1080,  he  excommunicated  Henry  IV.,  pronounced  him  to  have  forfeited 
the  imperial  dignity,  and  recognized  Rodolph  of  Suabia  as  his  successor; 
but  Gregory  defended  his  acts  by  quoting  the  example  of  Zachary  and 
Childeric  :  "  Alius,  item  Romanus  Pontifex,  Zacharius  videlicet,  regem 
Francorum  non  tarn  pro  suis  iniquitatibus,  quam  eo  quod  tantoe  potestati 
non  erat  utilis,  a  regno  deposuit,  et  Pippinum,  Caroli  Magni  imperatoris 
patrem,  in  ejus  loco  substituit,  omnesque  Francigenas  a  juramento  fldeli- 
taiis,  quod  illi  fecerant,  absolvit"  (Gregor.  PP.  VII.  Regist.  Lib.  vin. 
Epist.  21) .  So  Paul  of  Bernried,  in  arguing  the  same  question,  relies  on 
the  same  precedent  (Pauli  Bernried.  Vit.  Gregor.  VII.  No.  86).  Hono- 
rius  III.  haughtily  refuses  to  entertain  a  doubt  upon  the  question — "  Quis 
ergo,  nisi  mente  captus,  ignorat  regiam  potestatem  pontificibus  esse  sub- 
jectam"  (Vit.  Gregor.  VII.  No.  6) — showing  how  complete  was  by  that 
time  the  triumph  of  the  papacy.  The  Schwabenspiegel  (cap.  351,  ed. 
Senckenberg.  II.  422) ,  in  admitting  for  the  pope  the  right  to  dethrone  and 
excommunicate  a  heretic  emperor,  bases  it  on  the  action  of  Zachary,  and 
asserts  the  justification  of  it  to  have  been  the  protection  accorded  to 
heretics  by  the  deposed  monarch  "  Leschandus,"  and  a  treatise  attributed 
to  Thomas  Aquinas  does  not  fail  to  make  use  of  the  same  argument  (De 
Principum  Regimine  Lib.  in.  cap.  x.). 

Even  after  the  Reformation,  the  case  of  Childeric  was  still  quoted  to 
prove  the  papal  power  of  deposing  kings. — Jacob.  Sirnaucse  de  Instit. 
Cathol.  Tit.  XLV.  No.  25  (Romae  1575). 


34  THE     RISE     OF     THE     TEMPORAL     POWER. 

tion  of  the  primitive  Franks— was  not  sufficient  for  the  intru 
der  ;  the  ministry  of  the  church  must  sanctify  the  transfer,  and 
St.  Boniface,  the  apostle  of  Germany,  consecrated  the  head 
appointed  by  the  pope,  thus  proclaiming  that  the  suffrages  of 
the  nation  were  insufficient  without  the  blessing  of  the  priest. 
Even  this,  however,  was  not  enough.  When  Stephen  II. 
claimed  the  services  of  his  ally,  and  journeyed  into  France  to 
implore  the  aid  of  the  secular  arm,  after  proving  the  insuffi 
ciency  of  clerical  authority  to  control  the  restless  and  sacrile 
gious  Lombard,  a  second  coronation  by  his  holy  hands  was  not 
only  a  fresh  proof  of  his  supremacy,  but  also  the  price  of  the 
assistance  which  he  desired.  He  assumed,  indeed,  that  Pepin's 
title  was  incomplete  without  this  last  ceremony  ;l  and  when 
the  Lombards  proved  troublesome  after  their  first  defeat,  he  did 
not  scruple  to  tell  the  Frankish  King  that  he  had  been  crowned 
by  St.  Peter  for  the  sole  purpose  of  defending  the  Apostolic 
church.2  In  his  eagerness  to  fortify  the  throne  for  his  descend 
ants,  Pepin  little  thought  how  dearly  the  church  was  accus 
tomed  to  sell  her  favors,  and  how  that  throne  was  eventually 
to  be  overshadowed  by  the  power  based  upon  the  precedents 
which  he  was  thus  establishing3 

O 

1  See  his  letter  to  Abbot  Hilduin  in  Regino,  Annal.  ami.  7o3. 

2  Cod.  Carolin.  cap.  7. 

3  I  think  it  sale  to  assume  that  1he  coronation  of  Pepin  by  Boniface  is 
the  first  instance  of  priestly  ministration  on  such  occasions.     The  allusion 
to  a  similar  ceremony  performed  by  St.  Remy  on  the  person  of  Clovis 
(Testament.  S.  Remigii.  ap.  Flodoard.   Hist.   Remens.  Lib.  i.  c.  18)  is 
evidently  one  of  the  innumerable  forgeries  by  which  the  church  in  those 
days  manufactured  precedents  to  bolster  up  its  pretensions.     Its  whole 
tenor  is  so  completely  at  variance  with  the  customs  of  its  assigned  period, 
that  it  must  be  admitted  as  an  interpolation  of  the  ninth  or  tenth  century. 

The  unforeseen  results  of  Pepin's  incautious  interpellation  of  sacerdotal 
ministration  were  instructively  manifested  in  little  more  than  a  century. 
Pepin's  great-grandson,  Charles  le  Chauve,  who  held  his  kingdom  of 
France  by  all  the  rights,  hereditary,  testamentary,  and  elective,  that  were 
recognized  by  the  public  law  of  the  period,  was  told,  after  a  reign  of  more 
than  twenty  years,  by  Hincmar  of  Rheims,  that  he  owed  his  sovereignty 
much  more  to  the  episcopal  unction  and  benediction  than  to  the  temporal 
power  (Hincmar.  pro  Eccles.  Liberrat.  Defens.  Expos,  i.).  A  century 


THE     CHURCH     AND     THE     CARLOVINGIANS.        35 

Meanwhile  the  alliance  prospered,  and  Pepin  hastened  to 
perform  his  share  of  the  contract.  Two  Italian  expeditions 
brought  Astulphus  the  Lombard  to  reason,  restored  to  the 
Holy  See — or  rather  to  the  Roman  Republic — the  territory  of 
which  it  had  been  despoiled,  and  added  to  its  boundaries  im 
portant  provinces,  which  the  generosity  of  the  conqueror,  care 
less  of  such  distant  acquisitions,  bestowed  on  him  to  whom  he 
owed  his  crown.  The  promise  of  the  first  of  these  expeditions 
Stephen  had  obtained  when  lie  was  in  France  by  throwing  him 
self  at  Pepin's  feet,  his  head  covered  with  ashes,  and  vowing 
never  to  rise  until  his  prayers  were  granted.1  To  the  second 
he  aroused  the  Frank  by  the  bold  device  of  forging  a  letter 
from  St.  Peter  himself  addressed  to  Pepin,  a  letter  in  which 
the  chief  of  the  Apostles  promised  to  his  house  and  to  the 
Franks  prosperous  fortune  and  length  of  days  on  earth  and 
special  mansions  in  Heaven  if  they  would  relieve  the  Apostolic 
city  from  the  besieging  army  of  the  Lombards,  and  threatened 
eternal  damnation  as  the  penalty  of  delay.2  The  union  thus 
cemented  by  mutual  benefits  was  lasting  ;  nor  did  the  ambitious 
Frank  complain,  even  if  he  recognized  the  fact,  that  the  papal 
munificence  had  secured  to  its  dispenser  eventual  advantages 
far  greater  than  those  which  it  had  bestowed. 

Charlemagne  inherited  his  father's  alliance.  Scarcely  had 
he  reunited  the  divided  kingdom  by  disinheriting  his  brother's 

later,  St.  Stephen  of  Hungary,  in  his  instructions  to  his  son,  adduces, 
among  other  reasons  for  rendering  special  honors  to  bishops,  that  without 
them  kings  and  princes  cannot  be  elevated  to  the  throne  (S.  Stephaiii 
Hung.  Reg.  Monit.  ad  Filium  c.  iii.).  Towards  the  end  of  the  eleventh 
century  Honorius  of  Autun  asserts  that  the  emperor  is  to  be  chosen  by  the 
pope,  with  the  consent  of  the  princes  of  the  empire,  and  gives  as  a  reason 
that  kings  are  made  so  by  prelates  and  not  by  nobles. — Honor.  August. 
Summa  Gloria  c.  iv.  (Fez  Thesaur.  IT.  i.  198.). 
<  l  Anual.  Vet,  Francor.  (Martene  Ampl.  Collect.  V.  890). 

2  Cod.  Carolin.  cap.  10.  The  date  of  this  precious  missive  is  755. 
Catholic  critics  have  assumed  that  Stephen  IT.  only  pretended  to  speak 
with  the  voice  of  St.  Peter,  but  I  think  no  one  can  read  the  epistle  with 
out  recognizing  it  as  a  premeditated  forgery,  presented  to  the  Franks  as 
au  authentic  declaration  from  Peter  himself. 


36  THE     RISE     OF     THE     TEMPORAL     POWER. 

children,  when,  on  the  invitation  of  Adrian  I.,  he  invaded 
Italy,  to  put  an  end  to  the  perennial  quarrel  between  Rome  and 
Lombardy.  The  resistance  was  stubborn,  notwithstanding 
treason  in  the  Lombard  camp,  but  Charlemagne  was  not  accus 
tomed  to  leave  his  work  incomplete.  The  generosity  of  Pepin 
was  no  longer  in  place,  and  the  spoils  were  divided  between 
the  royal  and  sacerdotal  confederates,  who  mutually  confirmed 
the  extension  of  territory  acquired  by  the  sword  of  the  one  and 
the  prayers  or  intrigues  of  the  other.  The  dread  inspired  by 
the  Lombard  must  have  been  intense  and  the  donation  splendid, 
for  the  grateful  Adrian,  calling  a  council  of  one  hundred  and 
fifty-three  bishops,  conferred  on  his  deliverer  not  only  the 
Patriciate,  but  also  the  privilege  of  nominating  all  future  suc 
cessors  to  the  Holy  See.1  Charlemagne  had  received  the  sacred 
oil  and  benediction  from  the  holy  hands  of  Stephen  II.  at  the 
same  time  as  his  father;  but  in  due  course  another  generation 
appeared  to  claim  the  same  advantages,  and  the  kingdoms  of 
Italy  and  Aquitaine  were  secured  to  the  royal  infants,  Pepin 
and  Louis,  by  the  efh'cacious  ministration  of  the  accommodating 
Pontiff,  who  was  equally  ready  to  extend  his  jurisdiction  in 
another  direction,  by  excommunicating  the  rebellious  subjects 
of  his  liberal  patron. 

Step  by  step  the  process  of  mutual  aggrandizement  went  on 
while  the  subordination  of  the  spiritual  to  the  temporal  power 
was  undisputed.  The  Patriciate  of  Rome,  to  Charles  Martel  an 
empty  honor  not  worth  the  responsibilities  connected  with  it, 
had  become  to  his  grandson  a  substantial  dignity,  which  secured 
the  subjection  of  the  papacy.  The  confirmation  of  the  papal 
elections  was  in  the  hands  of  the  Prankish  king,  to  whom  each 
new  pope  sent  a  solemn  embassy  to  offer  the  emblematic  keys 
and  banner,  and  to  ask  the  opportunity  of  rendering  the  neces 
sary  oath  of  allegiance.  Charles  was  the  suzerain  of  Rome 
and  of  its  bishop,  who,  notwithstanding  his  primatial  rank, 

1  The  authenticity  of  this  grant  has  been  called  iu  question.  Its 
genuineness  will  be  considered  hereafter. 


THE  CHURCH  AND  THE  CARLO  VINGIANS.   37 

was  merely  a  subject,  to  be  addressed  in  the  language  of  royal 
command,  and  in  no  way  exempt  from  the  jurisdiction  exercised 
over  all  other  dignitaries  of  the  Frankish  dominions.  Thus, 
when  Leo  III.,  in  796,  announced  his  election  to  Charlemagne, 
the  latter  acknowledges  with  courtly  phrase  his  pleasure  in  re 
ceiving  the  assurance  of  humble  obedience  and  the  pledges  of 
fidelity  to  the  throne  offered  by  the  pope;1  and  the  instructions 
•to  his  envoy  on  the  occasion  of  Leo's  consecration  were  that  he 
should  diligently  admonish  the  pope  to  live  \vith  propriety  and 
to  obey  the  canons.2  When,  in  799,  a  conspiracy  was  formed 
against  Leo,  who  was  seized,  his  tongue  cut  out  and  an  attempt 
made  to  blind  him,  and  he  succeeded  in  escaping  and  flying  to 
Charlemagne,  on  his  being  restored  by  the  latter,  lie  made  no 
attempt  to  punish  the  guilty  parties,  but  sent  them  to  the  Frank, 
who  condemned  them  to  exile.3 

In  fulfilment  of  his  duties  as  supreme  judge,  Charlemagne, 
in  the  year  800,  visited  Rome  on  the  solemn  errand  of  trying 
Leo  for  offences  alleged  against  him  by  the  factious  Romans. 
The  position  of  the  Pontiff  was  that  of  a  subject  before  his 
sovereign,  a  criminal  in  the  presence  of  his  judge;  but  the 
wily  Italian  by  a  master-stroke  reversed  the  position,  and 
created  for  his  successors  a  power  which  may  almost  be  said  to 
have  secured  their  ultimate  triumph.  After  the  pre-arranged 
acquittal  of  the  pope,  while  Charles  was  humbly  kneeling  at 
his  devotions  in  the  Basilica  of  St.  Peter,  his  brows  were  sud 
denly  encircled  by  the  imperial  crown,  confirmed  with  the  papal 
benediction,  and  the  populace  shouted  for  the  new  Emperor  of 
the  Romans — "  Carlo  Augusto,  a  Deo  coronato,  rnagno  et 
pacifico  Imperatori  Romanorum,  vita  et  victoria."  Whether 
this  clever  coup  de  theatre  was  in  reality  a  surprise  to  the 
passive  actor  in  it,  or  whether  it  had  been  rehearsed  the  year 

1  "  Valde,  ut  fateor,  gavisi  sumus,  seu  in  electionis  uniraitate,  seu  in 
humilitatisvestrae  obedieritia,  etinpromissionis  adnosfidelitate." — Epist. 
ad  Lecmem  Papam  (Baluz.). 

2  Carol.  Mag.  Commonitor.  ann.  796  (Baluz.  I.  195). 

3  Anna!.  Vet.  Francor.  ann.  799  (Martene  Ampl.  Coll.  V.  906;. 

4 


38  THE     RISE     OF     THE     TEMPORAL     POWER. 

before  at  Paderborn,  when  Leo  had  laid  his  griefs  before  his 
protector,  is  of  small  importance.  If,  as  Eginhardt  asserts, 
Charlemagne  accepted  the  unexpected  dignity  with  reluct 
ance,1  he  only  manifested  therein  his  customary  sagacity.  To 
him  it  was  nothing  but  a  mime,  which  in  no  way  enhanced  his 
real  power,  but  which,  among  his  descendants,  proved  a  source 
of  endless  and  ruinous  contention.2  The  pope,  on  the  other 
hand,  had  revived,  ntotn  proprio,  the  glories  of  the  elder  em 
pire.3  Not  only  was  Constantinople  humiliated  and  'degraded 
from  its  solitary  dignity,  but  throughout  the  West,  as  the 
creator  is  always  greater  than  the  created,  the  pope,  while  no 
less  a  subject  than  before,  had  vastly  increased  the  moral 
supremacy  of  his  high  office.4  His  successors  learned  to  turn 
the  precedent  to  good  account,  and  the  necessity  of  papal  in 
tervention  to  convert  a  king  of  the  Romans  into  an  emperor 

1  Eginh.  Vit.  Carol,  cap.  28. 

2  Charlemagne  may  have  had  a  foreshadowing  of  the  evils  arising  from 
the  possession  of  the  imperial  crown,  for  in  his  dharta  J)ivi*io>tis  of  800, 
he  makes  no  allusion  to  it  as  being  heritable,  nor  does  he  bestow  it  upon 
any  of  his  sons.     They  are  all  to  be  kings,  and  even  the  sovereignty  of 
Italy  confers  no  additional  supremacy  on  Pepin. 

;i  When  Rodolph  of  Hapsburg  confirmed  the  papal  possessions  in  Italy 
to  the  pope,  one  of  the  reasons  given  was  that  the  Holy  Sec  had  trans 
ferred  the  empire  to  the  Germans  from  the  Greeks. — Cod.  Epist.  Rodolphi 
I.  p.  80  (Lipsia>,  1800). 

4  How  thoroughly  this  came  to  be  understood  is  manifest  from  a  pas 
sage  in  the  canons  of  the  Synod  of  St.  Macra,  in  881,  where  the  bishops, 
in  contrasting  the  regal  and  sacerdotal  dignity,  give  this  as  the  argu 
ment  for  the  supremacy  which  they  claim  for  the  latter — "  Et  tanto  est 
dignitas  pontificum  major  quam  regum,  quia  reges  in  culmen  regium 
sacrantur  a  pontiticibus,  pontifices  autem  a  regibus  consecrari  non  pos- 
sunt"  (Synod,  ap.  S.  Macram,  cap.  1).  Even  in  England,  in  1112,  dur 
ing  the  imprisonment  of  King  Stephen,  when  his  brother  Henry,  Bishop 
of  Winchester,  called  a  council  of  the  clergy,  in  a  speech  directed  against 
the  king,  he  spoke  of  "  majoriparte  elcri  Anglite,  ad  cujus  jus  potissimum 
spectat  principem  eligere,  simulque  ordinare"  (Wilkins  Concil.  I.  420). 
A  tract  which  formerly  passed  under  the  name  of  St.  Thomas  Aquinas 
finds  in  the  transfer  of  the  imperial  crown  from  the  Greeks  to  the  Ger 
mans  a  sufficient  proof  of  the  supremacy  of  the  pope  over  the  empire.  — 
De  Principum  Regimine  Lib.  III.  cap.  xviii. 


THE     CHUROIl     AND     THE     C  A  II  L  0  V  I  N  G  I  A  N  S  .        39 

on  more  than  one  occasion  turned  the  scale  in  difficult  con 
junctures,  or  enabled  the  Pontiff  to  sell  his  benediction  at  his 
own  price,  as  when  the  fagot  and  stake  of  Arnold  of  Brescia 
purchased  the  imperial  crown  for  Frederic  Barbarossa.  Nor 
was  this  all,  for  even  as  the  right  of  confirmation  practically 
gave  to  the  emperors  the  appointment  of  popes,  so,  when  pro* 
tracted  dissensions  reduced  the  temporal  power,  the  popes  in 
turn  became  able  to  nominate  their  emperors.  Even  before 
the  close  of  the  century,  the  quarrels  between  the  grandsons  ot 
Charlemagne  gave  to  John  VIII.  the  power  to  select  between 
them  ;  and  he,  who  could  not  defend  his  own  suburbs  from  the 
Saracens,  or  keep  the  petty  barons  of  Gaeta  or  Capua  in  order, 
was  able  to  assume  the  bestowal  of  the  diadem  of  Augustus.1 
A  charter  issued  by  John  XII.,  in  9 02,  a  few  days  after  the 
coronation  of  Otho  the  Great,  assumes  that  the  emperor  re 
ceived  the  imperial  crown  from  St.  Peter  through  the  hands 
of  his  representative.2  When  Innocent  III.  declared  that  the 
pope  had  a  right  to  examine  and  reject  emperors  after  their 
election,  if  he  did  not  deem  them  worthy  of  the  dignity,  he 
took  care  to  base  the  privilege  on  the  gift  of  the  imperial  crown 
to  Charlemagne  by  Leo  f  and  this  power  was  too  frequently 
exercised  for  it  to  remain  a  disputed  point,  as  is  shown  by  the 
humble  supplication  addressed  to  Gregory  X.,  in  1273,  to  be- 
stqw  the  imperial  crown  on  Rodolph  of  Ilapsburg,  after  his 
election,  and  the  pope  after  due  delay  replied  that  he  had,  in 
consultation  with  his  advisers,  concluded  to  nominate  Rodolph 
as  King  of  the  Romans  and  invite  him  to  Rome  to  be  crowned, 
as  though  the  suffrages  of  the  electors  had  merely  been  a  pre 
liminary  ceremony.4  It  was  the  natural  result  of  these  prin- 

1  Act.  Synod.  Pontigonens.  cap.  1  (Baluz.  IT.  345). 
'<=  Annal.  Saxo  ann.  9(53. 

3  Can.  34  Extra,  Lib.  T.  Tit.  (5. 

4  "  Pro  quo  sanctitatic  vestrrc  piissimae  duximus  hurnillirne  supplican- 
dum  quatenus  ipsum  pro  bono  statu  totius  Reip.  Christiana;  imperil  dia- 
deraate  dignemini  insignire.."     (Cod.  Epist.  Rodolphi  I.,  Lipsire,  1806,  p. 
7.)     "  Te  Regem  Romanorurn  de  ipsorum  consilio  nominamus."     (Ibid, 
p.  25.)    Even  this  condescension  may  perhaps  be  attributed  to  the  gift  of 


40  THE     RISE     OF     T  Ff  E     TEMPORAL     TOWER. 

ciples  that  John  XXII.,  in  his  quarrel  with  the  Emperor  Louis 
of  Bavaria,  was  able  to  assume  that  the  imperial  authority  and 
power  are  derived  from  the  pope,  and  that  he  who  is  elected 
King  of  the  Romans  cannot,  from  his  ejection  alone,  be  reallv 
considered  emperor,  nor  exercise  power,  jurisdiction,  or  autho 
rity  before  his  consecration  and  coronation  by  the  pope.1 
Charles  IV.  was  obliged  to  admit  all  this  when,  prior  to  his 
election,  he  swore  to  the  pope  that  if  elected  he  would,  before 
asking  coronation,  submit  his  person  to  the  papal  approba 
tion,  which  was  thus  admitted  to  be  a  condition  precedent  ;2  and 
Clement  VI.  in  graciously  confirming  the  election  took  occa 
sion  to  declare  not  only  that  the  power  of  the  Imperial  Electors 
was  a  grant  from  the  popes,  but  that  the  empire  itself  was  de 
rived  from  and  limited  by  them.3  Bishop  Alvarez  Pelayo  was, 
therefore,  justified,  in  1335,  in  proving  from  the  decretals  that 
the  emperor  was  merely  the  vicar  of  the  pope  in  temporal 

1000  marcs  a  year  assigned  by  the  electors  to  the  pope  on  the  imperial 
revenues.  (Ibid.  p.  41.  ) 

1  Ludov.  IV.  Kespons.  (Hartzheirn  IV.  :-J23). 

'J  Jurainent.  Carol.  JV.  ami.  1340  (Liinig.  Cod.  Ital.  Diploni.  II.  771). 
The  eagerness  with  which  every  incident  was  turned  to  account  in  the 
long  struggle  for  supremacy  is  well  illustrated  by  the  fact  that  when  in 
1133  Lothair  IT.  reinstated  the  wandering  Innocent  II.  who  had  been 
ejected  from  Rome  by  the  antipope  Anaclet,  and  when  he  was  rewarded 
with  the  bestowal  of  the  imperial  crown,  before  his  coronation  he  swore 
to  defend  the  person  and  rights  of  the  pope.  The  oath,  as  given  by 
Baronius  from  the  Vatican  MSS.  (Annal.  ami.  1133,  No.  2),  is  in  no 
seu.se  an  oath  of  homage,  but  it  pleased  the,  papal  court  so  to  regard  it, 
and  the  popes  recorded  their  assumed  triumph  by  a  painting  hung  in  the 
Lateran,  representing  Lothair  at  the  feet  of  Innocent,  with  the  explana 
tory  inscription — 

Rex  venit  ante  fores  jurans  prius  urbis  honores. 
Post  homo  fit  Papre,  suinit  quo  darite  coronam. 

When  Frederic  Barbarossa  first  entered  Rome  this  excited  his  indigna 
tion,  and  he  exacted  its  removal  (Radevic.  de  Gest.  Frid.  I.  Lib.  i.  cap. 
10).  In  1157,  Adrian  IV.  renewed  the  pretension,  but  the  prompt  meas 
ures  of  Frederic  quickly  obliged  him  to  abandon  it  formally. 

:i  Cod.  Epist.  Rudolphi  I.,  Auct.  II.  pp.  305,  370  (Lipsiae,  1800).— Po- 
testas  enirn  imperialis  catholica  et  approbate  a  papa  originatur,  a  papa 
exemplatur,  ad  pa  pain  terminal  ur. 


THE     CHURCH     AND     THE     CALILOV1NGIANS.        41 

affairs  and  derived  from  him  the  title  to  the  empire.1  Leo  had 
thus,  by  a  simple  expedient,  succeeded  in  counterbalancing 
the  imperial  supremacy  which  had  existed  from  the  days  of 
Constantine. 

The  precedent  from  the  first  was  binding.  Although,  when 
Charlemagne  associated  his  son  Louis  in  the  empire,  in  813, 
he  performed  the  ceremony  of  coronation  himself  at  Aix-la- 
Chapelle,  apparently  mistrustful  of  papal  or  sacerdotal  minis 
tration,2  and  though  the  pope  was  not  asked  to  ratify  the 
solemnities  which  marked  Louis's  accession  on  his  father's 
death  in  814,  yet  Stephen  IV.  seized  the  opportunity  of  «tlieir 
interview  at  Itheims,  in  81G,  to  crown  and  anoint  him  emperor 
with  a  diadem  which  lie  had  brought  with  him  from  Italy  for 
that  purpose,  and  Louis's  faithful  biographer  is  careful  not  to 
style  him  emperor  until  after  that  consecration.3.  That  the 
ceremony  was  considered  necessary  to  perfect  the  imperial 
dignity  may  also  be  gathered  from  an  inscription  by  Ebbo, 
Archbishop  of  Rheims,  Louis's  foster-brother,  commencing — 

"  Ludovicus  Caesar  factus,  coronante  Stcphano."4 

Charlemagne  apparently  considered  the  papal  assent  and 
ratification  requisite  to  give  binding  force  to  his  division  of  the 
empire  in  80G,  and  Louis  le  Debonnaire  followed  his  example 
in  817. 5  Still,  the  subordinate  position  of  the  popes  as  sub 
jects  and  vassals  of  the  empire  continued  unaltered.  When  in 
815  a  conspiracy  was  discovered  by  Leo  III.,  and  he  exercised 
summary  justice  in  dispatching  the  criminals,  Louis,  irritated 
at  this  invasion  of  his  jurisdiction,  sent  his  nephew,  Bernard, 

1  De  Planetu  Eeclesiie  Lib.  I.  Art.  OS  No.  I. 

2  Eginhart.   Annal.   aim.  813- — Thegan,  who,  though  not  so  good  an 
authority  as  Eginhardt,  gives  a  much  more  detailed  account  of  this  cere 
mony,  asserts  tli.it  Charlemagne  ordered  Louis  to  plaee  the  crown  on  his 
head  with  his  own  hands  (Thegaui  de  Gest.  Ludov.  cap.  (5),  which  seems 
to  indicate  a  suspicion  that  the  priestly  alliance  might  turn  out  to  be  an 
expensive  one. 

3  Thegani  op.  cit.  cap.  17.     Cf.  Eginhart.  Annal.  aim.  816. 

4  Flodoard.  Hist.  Remens.  Lib.  II.  cap.  19. 

5  Eginliart.  Annal.  ami.  8()(i. — Agobardi  de  Divis.  Imp.  Epist. 

4* 


42  THE     RISE     OF     THE     TEMPORAL     POWER. 

King  of  Italy,  to  investigate  the  matter,  and  Leo  was  obliged 
to  make  his  peace  with  the  emperor  by  a  special  legation.  In 
the  following  year,  his  successor  Stephen  IV.,  immediately  on 
his  election,  hastened  to  solicit  Louis's  confirmation,  and  tra 
velled  with  all  diligence  into  France,  ostensibly  to  crown  the 
emperor,  but  doubtless,  in  reality,  to  secure  his  position.1  It 
was  possibly  in  fulfilment  of  a  condition  imposed  on  him  at 
this  time,  that  in  the  same  year  he  caused  a  canon  to  be 
adopted  in  synod  providing  that  lor  the  future  no  newly 
elected  pope  should  be  consecrated  except  in  the  presence  of 
imperial  delegates  sent  for  that  purpose,  guarding  the  papal 
rights,  however,  with  a  clause  that  no  new  form  of  oath  should 
be  exacted  of  the  Vicegerent  of  Christ.2  This  was  neglected 
in  the  case  of  the  next  pope,  Paschal  I.,  who  was  consecrated 
without  waiting  for  the  imperial  ratification,  but  the  necessity 
for  it  was  admitted  by  a  deprecatory  epistle  which  he  pru 
dently  dispatched  to  his  suzerain,  asserting  that  he  had  been 
unwillingly  forced  to  undergo  the  ceremony,  against  his  stren 
uous  resistance.3 

Louis's  gentle  character  was  eminently  unsuited  to  the  fero 
city  of  the  age,  while  his  sensitive  superstition  rendered  him 
the  willing  slave  of  his  ghostly  advisers.  Unable  to  control 
the  fierce  elements  of  discord  around  him  or  to  resist  the  en 
croachments  of  ecclesiastical  ambition,  he  allowed  his  influence 
to  diminish  rapidly.  Kmboldened  by  this,  Paschal  soon  took 
another  and  an  important  step  in  the  enhancement  of  the  papal 
prerogative.  In  HI  7,  Louis  had  crowned  his  eldest  son, 
Lothair,  and  had  placed  him  on  the  throne  as  co-emperor,  in 
precisely  the  same  manner  as  he  himself  had  received  that 
dignity  at  the  hands  of  Charlemagne.  In  823  he  sent  the 


1  Eginhart.  Amial.  aim.  81(5. 

'2  Gratian.  Decret.  Dist.  03  can.  28.  The  genuineness  and  dale  of  this 
have  been  the  subject  of  no  little  controversy.  An  allusion  to  it,  how 
ever,  by  Nicholas  I.,  in  the  council  of  Rome  in  862,  would  seem  to  settle 
the  question  in  favor  of  its  authenticity. 

3  Eginhart.  Anna!,  ann.  817. 


THE     CHURCH     AND     THE     C  A  R  L  0  V  I  N  G  I  A  N  S  .        43 

young  emperor  to  Italy,  to  repress  some  disorders  there.  His 
mission  accomplished,  Lothair  was  about  to  return,  when 
Paschal  invited  him  to  Rome,  received  him  with  all  honor,  and 
solemnly  crowned  him  as  Emperor  and  Augustus — and  this,  to 
all  appearance,  without  the  knowledge  or  consent  of  his  father. 
This  independence  of  action  was  followed  up  shortly  after 
wards,  when  two  officials  of  high  repute  in  the  papal  court 
were  cruelly  murdered  in  the  Lateran,  and  Paschal  was  popu 
larly  accused  of  complicity  in  the  crime.  He  endeavored  to 
escape  the  imperial  jurisdiction  by  hastily  clearing  himself  of 
complicity  by  a  purgatorial  oath  before  the  arrival  of  the  com 
missioners  dispatched  by  Louis  to  investigate  his  connection 
with  the  murders,  but  he  nevertheless  acknowledged  his  ac 
countability  to  the  emperor  by  two  legations  sent  with  his  ex 
planations.1 

These  efforts  of  the  Holy  See  to  shake  off  the  imperial 
domination  called  for  some  counter-demonstration,  and  it  is 
probable  that  the  reckless  and  energetic  Lothair  was  less  willing 
than  his  father  to  permit  any  curtailment  of  his  ancestral  pre 
rogatives.  When,  therefore,  Paschal  died  during  the  following 
year,  and  his  successor,  Eugenius  II.,  after  a  hotly  contested 
election,  contented  himself  with  sending  a  legate  to  apprise  the 
emperors  of  his  accession,  Lothair  proceeded  at  once  to  Rome. 
Eugenius  was  compelled  to  subscribe  a  written  oath  of  allegi 
ance,  and  another  oath  was  administered  to  all  the  Romans, 
lay  and  clerical,  in  which  they  swore  not  only  fidelity  to  the 
emperors,  but  also  that  they  would  never  consent  to  the  instal 
lation  of  a  pope  elect  until  after  he  should  have  taken  a  similar 
oath  before  a  special  imperial  commission  ;'2  and  Lothair's  ex- 

1  Eginhart.  Annal.  aim.  82:5. 

2  "  Et  ille  qui  electus  fuerit,  meconsentiente,  cousecratus  pontifex  non 
.  fiat,  priusquam  tale  sacramentum  faciat   in  praesentia  missi  domini  im- 

peratoris  et  populi,  cum  juramento  quale  dominus  Eugenius  papa  sponte 
pro  conservatione  omnium  factum  habet  per  scriptum"  (Baluz.  I.  438). 
The  expression  "  pro  conservatione  omnium"  renders  it  probable  that 
Lothair  had  manifested  his  indignation  by  proceedings  so  violent  as  to 
awaken  fears  for  the  safety  of  the  citv.  The  change  occurring  during  the 


44  THE     RISE     OF     THE     TEMPORAL    POWER. 

ercise  of  sovereign  power  was  further  shown  by  an  edict  limit 
ing  the  extent  of  suffrage  in  future  elections.1  These  proceed 
ings  had  the  desired  effect  for  the  time,  and  when,  in  827,  the 
chair  of  St.  Peter  was  again  vacant,  the  consecration  of 
Gregory  IV.  was  postponed  until  the  arrival  of  an  envoy  with 
powers  to  confirm  his  election.  The  effort,  however,  was  too 
late.  Events  were  hurrying  on  which  were  destined  to  render 
all  such  measures  futile,  and  Lothair  himself  was  one  of  the 
chief  instruments  in  the  hands  of  Providence  by  which  was 
accomplished  the  revolution  of  European  institutions,  resulting 
in  the  power  of  the  priesthood  and  the  irresponsible  autocracy 
of  the  pope. 

The  turbulent  ambition  of  Lothair  and  his  two  brothers, 
their  hatred  of  their  stepmother  Judith,  and  their  envy  of  their 
half-brother,  Charles  le  Chauve,  the  youngest,  best,  and  most 
beloved  of  the  children  of  Louis,  tilled  the  rest  of  his  miserable 
reign  with  open  war  or  secret  intrigues.  His  death  added 
fresh  fuel  to  the  flame,  and  until  the  exhausted  combatants 
swore  a  hollow  truce  at  the  Treaty  of  Verdun,  in  8K>,  the 
empire  was  a  scene  of  universal  confusion.  This  parricidal 
and  fratricidal  strife,  continuing  with  scanty  intermission  until 
the  close  of  the  century,  reduced  the  royal  power  to  a  shadow. 
Truth,  faith,  loyalty,  patriotism,  all  the  virtues  which  lend 
stability  to  governments,  seemed  unknown.  Everywhere  the 
chiefs  and  deputies  of  the  nominal  monarch,  striving  for  in 
dependence  and  hereditary  authority,  were  bartering  their 
allegiance,  and  wringing  fresh  concessions  from  the  infatuated 
brethren,  as  the  price  of  their  fidelity  or  of  their  treachery. 
The  only  element  of  universal  anarchy  lacking  was  supplied  by 
the  external  enemies  of  the  empire.'  Invited  by  ceaseless  civil 

century  is  well  exhibited  by  comparing  this  oath  with  that  taken  by  the 
Romans  on  the  coronation  of  the  Emperor  Arnoul,  in  896,  wherein  the 
papal  claim  to  their  allegiance  is  expressly  reserved — "salvo  honore  et 
lege  mea,  atque  fidelitate  domni  Formosi  papoe,  fidelis  sum  et  ero  omnibus 
diebus  vitae  meae  Arnulfo  irnperatori"  (Annal.  Fuldens.  ami.  895.) 
1  Baluz.  II.  :U7. 


THE     CHURCH     AND     THE     C  A  R  L  0  V  I  N  O  T  A  N  S  .        45 

conflict,  on  every  side  the  Northmen  poured  in  upon  the  un 
guarded  coasts,  ascended  the  rivers,  and,  gathering  confidence 
from  almost  uninterrupted  success,  ravaged  every  portion  of 
France  and  of  the  fertile  Rhinelands.  On  the  West  the  Bre 
tons,  on  the  East  the  Wends  and  Serbs,  on  the  South  the  active 
and  unsparing  Saracens,  released  from  the  terror  of  the  invincible 
Charles,  revenged  the  wrongs  and  the  humiliations  of  genera 
tions.  Faction  in  the  council,  discord  in  the  court,  cowardice  or 
treachery  in  the  field,  could  offer  inadequate  resistance  to  the 
only  power  which  maintained  its  unity,  which  understood  its 
aims,  and  which  pursued  its  purposes  with  energy  and  con 
sistency.  Nor  is  it  surprising  that  the  people,  ground  to  the 
dust  by  the  senseless  quarrels  of  their  rulers,  exposed  alike  to 
the  unchecked  tyranny  of  their  immediate  masters,  the  devas 
tations  of  neighborhood  wars,  and  the  hideous  barbarities  of 

pagan  pirates the  people  to  whom  civil  government  was  known 

only  as  an  instrument  of  oppression,  and  never  as  a  means  of 
defence  or  redress — should  turn  in  despair  to  the  church  as  the 
only  source  of  consolation  in  the  present  or  of  hope  in  the 
future,  should  welcome  any  change  which  tended  to  elevate  the 
spiritual  power  at  the  expense  of  the  temporal,  and  should  give 
eager  credit  to  the  doctrine  which  taught  that  the  Vicegerent 
of  Christ  and  his  ministers  were  paramount  over  those  who 
hafl  so  wofully  abused  their  trust.1 

1  The  manner  in  which  the  church  at  times  earned  the  gratitude  of  the 
masses  while  extending  its  power  and  influence,  is  well  illustrated  in  the 
election  of  Guido  as  King  of  Lombardy,  by  the  bishops  assembled  atPavia 
in  888  or  889.  One  of  the  conditions  imposed  on  him  was  that  no  exac 
tions  or  oppressions  should  be  inflicted  on  the  people ;  but  that  if,  in  any 
case  of  the  kind,  the  counts  did  not  actively  interfere  to  repress  it,  they 
should  be  excommunicated  by  the  bishops — thus  rendering  the  latter  the 
legal  protectors  and  guardians  of  the  liberties  of  the  people. — Widouis 
Regis  Elect,  cap.  v.  (Muratori  Antiq.  Ital.  Dissert,  in.) 


40  THE     RISE     OF     THE     TEMPORAL     POWER. 


TUP:  FALSE  DECRETALS. 

In  this  remoulding  of  European  institutions,  so  necessary  to 
the  interests  of  Christianity  and  civilization,  one  of  the  most 
efficient  agencies  was  the  collection  of  canons  known  as  the 
False  Decretals.  Forgery  was  not  by  any  means  a  novel  ex 
pedient  to  the  church.  From  the  earliest  times  orthodox  and 
heretics  had  rivalled  each  other  in  the  manufacture  of  what 
ever  documents  were  necessary  to  substantiate  their  respective 
positions  whether  in  faith  or  discipline,  and  the  student  of  his 
tory  finds  the  difficulty  of  his  task  perpetually  heightened  by 
the  doubtful  nature  of  the  evidence  adduced  by  one  party  or 
another  with  all  the  earnestness  of  conviction.  This  tendency 
to  fabrication  was  conspicuously  a  characteristic  of  the  pupal 
court,  which  was  constantly  under  the  necessity  of  manufac 
turing  testimony  to  prove  the  antiquity  of  its  continually  en 
larging  pretensions.  The  interpolation  of  the  Sardican  canons 
among  those  of  Nictea,  perpetrated  by  successive  popes  from 
Zo/imus  to  Leo  I.,  the  fabulous  excommunication  of  Arcadius 
by  Innocent  I.,  the  fictitious  epistles  and  councils  of  Silvester 
I.,  the  Gcsta  Jjiberii  and  the  trial  of  Sixtus  III.,  the  in 
terpolated  epistles  of  Gregory  I.  respecting  the  prohibition  of 
marriage  to  the  seventh  degree  and  the  excommunication  of 
kings;  the  epistle  of  St.  Peter  to  Pepin  le  Bref,  and  the  Do 
nation  of  Constantine  are  all  examples  of  the  clumsy  audacity 
with  which  the  Vicegerents  of  God,  with  more  or  less  success, 
imposed  on  the  credulity  of  the  faithful.  There  evidently  was 
some  code  of  morality  established  in  the  minds  of  leading 
ecclesiastics  which  led  them  to  believe  that  all  means  were 
allowable  for  the  maintenance  and  extension  of  church  pre 
rogative,  and  forgery  thus  became  traditional  as  one  of  the 
agencies  to  be  called  into  play  whenever  a  desired  object  could 
not  be  obtained  without  it.1  It  can  scarcely  then  be  a  matter 

1  The  reader  who  desires  a  rapid  summary  of  the  frauds  perpetrated  by 
the  papal  court  will  find  the  subject  well  treated  in  "  The  Pope  and  the 
Council,"  by  "Janus." 


THE     FALSE     DECRETALS.  47 

of  surprise  that  recourse  was  now  had  to  the  accustomed  in 
strumentality,  and  that  a  forgery  was  planned  on  a  larger  and 
bolder  scale  than  had  previously  been  attempted.  About  this 
period  there  began  to  circulate  from  hand  to  hand  a  collection  of 
Papal  Epistles,  on  which  the  names  of  the  early  Bishops  of  Rome 
conferred  the  authority  of  the  primitive  and  uncorrupted  church, 
instinct  with  pure  and  undisputed  apostolic  tradition.  The 
name  assumed  by  the  compiler  was  Isidor  Mercator,  or  Pecca- 
tor,  and  as  the  original  copy  was  said  to  have  been  brought  from 
Spain,  he  was  readily  confounded  with  St.  Isidor  of  Seville, 
the  eminent  canonist,  who,  two  centuries  before,  had  enjoyed 
a  wide  and  well-merited  reputation  for  extensive  learning  and 
unquestioned  orthodoxy. 

Denis  the  Less,  who,  in  the  first  half  of  the  sixth  century, 
made  an  authoritative  collection  of  canons  and  decretals, 
commences  the  latter  with  Pope  Siricius,  whose  pontificate 
reached  from  384  to  398  ;  and  there  are  no  earlier  papal  epis 
tles  extant  in  the  nature  of  decretals.  When,  therefore,  the 
decisions  and  decrees  of  more  than  thirty  apostolic  fathers,  of 
venerable  antiquity,  were  presented  under  the  sanction  of 
ecclesiastics  high  in  rank  and  power,  and  when  these  decrees 
were  found  to  suit  most  admirably  the  wants  and  aspirations 
of  the  church,  it  is  no  wonder  that  they  were  accepted  with 
little  scrutiny  by  those  whose  cause  they  served,  and  who 
were  not  accustomed  to  the  niceties  of  strict  archaeological 
criticism.  It  could  hardly  be  expected  that  a  prelate  of  that 
rude  age  would  analyze  the  rules  presented  for  his  guidance, 
and  eliminate  the  false,  which  served  his  interests  or  his  pride, 
from  the  true,  with  which  they  were  skilfully  intermingled. 
Some,  more  enlightened  than  the  rest,  perceiving  that,  if  their 
own  power  was  enhanced,  at  the  same  time  their  bonds  of  sub 
jection  to  the  central  head  were  drawn  closer,  muttered  faint 
and  cautious  doubts  ;  but  the  vast  majority  received  the  new 
decretals  with  unquestioning  faith,  and  though  political  causes 
delayed  their  immediate  adoption,  yet  soon  after  the  middle  of 


48  THE     RISE     OF     THE     TEMPORAL     POWER. 

the  century  we  find  them  received  with  scarcely  a  dissentient 
voice.  How,  indeed,  could  their  authenticity  be  seriously  dis 
puted,  when,  as  soon  as  they  became  fairly  known  in  Rome, 
Nicholas  I.  gave  the  world  to  understand  that  they  were  to  be 
found  among  the  most  venerated  and  carefully  preserved  docu 
ments  of  the  papal  archives  ?l 

Riculfus,  who  occupied  the  archiepiscopal  see  of  Mainz  from 
784  to  814,  is  credited  with  the  paternity  of  this,  the  boldest, 
most  stupendous,  and  most  successful  forgery  that  the  world 
has  seen.  Whether  or  not  it  was  brought  from  Spain  by  him, 
or  constructed  under  his  supervision,  there  is  little  doubt  that 
he  employed  himself  industriously  in  disseminating  copies.3 
Another  collection,  somewhat  less  bold  in  its  pretensions,  but 
equally  destitute  of  authority,  had  made  its  appearance  a  little 
earlier,  having  been  given  by  Ingilram,  Bishop  of  Metz,  to 
Adrian  I.,  in  78;">  ;  and  it  was  likewise  extensively  circulated 
and  cited,  although  Hincmar  of  Rheims  condemns  it  as  bearing 

1  Nicolai  PP.  I.  Epist,  75. 

-  Hincrnar,  created  Archbishop  of  Rheims  in  845,  thus  describes  the 
introduction  of  the  False  Decretals  :  "  Sicut  et  de  lihro  colk-ctarum  epis- 
tolarum  ab  Isidore,  quoin  de  Hispania  allatum.  lliculfus  Moguntinus 
episcopus,  in  hujusmodi  sicut  et  in  capitulis  regiis  studiosus,  obtinuit  et 
istas  regiones  ex  illo  repleri  fecit;"  and  he  evidently  considers  them  as 
of  dubious  authority,  when  he  declines  to  cite  them  in  support  of  his 
argument,  because  he  had  plenty  of  authorities  from  among  the  popes 
after  Damasus — "  superfluum  duxi  non  necessaria  in  medium  devocare" 
(Opusc.  adv.  Hincrn.  Laudun.  cap.  24).  This  does  not,  however,  pre 
vent  him  from  using-  them  when  later  and  more  unimpeachable  prece 
dents  are  wanting.  Thus  (op.  cit.  cap.  14)  he  adduces  an  epistle  of  St. 
Anacletus,  whose  pontificate  dates  within  twenty  years  of  the  death  of 
St.  Peter,  in  which  is  described  a  complete  hierarchy,  such  as  in  the 
ninth  century  was  regarded  as  the  perfection  of  church  government — 
bishops,  metropolitans,  archbishops,  primates,  and  patriarchs,  with  the 
Roman  Pontiff  as  supreme  ruler,  issuing  without  appeal  his  commands 
and  decrees.  (Pseudo-Anaclet.  Epist.  1,  2,  4,  5.)  Hincmar's  long  op 
position  to  the  papacy  was  fruitless,  and.  in  878,  John  VIII.  obliged 
him  at  the  synod  of  Troyes  to  disavow  formally  his  incredulity  as 
to  the  authority  of  the  Decretals.— Flodoard.  Hist.  Remens.  Lib.  iv. 
cap.  29. 


THE     FALSE     DECRETALS.  49 

falsehood  on  its  face.1  Other  documents  of  various  descriptions 
were  also  fabricated  for  the  same  purpose,  and  indeed  it  is 
probable  that  the  whole  series  grew  by  gradual  accretion  under 
the  hands  of  those  who  were  watching  the  progress  of  events, 
and  who  became  emboldened  by  the  ease  with  which  they 
escaped  detection. 

An  examination  of  these  documents,  in  fact,  leads  to  the 
conclusion  that  they  were  not  the  result,  of  one  effort  or  the 
work  of  one  man.  Their  constant  repetitions  and  their  fre 
quent  contradictions  would  seem  to  prove  this  and  to  show 
that  they  were  manufactured  from  time  to  time,  to  meet  the 
exigencies  of  the  moment  or  to  gratify  the  feelings  of  the 
writers.  Had  the  whole  been  composed  by  one  person,  with 
a  definite  individual  purpose  in  view,  there  would  be  much 
more  unity  perceptible  throughout.  It  is  also  highly  probable 
that  the  authors,  seeing  how  little  attention  had  been  excitod 
by  the  canons  of  Ingilram,  devised  the  plan  of  embodying  ihe 
same  principles  in  the  form  of  papal  epistles,  to  which  they 
affixed  the  names  of  the  early  [topes,  thus  hoping  to  secure  for 
them  additional  authority.  At  the  same  time  it  must  be  borne 
in  mind  that  as  yet  the  spiritual  autocracy  of  the  popes  had  by 
no  means  been  admitted  to  the  extent  claimed  for  it  in  these 
decretals,  and  subsequently  acquired  through  their  influence. 
When  Gelasius,  in  494,  issued  the  decisions  of  the  council 
which  regulated  the  canon  of  Scripture  and  the  authority  of 

1  "  Quam  dissonoe  inter  sc  habeantur,  qui  legit  satis  intelligit,  et  quarn 
diversse  a  sacris  canonibus,  et  quam  discrepantes  in  quibusdam  ab  eccle- 
siasticis  judiciis  habeantur,  ut  hie  quaedam  de  pluribus  ponam,  evidenter 
manifestatur"  (op.  cit.  cap.  24).— According-  to  some  MSS.  it  was  Adrian 
Avho  gave  them  to  Ingilram. 

In  one  of  Charlemagne's  visits  to  Rome,  in  774,  781,  or  787,  Adrian 
gave  him  a  collection  of  canons  for  the  government  of  the  Western 
churches.  This  collection  is  simply  the  compilation  of  Denis  the  Less, 
containing  none  of  the  false  decretals.  At  that  time  Adrian,  therefore, 
was  evidently  ignorant  of  the  forgeries,  and  the  principles  and  preten 
sions  of  Ingilram  and  Isidor  were  as  vet  unknown  in  Rome. 
5 


50  THE     RISE     OF     THE     TEMPORAL     POWER. 

the  Fathers,  he  was  careful  to  draw  the  distinction  between 
the  obedience  due  to  the  canons  of  councils  and  the  doctrines 
of  the  early  Fathers  and  that  claimed  for  papal  epistles.  The 
former  were  to  be  "  et  custodienda  et  recipienda,"  the  latter 
merely  "  venerabiliter  suscipiendas."1  Hincmar  enlarges  on 
this  difference,  which  he  declares  to  be  well  understood  by  all 
familiar  with  ecclesiastical  rules  ;2  and,  in  872,  writing  to 
Adrian  II.  in  the  name  of  Charles  le  Chauve,  he  begs  the 
pope  not  to  send  any  more  epistles  contrary  to  the  ancient 
canons  of  the  church,  as  all  such  are  to  be  rejected  and  con 
futed  as  being  devoid  of  authority.3 

It  is  true  that  the  success  of  the  forgeries  at  first  was  rather 
negative  than  positive,  and  their  earliest  practical  promulga 
tion  as  rules  for  daily  use  would  appear  to  be  in  the  canons 
compiled  for  his  diocese  by  Remy,  who  was  Bishop  of  Coire 
from  815  to  830.  Charlemagne,  indeed,  as  early  as  806,  had 
admitted  an  earlier  forgery  into  a  capitulary,4  but  in  general 
the  influence  of  the  Pseudo-Isidor  over  his  legislation  and 
government  is  imperceptible.  His  power  was  too  absolute  arid 

1  This  distinction  is  not  found  in  all  the  MSS.     See  the  comparison  of 
texts  in  Migne's  Patrologia,  T.  59,  pp.  170-2.     It  is  contained,  however, 
in  the  canon  as  given  by  Ivo  of  Chartres  (Decret.  P.  iv.  cap.  64)  and 
Gratian  (Decret.  P.  1  Dist.  15  can.  3),  and  its  citation  by  Hincmar,  as 
mentioned  above,  shows  its  high  antiquity  and  probable  genuineness. 

2  Opusc.  adv.  Hincm.  Laudun.  cap.  25. 

3  Goldast.  Const.  Imp.  I.  205-6.— Migne's  Patrol.  T.  124,  p.  894.     It 
was  very  easy  to  render  each  fresh  prerogative  a  stepping-stone  to  an 
other,  and  the  popes  lost  no  opportunity  of  enforcing  respect  for  their 
decretals.     Thus,  towards  the  end  of  the  century,  we  find  John  VIII.  re 
fusing  the  pallium  to  Wilibert  of  Cologne  because,  among  other  things, 
he  had  omitted  in  his  declaration  of  faith  to  specify  his  adhesion  to  the 
Decretals  (Gratian.  P.   I.  Dist.  c.  can.  4).— How  completely  they  suc 
ceeded  in  this  is  well  exemplified  in  a  declaration  of  Alexander  II.  to 
Philip  of  France  in  1065:    "Ignorant  miseri  quod  hujus  sanctse   sedis 
decreta  ita  pia  fide  a  filiis  matris  ecclesiae  accipienda  sint  et  veneranda 
ut  tanquam   regula  canonum  ab  eisdem   absque  ullo  scrupulo    adrnit- 
tantur."— Alexandri  PP.  II.  Epist.  95. 

4  Capit.  Carol.  Mag.  I.  aim.  806  §  23.— This  was  probably  derived  from 
Ingilram,  cap.  72,  who  obtained  it  from  a  forgery  of  the  sixth  century. 


THE     FALSE     DECRETALS.  51 

his  temper  rendered  opposition  too  dangerous  for  any  serious 
attempt  to  limit  his  control  over  ecclesiastical  matters.  Though 
he  made  full  use  of  clerical  influence  in  carrying  out  his  de 
signs  of  a  strong  and  civilizing  government,  yet  obedience  to 
his  will  was  the  condition  of  its  existence  ;  nor,  while  he  labored 
strenuously  to  enforce  respect  for  the  church,  would  he  permit 
it  to  exercise  interference  in  affairs  not  connected  with  its  spe 
cial  office.1  His  influence  was  too  profoundly  impressed  upon 
the  age  to  be  immediately  obliterated,  and  for  some  years  after 
his  death  the  empire  maintained  the  dignified  force  with  which 
he  had  invested  it.  With  Louis  le  Debonnaire,  however,  there 
came  a  change.  His  virtues  and  weaknesses  rendered  his 
power  a  prize  for  whoever  had  the  boldness  and  ambition  to 
clutch  at  a  fragment  of  it,  and  the  penance  of  Attigny  in  822, 
while  it  degraded  him  in  the  eyes  of  the  fierce  Prankish  war 
riors,  proclaimed  to  the  world  that  priestly  influence  was  all- 
powerful  in  the  state. 

It  would  indeed  have  been  singular  if  the  church  had  not 
pressed  forward  in  the  path  thus  thrown  open,  and  had  not 
claimed  all  the  supremacy  to  which  it  was  invited.  Accord 
ingly  we  find  that  the  bishops  soon  appear  as  the  ruling  order 
in  the  state,  sitting  in  judgment  on  the  emperor,  deposing,  ab 
solving,  and  reinstating  him  by  turns — doing,  in  the  name  of 
heaven,  that  which  the  reckless  nobles  still  shrank  from  assum 
ing  as  an  earthly  prerogative.  This  placed  a  material  power 
in  hands  well  qualified  to  use  and  extend  it;  and  though,  dur 
ing  those  busy  years  of  anarchy  and  strife,  the  church  had 
enough  to  do  in  protecting  her  property  from  the  hands  of  the 
spoiler,  and  was  unable  to  combine  her  forces  seriously  and 
steadily  for  the  attainment  of  new  privileges  and  exemptions, 
still,  the  influence  of  the  prelates,  as  potent  members  of  the 

1  This  jealousy  of  sacerdotal  encroachment  is  well  expressed  in  a 
capitulary  directing  the  clergy  and  the  laity  riot  to  interfere  with  one 
another.  "Hie  interrogandum  est  acutissime  quid  est  quod  Apostolus 
ait  Nemo  militans  Deo  irnplicat  se  negotiis  scecularibus,  vel  ad  quos  sermo 
iste  pertineat." — Capit.  Carol.  Mag.  I.  ami.  811  §  4. 


52 


THE  RISE  OF  THE  TEMPORAL  POWER. 


civil  government,  vastly  increased  the  political  weight  of  the 
ecclesiastical  body,  and  placed  them  in  a  position  to  make  good 
whatever  innovations  they  might  seek  to  establish.  In  restor 
ing  order  after  the  long  and  lawless  struggle,  it  was  also  com 
paratively  easy  to  assume  that  the  pretensions  then  first  seri-. 
ously  advanced  were  merely  the  resuscitation  of  rights,  familiar 
to  past  generations,  which  had  been  forgotten  and  trampled  on 
in  the  fury  of  civil  war.1  At  the  same  time  the  partial  quiet  which 
succeeded  the  Treaty  of  Verdun  soon  made  manifest  the  press 
ing  need  of  a  strong  ecclesiastical  government.  The  empire 
of  Charlemagne  was  then  finally  divided,  and  the  nationalities 
of  Europe  spontaneously  separated  themselves  into  the  limits 
which  have  virtually  been  maintained  to  the  present  day.  Had 
the  church  remained,  as  of  old,  under  secular  control,  it  would 
probably  have  been  split  into  fragments;  its  unity  would  have 
been  lost,  and  the  spiritual  tyranny  which  alone  could  maintain 
the  influence  of  religion  amid  the  turmoil  of  so  barbarous  an 
age  would  have  become  impossible.  To  elevate  the  sanctity  of 
the  sacerdotal  character ;  to  enlarge  the  power  of  the  bishops 
over  the  laity  and  the  inferior  clergy,  the  control  of  the  metro 
politans  over  their  suffragans  ;  to  emancipate  all  from  subjection 
to  the  temporal  power,  and  to  bind  them  more  strongly  to  the 
foot  of  the  apostolic  throne — such  was  the  only  apparent  solution 
to  present  and  prospective  difficulties.  If  it  was  carried  out  by 
fraud  and  forgery,  we  should  remember  the  trials  and  tempta 
tions  of  the  time  before  passing  too  severe  a  condemnation  on 
those  who  planned  and  executed  the  scheme. 

The  date,  the  author,  and  the  immediate  object  of  the  False 
Decretals  have  given  rise  to  keen  speculation  and  fierce  dispute, 
particularly  among  modern  German  critics,  whose  theories, 
more  or  less  plausible,  it  would  be  useless  to  recapitulate  or  re 
fute  here.  The  views  of  the  Ballerini,  Wasserschleben,  Gfrb'rer, 

1  Jura  sacerdotum  penitus  eversa  ruerunt. 
Divinae  jam  legis  amor  terrorque  recessit, 
Et  scita  jam  canonum  cunctorum  calce  teruntur. 

Floras  Diac.  cle  Divis.  Imp. 


THE    FALSE    DECRETALS.  53 

Walter,  Knust,  Hefele,  Phillips,  and  others,  may  be  found  well 
summed  up  and  stated  by  Heihrich  Denziger,1  but  the  principal 
interest  of  the  discussion  lies  merely  in  its  proving  how  the 
over-subtle  refinements  requisite  to  support  a  preconceived  the 
ory  may  mislead  intelligent  investigators.  Those  who  see  in 
these  forgeries  an  effort  merely  to  increase  the  power  of  the 
pope,  or,  on  the  other  hand,  to  enlarge  the  prerogatives  of  the 
metropolitans,  or,  again,  to  render  the  bishops  independent, 
take  a  view  by  far  too  narrow  of  the  motives  and  the  results  of 
the  attempt.  In  fact,  the  philosophizing  tendencies  of  recent 
historical  criticism  have  led  to  the  assumption  that  the  influ 
ence  of  the  False  Decretals  had  previously  been  greatly  over 
rated.  This  1  take  to  be  an  error,  easily  committed  by  those 
to  whom  the  novelty  of  a  brilliant  sophism  is  more  attractive 
than  the  triteness  of  a  commonplace  truth  ;  and  though  the 
causes  above  described  contributed  doubtless  to  the  success  of 
the  forgeries,  it  by  no  means  follows  that  those  causes  would 
have  produced  the  same  effects  had  not  the  disturbed  elements 
of  society  thus  been  artificially  moulded.  It  is  certain  that 
about  the  middle  of  the  century  a  great  and  silent  revolution  in 
the  relations  between  church  and  state  commenced,  and  it  may 
fairly  be  assumed  that  these  new  canons  were  the  instrument 
with  which  the  ecclesiastical  party  worked  upon  the  general 
popular  readiness  to  submit  to  such  a  change  of  masters. 

To  estimate  the  influence  of  these  canons  and  other  cognate 
forgeries  requires  an  attentive  examination  into  the  jurispru 
dence  and  legislation  of  the  period,  which  they  interpenetrate 
to  an  extent  that  shows  how  thoroughly  they  modified  the  con 
dition  of  society  in  all  its  ramifications.  Interpolated  into  codes 
of  law,  adopted  and  amplified  in  the  canons  of  councils  and 
the  decretals  of  popes,  they  speedily  became  part  and  parcel  of 
the  civil  and  ecclesiastical  polity  of  Europe,  leaving  traces  on 
the  institutions  which  they  afiected  for  centuries.  The  Carlo- 

1  Ecloge  et  Epicrisis  eorum  quae  a  recentioribus  criticis  de  Pseudoisido- 
rianis  Decretis  statuta  sunt  (Migne's  Patrolog.  T.  130)  . 

5* 


54  THE     RISE     OF     THE     TEMPORAL     POWER. 

vingian  Capitularies,  which  they  distorted  from  their  original 
tendency,  were  the  recognized  laws  of  the  western  and  north 
ern  portions  of  the  empire,  until  swallowed  up  hy  the  all-per 
vading  influence  of  feudalism,  and  even  then  they  continued  to 
be  appealed  to  as  an  authority.  As  late  as  the  close  of  the 
eleventh  century  they  were  cited  in  a  suit  between  Centulla  IV., 
of  Beam,  and  the. Bishop  of  Lescar  ;'  in  1208,  Otho  IV.,  at  his 
election,  took  an  oath  with  the  princ.es  of  the  empire,  in  which 
they  mutually  bound  themselves  to  preserve  intact  all  the  laws 
of  Charlemagne  ;2  the  Schwabenspiegel,  which,  from  the  thir 
teenth  century,  was  the  municipal  cod*1  of  Southern  Germany, 
declares  that  all  law  is  founded  on  the  legislation  of  Charle 
magne  and  of  the  popes,3  and  it  is  itself,  to  a  considerable  extent, 
based  on  the  Third  Book  of  the  Capitularies  ;  while  SOUK;  of 
the  Capitularies,  relating  more  particularly  to  ecclesiastical 
matters,  being  drafted  into  the  collections  of  canon  law,  were 
perpetuated  through  Burkhardt,  Ivo,  and  liratia.ii,  during  the 
whole,  media-val  period. 

If  the  False  Decretals  thus  indirectly  left  their  impress  on 
secular  legislation,  their  overwhelming  force  in  modifying  the 
organization  and  position  of  the.  church  itself  ma}'  easily  be 
conceived.  The  pretensions  and  privileges  which  they  con 
ferred  on  the  hierarchy  became  the  most  dearly-pri/ed  and 
frequently-quoted  portion  of  the  canon  law.  In  each  struggle 
with  the  temporal  authority  it  was  the  arsenal  from  which 
were  drawn  the  most  effective  weapons,  and  after  each  struggle 
the  sacerdotal  combatants  had  higher  vantage-ground  for  the 
ensuing  conflict.  The  satire  of  Ixabelais  loses  its  usual  extrav 
agance  when,  dwelling  upon  the  virtues  of  the  "  sacrosainetes 

1  Mazure  et  Hatoulct,  Fors  de  Beam,  p.  xxxyiii. 

'2  Ibi  Rex  priino,  deiiule  cceteri  principes  jurant  .  .  .  nmnia  ctiam 
jura  a  Karolo  mag-no  instituta  observanda  et  tuenda. — Godefrid.  S.  "Panta- 
leon.  Annal.  ami.  1208. 

;!  Itaque  null uni  jus  provinciale  aut  feudale  subsistit  aliter  quani  qua- 
tenus  a  elero  Romano  et  ex  Regis  Cnroli  legibus  derivalum  est  (Jur. 
Provin.  Alaman.  Introit.  §  81). 


THE     FALSE     DECRETALS.  55 

Decretales" — the  development  and  application  of  the  forgeries 
of  the  eighth  and  ninth  centuries — he  exclaims  :  "  Qui  faict  le 
sainct  siege  Apostolicque  en  Romme  de  tout  temps  et  auiourd- 
huy  tant  redoutable  en  luniuers  que  il  fault,  ribon  ribaine,  quo 
tous  roys,  empereurs,  potentatz  et  seigneurs  pendent  de  luy, 
tieignent  de  luy,  par  Iny  soyent  couronnez,  confirmez,  author- 
isez,  vieignent  la  boucquer  et  se  prosterner  a  la  mirificque  pan- 
tofie  de  laquelle  auez  ven  le  pourtraict  ?  Belles  Decretales  de 
Dieu  !"  and  when  he  undertook  to  describe  u  Comment  par  la 
vertus  des  Decretales  est  lor  subtillement  tyre  de  France  en 
Romme,"  he  only  enlarged  upon  a  theme  which  was  long  and 
keenly  appreciated.1  Nor  did  the  humbler  ballad-singer  in  his 

1  When,  in  1583,  President  d'Espeisses,  at  that  time  Advocate  (General 
of  France,  drew  up  for  Henry  III.  an  argument  against  the  reception  of 
the  Council  of  Trent,  lie  dwelt  upon  the  encroachments  of  the  papal 
power,  "  dont  s'est  ensuivi  les  appellations  en  cour  de  Rome,  les  reserva 
tions,  expectatives,  preventions,  bulles,  annates,  dispense,  indulgence,  et 
autres  moyens  de  tirer  les  deniers  de  France,  et  presque  la  France  merne 
a.  Rome"  (Le  Plat  Monumenta  Concil.  Trident.  VII.  258).  A  century 
earlier,  in  1457,  the  chancellor  of  the  church  of  Mainz,  in  writing  to  a 
friend,  a  cardinal,  complains  that  the  highest  benefices  are  openly  sold 
by  Rome,  in  contempt  of  elections  at  home,  and  that  every  means  are  used 
to  extract  money  from  the  faithful.  "  Ecclesiarum  regirnina  non  magis 
merenti  sed  plus  offerenticommittuntur  .  .  .  Excogitaiitur  mille  modi 
quibus  Romana  sedes  aurum  ex  nobis,  tanquam  ex  barbaris,  subtili  ex- 
trahat  ingenio."— (Von  der  Hardt  Concil.  Constant.  T.  I.  P.  v.  p.  182). 
In  1372  we  find  the  whole  body  of  the  clergy  of  Mainz  binding  themselves 
by  a  solemn  agreement  with  each  other  not  to  pay  a  tithe  levied  upon 
them  by  the  papal  court,  and  complaining  with  more  bitterness  than  respect 
of  the  exactions  to  which  they  were  continually  exposed — "  et  propter 
exactiones  papales  perplurimas  in  his  terris  clerici  ad  magnam  pauperta- 
tem  redact!.  .  .  .  Quod  sedes  ipsa,  contra  morern  veterem  sanctorum 
patrurn,  ad  partes  exteras  iiunquam  his  temporibus  mittit  predicatores 
vel  viciorum  correctores,  sed  cottidie  mittit  bene  pompizantes,  et  facta  sua 
proprie  dirigentes,  pecuniarurn  peritissimos  exactores"  (Gudeni  Cod. 
Diplom.  T.  III.  p.  509) — and  at  the  same  time  Frederic,  Archbishop  of 
Cologne,  promised  his  clergy  to  give  them  all  the  assistance  he  safely 
could  in  evading  the  tithe  (Hartzheim  Concil.  German.  T.  IV.  p.  510). 
About  the  year  1300  a  writer  whose  official  position  gave  him  every  oppor 
tunity  of  experience  assures  us  that  when  any  one  in  Christendom  was 
accused  of  simony  the  common  defence  was  to  allege  the  example  of  the 


56  THE     RISE     OF     THE     TEMPORAL     POWER. 

rugged  verse  fail  to  seize  the   popular  appreciation  of  the  mul 
tiform  evils  arising  from  the  same  source— 

Depuis  que  decretz  eurent  ales, 
El  gens  darmes  portarent  males, 
Moines  allnrent  a  clieval, 
En  ce  monde  abunda  tout  mal. 


Roman  court ;  and  he  adds  that  when  two  claimants  for  a  preferment  re 
ferred  their  quarrel  to  Rome,  the  ordinary  practice  was  to  exhaust  them 
with  delays  and  expense.*,  and  after  the  last  penny  had  thus  been  extracted 
from  them,  to  sell  the  benefice  to  a  third  party  at  the  highest  possible 
price  (De  Recuperatione  Terrae  Sanctae  cap.  xvii.— Bongars,  Gesta  Dei 
per  Francos  II.  325).  Half  a  century  earlier,  Robert  Grosteste,  Bishop 
of  Lincoln,  the  most  prominent  ecclesiastic  of  the  period  in  England,  when 
lying  o,n  his  death-bed  did  not  hesitate  to  stigmatize  the  papal  court  as 
Antichrist,  in  consequence  of  the  reckless  injury  to  religion  wrought  by 
its  insatiable  avarice  (Matt.  Paris  Hist.  Anglic  ann.  1253).  Not  long 
before  "  Golias  Episcopus"  dwelt  upon  the  same  theme  with  a  pertinacity 
which  manifests  the  strength  of  the  feeling  of  the  time — 

"  Eomani  capituluru  habent  in  decrctis 
Ut  petentes  audiant  rnanibus  repletis  ; 
Dabis,  aut  non  dabitur,  petunt  quando  petis  : 
Qua  nieusura  serainas  et  eadem  metis." 

(Poems  of  Walter  Mapes,  p.  37  Ed.  Camden  Soc.) 

And,  earlier  still,  in  the  eleventh  century,  the  implacable  virtue  of  St. 
Peter  Damiani  exclaims,  with  indignant  sorrow — 

"  Heu  Sedes  Apostolica 
Orbis  olim  gloria, 
Nunc,  proh  dolor!  efficeris 
Oflicina  Simonis." — (Epist.  ix.  Lib.  IV.) 

That  the  money  value  of  the  papal  authority  was  known  and  acted  upon 
even  in  the  Carlovingian  period  is  well  illustrated  by  the  fact  that  when 
Lupus,  Abbot  of  Ferrieres,  a  man  of  high  repute  and  consideration,  was 
about  to  visit  the  Holy  See  on  business,  he  begs  his  friends  for  presents 
to  take  with  him,  assuming  as  a  matter  of  course  that  nothing  could  be 
effected  in  the  papal  court  without  them— "  et  quoiriam  in  conticiendis 
rebus  apostolici  notitia  indigebo,  ea  vero  sine  munerum  intercessione  inire 
commode  non  potest"  (Lupi  Ferrar.  Epist.  68). 

"All  the  incidental  prerogatives  acquired  by  the  Roman  curia  were  thus 
turned  into  coin.  Few  popes  have  left  a  better  reputation  than  Calixtus 
II.,  and  yet  the  history,  recorded  by  an  eye-witness,  of  the  negotiations  lor 
the  elevation  of  Compostella  to  an  archbishopric,  reveals  a  cynicism  of 
venality  almost  incredible.  Diego  Gelmirez,  who  sought  this  promotion 


THE     FALSE     DECRETALS.  57 

Even  as  Dante  had  expressed  it  more  loftily  two  centuries 
before — 

— il  maladetto  fiore, 
Cli'  ha  disviate  le  pecore  e  gli  agni, 
Perooche  fatto  ha  lupo  del  pastore. 
Per  qnesto  1'Evangelio  e  i  Dottor  magni 
Son  derelitti,  e  solo  a  i  Decretal! 
Si  studia  si,  die  pare  a'lor  vivagni. 
A  qnesto  intende  '1  Papa  e  i  Cardinal!  : 
Non  vanno  i  lor  pensieri  a  Nazzarctte. 

(Paradise  IX.) 


for  his  see,  opened  negotiations  by  sending  200  ounces  of  gold  taken  from 
the  tablets  of  his  altars.  This  was  stolen  on  the  road,  when  he  sent  100 
more,  of  which  only  50  reached  its  destination.  He  then  forwarded  a 
casket  of  gold  weighing  nine  marcs  and  a  large  amount  of  coin  to  Calix- 
tus,  who  had  meanwhile  succeeded  to  Gelasius  II.  His  cautious  envoy, 
finding  Calixtus  hesitate,  only  gave  him  20  ounces  and  reserved  the  rest. 
Finally  Calixtus  acceded,  on  condition  of  receiving  the  reserved  funds 
with  260  marcs  of  silver  in  addition.  To  obtain  this,  the  church  of  Com- 
postella  was  stripped  of  its  ornaments,  and  to  convey  it  safely  it  was  con 
fided  to  some  ecclesiastics  proceeding  to  the  Crusade,  each  man  receiving 
absolution  of  a  year  of  penance  for  every  ounce  of  gold  that  he  should 
succeed  in  carrying  safely.  The  money  was  duly  paid,  when  Calixtus 
complained  that  his  gold  casket  was  partly  silver,  and  demanded  20  ounces 
of  gold  to  make  it  good  ;  his  chamberlain,  moreover,  declared  that  of  200 
ounces  of  gold  received  one- fourth  had  proved  to  be  base  metal,  so  that 
the  exhausted  archbishop  in  expectation  was  obliged  to  furnish  70  ounces 
mor'e.  The  narrator  of  this  tissue  of  swindling  simony  relates  it  all  with 
the  utmost  composure,  as  a  matter  of  course,  only  interrupting  his  narra 
tive  occasionally  to  express  his  admiration  of  the  virtues  of  the  popes  who 
thus  sold  their  spiritual  privileges,  and  of  the  archbishop  who  Avas  so 
liberal  in  his  bribes  (Hist.  Compostell.  Lib.  n.  cap.  4,  0,  10,  16,  20). 
The  naive  account  given  by  Guibert  de  Nogent  (De  Vita  Sua  Lib.  nr. 
cap.  4),  of  the  confirmation  by  Paschal  II.  of  Gaudri's  election  to  the  sec 
of  Laon,  in  1107,  is  an  equally  instructive  illustration  of  the  barefaced 
plundering  and  venality  with  which  the  papal  court  exploited  the  power 
it  had  obtained  over  the  episcopal  office.  Perhaps  the  most  significant 
illustration  of  the  money  value  of  the  papacy,  however,  is  the  fact  that 
among  the  documents  connected  with  the  proposed  canonization  of  Henry 
VI.,  of  England,  towards  the  close  of  the  fifteenth  century,  is  a  memoran 
dum  of  the  expenses  connected  with  obtaining  a  place  in  the  calendar  of 


58  THE     RISE     OF     THE     TEMPORAL     TOWER. 

Chancellor  Gerson,  of  the  University  of  Paris,  one  of  the 
reputed  authors  of  the  Imitation  of  Christ,  did  not  hesitate  to 
assert  that  the  papal  authority  was  founded  in  fraud,  and  he 
found  it  necessary  to  argue  at  much  length  that  the  selling  of 
benefices  by  the  pope  and  other  similar  venality  was  as 
much  tainted  with  simony  as  though  the  transactions  had  been 
perpetrated  by  offenders  of  lower  rank.1  Few  churchmen, 
however,  had  the  audacity  to  take  so  bold  a  stand,  and  it  may 
be  asserted,  as  a  general  proposition,  that  for  eight  centuries 

saints,  amounting  in  all  to  783  ducats— the  first  item  being  a  fee  to  the 
pope  himself  of  100  ducats  !  (Wilkins  Concil.  III.  639.) 

Gerson  does  not  hesitate  to  state  (De  Reform.  Eccles.  cap.  xxiii.-iv.); 
that  no  bishop  elect  could  be  confirmed  in  Rome  without  payment,  and 
that  even  if  he  had  wherewith  to  meet  the  exactions  of  the  papal  court, 
there  was  always  danger  that  he  might  be  outbid  by  some  one  with  more 
money.  Even  when  a  preferment  had  thus  been  sold  to  one  man ,  it  would 
be  taken  from  him  and  resold  to  another.  Among  the  reforms  required 
at  Constance  he  enumerates  the  abuses,  or  rather  the  violence,  rapine 
and  extortion  of  the  apostolic  chamber,  its  pestiferous  regulations,  cen- 
sures,  excommunications,  and  deprivations  (Ibid,  cap.ult.).  Cardinal 
Peter  d'Ailly  is  equally  emphatic.  "  Igitur  qui  non  habent,  aut  habentes 
sed  nolentes  supra  talibus  pacisci,  non  possunt  illicaliquod  ecclesiasticum 
beneficium  obtinere,  ubi  adhaec  ornnis  justitia  et  caritas  et  misericordia  sunt 
exclusce."  (Pet.de  Alliaco  de  Necess.  Reform,  cap.  viii.).  .  .  .  "Nam 
sicut  est  gaudium  augelis  Dei  super  uno  peccatore  penitentiam  agente  sic 
est  gaudium  in  Romana  curia  de  proelatis  tune  cathedrae  morientibus." 
(Ibid.  cap.  ix.)  The  same  preferment  would  sometimes  be  sold  to  two  or 
three  aspirants,  or  benefices  were  sold  which  were  not  vacant,  giving 
rise  to  the  most  intricate  and  disgraceful  quarrels.  (Ibid.  cap.  xxvii.) 

1  Gersoni  Tract,  de  Reform.  Eccles.  cap.  v. — Ejusd.  de  Simonia  abolenda 
cap.  iii.  iv. — The  popes  had  committed  mortal  sin  in  encroaching  on  the 
power  and  jurisdiction  of  the  bishops.— De  Reform.  Eccles.  cap.  xvii. 

In  fact,  the  venality  of  the  papal  court  was  so  uninterrupted  that  it 
finally  became  recognized  as  a  right  and  gravely  defended  by  the  doctors 
of  the  canon  law.  According  to  the  cardinals  commissioned  by  Paul 
III.  in  1538,  to  frame  a  project  of  reformation,  it  was  argued  that  the  pope 
was  the  legitimate  possessor  of  all  benefices,  and  that  therefore  he  had  an 
unquestioned  right  to  sell  them,  and  thus  could  never  be  guilty  of  simony. 
(Le  Plat  Monument.  Trident.  II.  596.)  On  one  occasion  this  question 
was  actually  debated  in  the  college  of  cardinals,  and  the  next  day  Cardi 
nal  Cantarini  felt  himself  obliged  to  address  to  Paul  III.  an  elaborate 
argument  to  disprove  it.— Le  Plat  loc.  cit.  p.  605. 


THE     FALSE     DECRETALS.  59 

the  authority  of  Isidor  and  Ingilram  was  unquestioned,  save 
by  bold  heresiarchs  such  as  Marsiglio  of  Padua  or  Wickliffe, 
who  had  come  to  an  open  rupture  with  Rome  ;!  nor,  when  anti 
quarian  research  began  to  discover  the  anachronisms  with 
which  the  forgeries  were  filled,  did  the  church  abandon  her 
champions.  The  learning  of  Blondel,  it  is  true,  silenced  his 
adversaries,  whose  only  resource  was  to  put  his  books  into  the 
Index,2  but  the  Decretum  Gratiani  could  not  be  mutilated,  and 
the  true  and  the  false  continued  to  appear  in  inextricable  juxta 
position.  It  is  not  the  least  of  the  troubles  of  an  infallible 
church  that  it  cannot  decently  abandon  any  position  once  as 
sumed.  Having  received  the  False  Decretals  as  genuine,  and 
having  based  upon  them  its  claims  to  universal  temporal  supre 
macy,  when  it  was  obliged  to  abandon  the  defence  of  the 
forgeries  it  was  placed  in  a  shockingly  false  position.  To  have 
indorsed  a  lie,  from  the  ninth  to  the  eighteenth  century,  was 
bad  enough,  but  to  give  up  the  fruits  of  that  lie,  so  indus 
triously  turned  to  profitable  account,  was  more  than  could  be 
reasonably  expected  of  "human  nature,  and  accordingly  we  have 
been  authoritatively  informed  even  within  the  last  few  years  that 
the  church  claims  still  as  its  undoubted  right  all  the  power  and 
prerogative  that  it  ever  enjoyed  or  exercised.8  To  maintain  a 
position  so  extravagant  it  is  requisite  to  prove  that  the  teach 
ings/of  the  pseudo-Isidor  are  in  accordance  with  the  history 
and  discipline  of  the  primitive  Apostolic  church,  and  that  they 
were  in  no  way  innovations  on  the  order  of  things  established 
at  the  time  of  their  production.  Intrepid  controversialists 

1  Marsilii  Patav.  Defensoris  Pacis  P.  n.  cap.  xxviii.— Among  the  Wick- 
liffite  errors  condemned  at  the  Council  of  Constance,  was — "  Decretales 
epistolse  sunt  apocryphse,  et  seducunt  a  fide  Christi  ;  et  clerici  sunt  stulti 
qui  student  eos."— Artie.  Condam.  Jo.  Wickliff'.  No.  38  (Concil.  Constant. 
S.  V.). 

2  Decret.  4  Julii  1661. 

3  Among  the  damnable  errors  defined  in  the  Syllabus  of  Dec.  1864,  is 
that  which  teaches  that  "  Romani  pontifices  et  concilia   oecumenica   a 
limitibus  suse  potestatis  recesserunt,  juraprincipum  usurparunt"  (Syllab. 
No.  xxiii.). 


60  THE     RISE     OF     THE     TEMPORAL    POWER. 

have  been  found  ready  to  defend  even  this  desperate  position.1 
They  do  so  by  attempting  to  prove  that  the  pseudo-Isidor  was 
not  compiled  until  the  year  8oO  or  later,  and  that  it  was  not 
known  in  Rome  until  long  afterwards.  The  effort  is  then  made 
to  show,  from  the  acts  of  Gregory  IV.,  Leo  IV.,  Nicholas  I., 
and  other  pontiffs,  that  the  same  principles  were  in  force  at  a 
time  when  the  popes  are  assumed  to  be  ignorant  of  the  exist 
ence  of  Isidor,  and  that  therefore  the  latter  had  no  influence 
in  establishing  those  principles.  There  are  several  gaps  in 
this  chain  of  argument,  of  which  it  will  be  sufficient  to  observe 
that  it  takes  no  cognizance  of  the  fact  that  the  canons  of  In- 
gilram  existed  in  the  eighth  century ;  that  the  principles 
therein  enunciated  are  nearly  identical  with  those  of  the 
pseudo-Isidor  ;  and  that,  as  soon  as  the  strong  hand  of  Charle 
magne  lost  its  terrors,  those  principles  became  gradually  pro 
minent,  to  be  fully  invoked  when  the  tumults  of  civil  war  were 
over. 

To  show  how  great  was  the  revolution  occurring  about  the 
period  when  the  forgeries  appeared,  and  how  intimate  was  the 
connection  between  those  forgeries  and  the  changes  which  they 
were  so  well  designed  to  create,  will  require  a  detailed  exami 
nation  into  a  few  points  relating  to  the  mutual  dependence  of 
the  secular  and  clerical  power  before  and  after  the  dissemina 
tion  of  the  Isidorian  doctrines.  It  will,  I  think,  be  found  that 
the  coincidence  between  the  appearance  of  the  forgeries  and 
the  change  in  the  status  of  the  church  is  so  remarkable  that 
the  much-abused  argument,  post  Itoc,  propter  hoc,  may  fairly  be 
applied  to  them  as  respectively  cause  and  effect. 

The  lapse  of  a  thousand  years  has  well-nigh  obliterated  all 
traces  of  this  revolution  in  the  relative  position  of  the  secular 
and  ecclesiastical  powers.  In  the  new  order  of  things,  the 
principles  then  established  became  the  especial  prerogative  of 
the  class  which  controlled  all  learning  and  education  ;  and  as 

1  D.  Gcorg.  Phillips  (Kirchenrecht,  1851)  assumes  this,  and  draws  from 
it  the  conclusion — "  Pseudo-Isidoricam  collectionem  ingenuis  juris  fonti- 
bus  indebite  annumerari"  (ap.  Denziger). 


THE     CHURCH     AND     THE     STATE.  61 

those  principles  claimed  obedience  only  as  founded  in  divine 
law,  and  as  in  force  from  the  earliest  beginnings  of  Christianity, 
evidence  of  their  novelty  is  not  to  be  looked  for  on  the  surface 
of  monkish  chronicle  or  papal  decretal.  It  is  only  by  a  some 
what  minute  investigation  of  laws  and  canons,  and  by  a  com 
parison  of  individually  trivial  details,  that  we  can  roughly 
trace  the  outlines  of  the  struggle  and  see  the  origin  of  those 
theories  of  ecclesiastical  superiority  which  left  so  profound  an 
impress  on  the  Middle  Ages,  and  which  have  in  no  slight  de 
gree  moulded  our  modern  civilization. 

I  should  add  that  two  of  the  questions  thus  presenting  them 
selves  for  investigation  have  required  so  much  space  for  their 
consideration,  that  it  has  seemed  best  to  detach  them  from  the 
rest  of  the  group,  and  discuss  them  in  the  form  of  separate 
essays  on  the  immunity  claimed  by  the  clergy  from  secular 
jurisdiction,  and  on  the  use  made  by  the  church  of  its  power  of 
excommunication. 


THE  CHURCH  AND  THE  STATE. 

'It  lias  been  indicated  above  that  the  Carlovingian  polity, 
inheriting  the  traditions  of  the  elder  empire,  rendered  the 
church  completely  subordinate  to  the  state.  When,  indeed, 
the  monarch  regulated  the  internal  affairs  of  the  ecclesiastical 
establishment,  he  was  only  exercising  his  undoubted  preroga 
tive.  The  kingly  office  conferred  this  authority  even  upon  the 
Arianism  of  the  Wisigothic  kings,  for  the  preface  to  the  coun 
cil  of  Agde  in  506  declares  it  to  be  convened  by  the  permission 
of  Alaric  II.,  and  its  first  business  was  to  offer  up  prayers  in 
gratitude  for  allowing  it  to  assemble.1  The  fresh  Christianity 
of  Clovis  enjoyed  similar  power.  An  address  to  him  by  the 

1  Concil.  Agathens.  arm.  506,  Praefat. 


62  THE     RISE     OF    THE     TEMPORAL     POWER. 

council  of  Orleans  in  511  shows  that  he  had  convoked  the  pre 
lates,  that  he  presented  to  them  the  subjects  for  discussion,  and 
that  its  canons  required  his  confirmation  to  become  authorita 
tive.1  One  of  these  canons,  moreover,  prohibits  the  entrance 
into  the  church  of  any  layman  without  the  permission  of  the 
secular  government.2  The  preface  to  the  canons  of  another 
council,  held  at  Orleans  in  554,  indicates  in  a  similar  manner 
the  dependence  of  the  church  on  the  legislative  function  of  the 
state.3  A  century  later  there  was  an  attempt  made  to  escape 
from  this  subjection,  but  it  was  promptly  repressed  by  Sigebert 
II.,  who  laid  down  the  rule,  in  express  terms,  that,  no  council 
should  be  held  without  his  permission  ;  and  he  consequently 
forbade  the  assembling  of  one  which  had  been  convoked,  for 
the  single  reason  that  his  assent  had  not  been  asked.4 

O 

Charlemagne,  concentrating  in  his  own  person  both  the 
Roman  and  the  Frankish  traditions,  issued  his  rescripts  on  ec 
clesiastical  matters  with  fully  as  much  authority  as  when  legis 
lating  for  concerns  purely  secular.  Adelhard  of  Corbie,  one 
of  Louis  le  Debonnaire's  chosen  counsellors,  has  left  us  a  de 
scription  of  the  procedure  customary  at  the  assemblies  of  the 
Franks,  by  which  we  learn  that  the  prelates  and  the  nobles  sat 
separately  to  debate  the  affairs  appertaining  specially  to  each 
class;  that  the  capitularies  or  laws  were  submitted  to  them  by 
the  emperor  for  debate,  but  that  the  emperor  finally  decided 
for  himself,  according  to  the  light  thrown  upon  the  subject. 
No  difference,  either  in  principle  or  practice,  is  therefore  recog 
nizable  in  the  treatment  of  ecclesiastical  and  of  secular  affairs, 
and  as  both  the  initiative  and  the  decision  thus  belonged  to  the 
sovereign,  his  power  over  both  was  limited  only  by  the 
relations  which  chanced  to  exist  at  the  moment  between 
his  subjects  and  himself.5  Thus,  throughout  the  whole  body 

1  Epist.  Synod.  Aurel.  I.  ann.  511.  2  Ejusd.  can.  4. 

3  Concil.  Aurel. V.  ann.  554,  Prooem. 

4  Baiuz.  I.  101 — "  Ut  sine  nostra  scientia  concilium  in  regno  nostro  non 
agatur." 

5  Hincmari  Instit.  Reg.  cap.  3-4,  35.     Hincmar  alludes  to  Adelhard  as 
"  inter  primos  consiliarios"  of  Louis 


THE     CHURCH     AND     THE     STATE.  63 

of  the  capitularies,  political  and  clerical  regulations  are  so  in 
timately  mingled  that  separation  is  almost  impossible,  showing 
that  no  thought  of  distinguishing  them  existed  at  the  period, 
and  that  no  doubt  was  entertained  of  the  competency  of  the 
crown  with  regard  to  either. 

We  have  already  seen  that  the  Roman  pontiffs  were  the 
subjects  of  Charlemagne,  submitting  themselves  without  re 
monstrance  to  his  jurisdiction.  The  church  thus  accepted  his 
sovereignty,  and  it  was  exercised  impartially  over  all  ranks 
of  the  hierarchy.  Alcuin  exalts  his  power  as  superior  in 
every  respect  to  that  of  the  pope  and  the  Constantinopolitan 
emperors.1  Paulinus,  Archbishop  of  Aquileia,  in  an  epistle  to 
Charlemagne,  exhorts  him  to  a  due  and  vigorous  exercise  of 
his  authority  over  the  internal  affairs  of  the  church  as  well  as 
of  the  state,  pointing  out  certain  matters  in  the  former  as  espe 
cially  requiring  his  attention.2  Even  before  his  consecration 
as  emperor,  a  prelate,  whom  we  shall  see  hereafter  complain 
ing  bitterly  of  the  exercise  of  the  imperial  authority  over  his 
own  person,  had  no  scruple  in  declaring  that  the  power  of 
Peter  was  confined  to  Heaven  and  that  the  church  militant  on 
earth  was  subjected  exclusively  to  the  control  of  the  King  of 
the  Franks. 

Coeli  habet  hie  claves,  proprias  te  jussit  habere, 

Tu  regis  ecclesige,  nam  regit  ille  poll  ; 
Tu  rcgis  ejus  opes,  clcrum,  populumque  gubernas 

Hie  te  ccelicolas  ducet  ad  usque  choros.3 

Even  the  assembled  wisdom  of  the  church  did  not  consider 
that  the  divine  guidance  would  emancipate  it  from  the  imperial 
control,  and  the  proceedings  of  synods  were  submitted  as  hum 
bly  to  Charlemagne  as  those  of  the  earlier  councils  to  the  suc 
cessors  of  Constantine.  The  council  of  Aries,  in  813,  respect- 

1  Alcuini  Epist.  4  (Canisii  Thesaur.  II.  392)  —  "cifiteris  prrcfatis  digni- 
tatibus  potentia  excellentiorem,  sapientia  clariorem,  regni  dignitate  subli- 
mioreni." 

2  Baluz.  et  Mansi  Miscell.  II.  11. 

3  Theodulf.  Aurelians.  Carm.  Lib.  n.  No.  vi. 


64  THE     RISE     OF     THE     TEMPORAL     POWER. 

fully  sent  to  him  its  series  of  canons  with  a  humble  request 
that  he  would  add  what  might  be  wanting,  alter  what  he  should 
disapprove,  and  ratify  what  met  his  views.1  Nor  was  this  con 
fined  simply  to  questions  of  discipline,  for  matters  of  faith  and 
doctrine  were  acknowledged  to  be  equally  under  his  control. 
The  decisions  of  the  council  of  Frankfort  in  794  did  not  ac 
quire  legal  force  until  a  capitulary,  issued  in  the  sole  name  of 
the  monarch,  defined  the  exact  amount  of  veneration  with 
which  images  were  to  be  regarded.2  Perhaps,  however,  the 
most  remarkable  instance  of  his  spiritual  authority  is  to  be 
found  in  the  manner  in  which  he  forced  upon  the  church 
the  well-known  alteration  in  the  Nicene  creed,  which  placed 
Rome  at  so  much  disadvantage  in  its  contests  with  Constanti 
nople. 

The  Nicene  symbol,  as  modified  by  the  First  General  Coun 
cil  of  Constantinople  and  confirmed  by  that  of  Chalcedon,  de 
scribed  the  Holy  Ghost  as  proceeding  from  the  Father.  When 
the  Spanish  Wisigoths  were  converted  from  Arianism,  by 
some  accident  or  oversight  the  confession  of  f'aitli  which  they 
adopted  ascribed  the  procession  of  the  Holy  Ghost  to  the  Son 
as  well  as  to  the  Father.8  Thus  altered,  the  symbol  gradually 
spread  from  Spain  into  France,  and  when  Charlemagne  took 
exception  to  the  proceedings  of  the  Second  General  Council  of 
Nica>a  concerning  image  worship,  he  also  complained  that  the 
faitli  had  been  vitiated  by  not  adopting  the  Frankish  creed  in 
this  respect.4  Adrian  I.,  in  his  answer  to  Charlemagne,  con- 

1  Condi.  Arelatens.  VI.  aim.  813.     (Harduin.  IV.  100(5.) 
'2  Carol.  Mag.  Rescript,  de  non  adorandis  imaginibus  (Goldast.  Const. 
Imp.  II.  2). 

3  Coneil.  Tolctan.  III. aim.  589;  IV.  ann.  638  (Harduin.  III.  4(50,  r,TO)  . 

4  Lib.  Carolin.  Lib.  in.  cap. i.,  iii.— At  the  Nicene  council,  the  Patriarch 
Tarasius,  in  defining  the  faith,  had  admitted  that  the  Holy  Ghost  proceeded 
from  the  Father  by  the  Son  (Coneil.  (Ecum.  vn.  Act.  iii.— Harduin.  IV. 
131) .     Charlemagne  insisted  that  it  should  be  from  the  Father  and  the 
Son.     The  council,  in  fact,  only  formally  repeated  the  Constantinopolitan 
symbol,  which  omits  all  mention  of  the  Son  (Act.  vii.  Ibid.  p.  453-4)  — 
TO  ex.  TW  TTX.- ^s  lKrro£wcpevw — but  the  Latin  versions  have  "  qui  ex  Patre 


THE     CHURCH     AND     THE     STATE.  65 

tented  himself  with  proving  from  the  fathers  that  the  council 
was  right  and  the  Frankish  creed  wrong.1  Charlemagne  did 
not  yield,  and  in  809  caused  the  matter  to  be  taken  up  by  the 
council  of  Aix-la-Chapelle,  which  insisted  that  the  addition  of 
"filioque"  to  the  creed,  as  chanted  in  the  French  churches, 
was  the  only  Catholic  doctrine,2  and  Charlemagne  dispatched 
envoys  to  argue  the  matter  with  Leo  III.,  sending  also  a  letter 
in  which  he  insisted  on  the  correctness  of  his  faith  in  this  re 
spect.  Leo  was  too  completely  under  the  imperial  domination 
to  contest  the  point.  He  admitted  that  to  believe  in  the  pro 
cession  of  the  Holy  Ghost  from  both  Father  and  Son  was  requi 
site  for  salvation  ;  but,  mindful  of  the  anathema  launched  by 
the  council  of  Chalcedon  against  all  who  should  impiously  deem 
the  Constantinopolitan  symbol  insufficient  and  dare  to  change 
it,3  he  refused  to  authorize  the  insertion  of  the  words  in  the 
creed,  while,  after  considerable  pressure,  he  agreed  that  they 
might  be  taught  and  chanted — an  unintelligible  compromise 
with  his  conscience,  elucidated,  perhaps,  by  his  action  in  hav 
ing  the  unadulterated  creed  engraved  on  silver,  in  both  Greek 
and  Latin,  and  hung  at  the  portal  of  the  basilica  of  St.  Peter.* 
Charlemagne  triumphed.  His  form  of  the  creed  was  publicly 
recited  in  the  daily  service  of  the  church  throughout  the  empire, 
was  finally  adopted  by  Rome  itself,  and,  notwithstanding  that 
it  was  the  leading  ostensible  cause  of  the  schism  between  the 
Eastern  and  Western  churches,  has  been  adhered  to  with  the 
tenacity  inseparable  from  infallibility.5 

Louis  le  Debonnaire,  notwithstanding  his  veneration  for  the 

Filioque  procedit"  (Ibid.  pp.  454,  747).  Hardouin,  while  giving  this  in 
terpolated  version,  frankly  admits  that  it  is  not  so  in  the  MSS.,  and  that 
the  only  authority  for  it  is  the  assertion  of  Cardinal  Julian  at  the  Council 
of  Florence  (where  this  point  was  fiercely  argued  between  the  Greeks  and 
Latins)  that  he  had  seen  an  old  MS.  with  this  reading  (Ibid.  p.  454). 

1  Hadriani  PP.  I.  Epist.  52  (Ibid.  p.  775). 

2  Hartzheim  Concil.  German.  I.  390-1. 

3  Concil.  Chalced.  Act.  v.     (Harduin.  II.  454-5.) 

4  Ilartzheim  I.  391-0.— Harduin.  IV.  970  sqq. 

5  Concil.  Trident.  Sess.  in.     Decret.  de  Symbol.  Fidei. 

6* 


66  THE     RISE     OF     THE     TEMPORAL     POWER. 

church,  considered  himself  to  be  its  head  and  ruler  in  no  less 
degree  than  had  Charlemagne.  One  of  his  edicts  addressed  to 
the  bishops  assumes  their  episcopal  authority  to  be  derived 
from  him,  and  that  he  is  personally  responsible  for  their  proper 
exercise  of  it.1  When  his  pious  zeal  assembled  the  council  of 
Aix-la-Chapelle  in  810,  to  reform  the  corruptions  of  the  church, 
the  stringent  canons  drawn  up  to  meet  his  wishes  were  promul 
gated  under  his  authority  ;  his  commands  enforced  obedience 
to  them,  and  any  infraction  of  them  was  punishable  by  him.'2 
In  828,  when  he  ordered  four  councils  of  his  bishops  to  be  held 
in  various  parts  of  his  dominions  to  consult  upon  ecclesiastical 
matters,  he  instructed  them  that  the  results  of  their  delibera 
tions  should  be  recorded  by  sworn  notaries,  and  not  be  divulged 
until  the  proper  time,  evidently  because,  as  he  was  unable  to 
be  present,  he  did  not  wish  them  made  public  until  he  should 
sanction  them  authoritatively  ;  and  at  the  same  time  he  gave 
his  Missi  Dominici  stringent  orders  to  examine  into  the  lives 
of  the  bishops  and  clergy,  and  report  to  him  how  they  discharged 
their  functions  and  fulfilled  their  duties.3  An  Imperial  Diet, 
indeed,  boldly  affirmed  that  the  emperor's  power  over  the  church 
was  superior  to  that  of  the  pope  himself.4 

Even  after  the  civil  war,  as  late  as  845,  the  bishops  of  the 
synod  of  Thionville  addressed  Lothair,  Louis,  and  Charles, 
entreating  them  to  remove  the  corruptions  of  the  church,  for 
the  governance  of  which  they  were  responsible  to  God.5  The 
tottering  power  of  young  Charles  le  Chauve  still  required  that' 
the  canons  of  synods,  relating  solely  to  church  affairs,  should  be 
submitted  to  him  for  confirmation,  even  as  the  sanctio  of  the 

1  Capit.  Ludov.  Pii  arm.  823  cap.  3,  4.     Cf.  Capitul.  Lib.  vi.  c.  432. 

2  Mirsei  Cod.  Donat.  Piar.  c.  13. 

3  Capit.  Ludov.  Pii  aim.  828. 

4  Imperialem  majestatem  plus  posse  in    administranda  ecclesia  quam 
pontificiam.— Goldast.  I.  188. 

5  Si  ....  ab  hac  eadem  ecclesia,  vobis  ad  gubernandum  commissa, 
pro  qua  ex  mimsterio  regali  reddituri  estis  Regi  Regum  rationem  in  die 
judicii,  tarn   multiplices  ac    perniciosas  corruptionis    pestilentias  vultis 
amovere  (Capit.  Carol.  Calvi  Tit.  n,  cap.  1). 


THE     CHURCH     A  N  D^   T  II  E     STATE.  67 

Roman  and  Greek  Emperors  bad  been  requisite  to  give  effect 
to  tiie  dispositio  of'tbe  earlier  councils.  Tbis  was  not  an  empty 
sbow  of  unmeaning  deference,  for  on  one  occasion  we  find  him 
annulling  many  of  them  with  bis  simple  veto  ;T  and  in  847,  the 
Council  of  Mainz,  in  appealing  to  Louis  le  Germanique  for  the 
confirmation  of  its  canons,  employs  terms  which  show  that 
without  it  they  had  little  prospect  of  obedience.2  The  successor 
of  St.  Peter,  himself,  had  not  yet  thought  of  escaping  from 
temporal  jurisdiction,  for  in  the  same  year  we  find  Leo  IV. 
promising  implicit  obedience  to  the  laws  of  the  Emperor  Lo- 
thair  and  of  his  predecessors.3 

Ingilram  and  Isidor,  however,  taught  a  doctrine  very  dif 
ferent  from  this  ;  and,  when  the  time  was  ripe,  their  authority 
was  duly  brought  forward  to  prevent  all  further  interference 
of  royalty  with  sacerdotal  legislation.  As  early  as  833,  when 
Gregory  IV.  was  summoned  from  Italy  by  the  sons  of  Louis 
to  render  their  father's  degradation  complete,  and  the  pope 
could  scarcely  nerve  himself  to  the  awful  task,  Wala,  Abbot 
of  Corbie,  the  fierce  promoter  of  the  rebellion,  endeavored  to 
strengthen  his  wavering  resolution  by  producing  a  collection 
of  papal  decretals  proving  that  the  Vicegerent  of  Christ  was 
empowered  to  judge  mankind,  and  was  not  to  be  judged  of 
men.4  Gregory  was  delighted  at  thus  finding  himself  pos- 

1  Capit.  Carol.  Calv.  Tit.  vii.      The  previous  year  the  synod  of  Ver- 
neuil  had   suggested  various  laws  respecting   ecclesiastical   matters   to 
Charles,  entreating  their  enactment  (Baluz.  II.  13-20). 

2  Concil.  Mogunt.  aim.  847  can.  xxxi.  (Hartzheim  II.  160)  . 

3  De  capitulis  .  .  .  vestris  .  .  .  irrefragabiliter  custodiendis   ac   con- 
servandis  quantum  valuimus  et  valemus,  Christ!  propitio,  et  nunc  et  in 
oevum,  nos  conservaturos  modis  omnibus  profitemur  (Gratian.  Decret. 
Dist.  x.  can.  9). 

4  Paschasii  Radberti  de  Vit.  Walie  Lib.  n.  cap.  16.    The  terms  in  which 
Paschasius  recounts  this,  and  the  comfort  which  these  hitherto  unknown 
decretals  gave  to  the  shrinking  pope,  leave  little  doubt  that  they  were 
the  forgeries  of  Isidor.     After  describing  Gregory's  alarm  at  the  threats 
of  Louis's  bishops,  he  proceeds — "  Unde  et  ei  dedimus  nonnulla  sancto 
rum  patrum  auctoritate  firmata,  proedecessorumque  suorum  conscripta, 
quibus  nullus  con'radicere  possit  quod  ...  in  eo  esset  omnis  auctoritas 


68  THE     RISE     OF     THE     TEMPORAL    POWER. 

sessed  of  powers  hitherto  unknown  to  the  papal  canonists,  and 
was  ready  enough  to  declare  that  the  pontifical  power  was  supe 
rior  to  the  imperial ;'  but  the  son  of  Charlemagne,  even  in  his 
adversity,  was  heir  to  too  much  traditional  veneration  for  such 
doctrines  to  obtain  general  currency.  Gregory,  in  spite  of 
his  new-found  prerogatives,  returned  to  Rome  amid  unseemly 
derision,2  and  his  pretensions  remained  practically  in  abeyance 
until  those  who  had  provoked  them  were  ready  to  be  their 
victims.  In  845  appeared  the  Capitularies  of  Benedict  the 
Levite.  This  compilation  purports  to  contain  the  Carlovingian 
legislation  digested  in  an  accessible  form,  and  was  for  the  most 
part  extracted  from  the  collections  of  Riculfus  of  Main/,  the 
sponsor  for  the  Isidorian  canons.  The  work  of  Benedict  con 
tains  a  large  body  of  genuine  laws,  thickly  interspersed  with 
extracts  from  the  new  supposititious  documents — principally 
from  the  canons  of  Ingilram,  though  Isidor  likewise  furnishes 
a  considerable  number.  The  object  of  the  whole  is  so  evi 
dently  to  give  currency  to  the  new  doctrines  that  some  critics 
have  been  led  to  the  conclusion  that  Benedict  must  also  have 
been  the  real  author  of  the  False  Decretals.3  These  Capitu 
laries  were  unquestionably  received  and  used  as  authoritative, 
and  such  customs  as  they  did  not  simply  record  they  assuredly 
did  much  to  introduce  and  strengthen.  In  them  the  principle 
is  distinctly  and  repeatedly  declared  that  the  imperial  legisla 
tion  is  subordinate  to  the  sacerdotal,  and  that  in  any  conflict 
between  them  the  former  must  give  way.  Laws  contrary  to 
the  decretals  of  the  popes  or  of  other  prelates  are  asserted  to  be 


beati  Petri  excellens  et  potestas  viva,  a  quo  oporteret  universes  judicari, 
ita  utipse  a  nemine  judicandus  esset." 

1  Gregor.  PP.  IV.  Epist.  de  Compar.  Regim.     (Migne's  Patrolog.  T. 
104,  p.  299.)     He  admitted,  however,  that  he  himself  was  subject  to  trial 
and  judgment. 

2  Hiucmari  Epist.  xxvu. 

3  Knust  is  of  this  opinion,  and  Denziger  labors  hard  to  establish  it.    Of 
Benedict's  Capitularies,  57,  being  about  five  per  cent,  of  the  whole,  are 
Isidorian. 


THE     CHURCH     AND    THE     STATE.  69 

null  and  void  ;!  the  anathema  is  pronounced  against  any  sove 
reign  who  sets  aside  the  canons  ;2  and  on  the  authority  of  Pius 
I.,  an  humble  Roman  bishop  of  the  second  century,  the  broad 
assertion  is  made  that  the  imperial  law  is  to  be  controlled  by 
the  divine  law — a  postulate  capable  of  indefinite  extension.3 
That  these  were  not  merely  assertions  of  a  theoretical  prin 
ciple,  but  that  they  were  generally  enforced  and  practically  ad 
mitted,  will  be  manifest  from  various  transactions  alluded  to 
hereafter,  which  show  how  completely  the  supremacy  of  royalty 
was  set  aside  and  the  superiority  of  the  spiritual  jurisdiction 
became  established. 

The  recognition  of  the  immunity  of  the  ecclesiastical  body 
from  all  liability  to  the  secular  tribunals  was  one  of  the  prin 
cipal  incidents  in  this  revolution.  It  forms  so  curious  an  epi 
sode  in  the  history  of  legislation,  that  its  proper  consideration 
would  carry  us  too  far  from  our  present  subject,  and  it,  there 
fore,  is  treated  in  a  subsequent  essay  more  at  length  than  would 
be  suitable  here.  Suffice  it,  therefore,  for  the  present,  to  say 
that,  in  defiance  of  all  precedent,  the  clergy  successfully  eman 
cipated  themselves  from  the  jurisdiction  of  the  secular  power, 
and  established  the  principle  that  an  ecclesiastic  could  only 
be  tried  by  ecclesiastics  and  be  judged  by  ecclesiastical  law. 
Not/ content  even  with  this,  an  attempt  was  made  to  establish 

1  Capitul.  Lib.  vu.  c.  346  (Ingilram.  can.  39  ;  Gratian.  Dist.  ix.  can.  4). 

2  Capitul.  Lib.  vi.  c.  322  (Ingilram.  can.  80;  Gratian.  caus.  25,  q.  1, 
can.  11). 

3  Capitul.  Add.  in.  c.  17  (Gratian.  Dist.  x.  can.  1).     The  application 
of  these  principles  can  be  traced  with  great  clearness  in  Iceland,  which 
was  converted  after  they  had  become  firmly  established.     In  1053,  within 
less  than  half  a  century  after  the  establishment  of  Christianity,  the  sacer 
dotal  power  was  already  strong  enough  to  procure  an  enactment  that 
whenever  the  popular  laws  conflicted  with  the  ecclesiastical,  the  former 
must  give  way  (Schlegel,  Comment,  in  Grama's,  P-  xxiii.).     This  would 
seem  even  to  be  a  superfluous  precaution  in  view  of  the  fact  that  in  the 
Logretto,  or  central  high  court,  when  any  difference  was  found  to  exist 
in  the  copies  of  the  code  in  the  hands  of  the  judges,  those  in  possession 
of  the  bishops  were  held  to  present  the  authentic  text  (Gr&gds,  Sect.  n.). 


70  THE     RISE     OF     THE     TEMPORAL     POWER. 

the  superiority  of  the  church  in  another  manner  by  claiming 
for  it  inviolable  sanctity,  so  that  the  humblest  clerk  could 
not  even  be  accused  by  a  layman.  This  principle  was  too 
monstrous  to  be  successful  even  in  that  age  of  ignorance,  and 
the  canons  which  express  it  in  the  most  unqualified  manner 
are  mingled  with  others  whose  careful  enumeration  of  the 
causes  of  incompetency  in  witnesses  shows  that  the  more  gen 
(.Till  regulations  were  rejected  by  the  common  sense  of  man 
kind. 

Bishops  were  especially  the  objects  of  this  tender  precaution. 
As  early  as  the  fourth  century  a  council  of  Carthage  had  for 
bidden  the  reception  of  accusations  against  bishops  on  the  part 
of  disreputable  persons,  and  the  council  of  Chalcedon  had  re 
peated  the  prohibition.1  At  that  period  such  legislation  only 
affected  the  internal  regulations  of  the  church  ;  but  when  the 
principle  was  interpolated  in  the  laws  of  Charlemagne,  it  as 
sumed  a  vastly  wider  significance,  and  became  applicable  to 
temporal  as  well  as  to  spiritual  matters.2  It  is  true  that  the 
episcopal  dignity  had  been  protected  from  false  accusations  by 
a  constitution  of  Valentinian  III.  in  439,  imposing  a  fine  of 
thirty  pounds  of  gold  as  a  penalty  for  such  transgressions;3 
but  this  severity  was  not  imitated  by  the  barbarians,  and  the 
church  could  only  defend  itself  by  threatening  excommunica 
tion  in  such  cases,  without  appealing  for  aid  to  the  secular 
power.4  Ingilram,  Isidor,  and  their  followers,  however,  took 
much  higher  ground.  St.  Clement  was  made  to  assert  that 
Christ  had  forbidden  laymen  from  accusing  their  pastors.5 
Evaristus,  a  pope  of  the  first  century,  was  authority  for  the 
declaration  that  no  bishop  could  be  accused  by  the  common 

1  Concil.  Carthaff.  III.  c.  7.— Condi.  Chalced.  can.  21. 

2  Capit.  Carol.  Ma.sr.  I.  ann.  789  §§29,  34 ;  Capit.  aim.  794  §  34. 

3  Const.  23  Cod.  i.  3.  4  Concil.  Agathens.  ann.  506  c.  32. 

5  Sed  et  laicos  ab  eorura  accusatione  et  vexatione  semper  repellere  de- 
bere  rogabat,  et  cunctos  sibi  subditos  esse  pmecipiebat.  .  .  .  Majores 
vero  a  minoribus  nee  accusari  nee  judicari  ullatenus  posse  dieebat. — 
Pseudo-Clement.  Epist.  1. 


THE     CHURCH     AND     THE     STATE.  71 

people.1  Pius  I.  was  cited  to  show  that  the  sheep  shall  not 
reprove  their  pastor,  nor  the  people  accuse  their  bishop,  for 
the  disciple  is  not  above  his  master  nor  the  slave  above  his 
lord.2  Calixtus  I.  was  made  responsible  for  the  rule  that  no 
accusations  against  prelates  were  to  be  entertained,  for  children 
are  not  to  reprove  their  fathers  nor  are  slaves  to  attack  their 
lords  ;3  and  St.  Cornelius  was  quoted  to  show  that  such  accu 
sations  were  null,  and  were  therefore  harmless  to  the  accused.4 
This  constant  repetition  proves  the  importance  attached  to  the 
principle,  and  the  persistent  efforts  made  to  obtain  its  recogni 
tion,  not  only  as  applicable  to  prelates,  but  to  the  whole  body 
of  the  clergy.  Clerical  peccadilloes  were  declared  to  be  ob 
jects  of  toleration  and  not  of  punishment,5  and  a  canon  was 
adopted  from  Ingilram  and  Isidor  which  shielded  priests  from 
all  accusations  brought  by  those  whose  virtue  and  orthodoxy 
were  not  known  and  approved.6  Even  this  was  not  enough, 
and  Ingilram  produced  a  canon  declaring  as  a  general  principle 
that  the  evidence  of  a  layman  against  an  ecclesiastic  was  never 
to  be  received  ;7  while  Isidor  quoted  the  supposititious  proceed- 

1  Non  est  a  plebevel  avulgaribus  liominibus  arguendus  vel  accusandus 
episcopus,  licet  sit  inordinatus. — Pseudo-Evarist,  Epist.  1  (Gratian.  Cans. 
ii.  q.  5  can.  1). 

2  Oves  pastorem  suum  non  reprehendant,  plebs  episcopum  non  accuset, 
nee  vulgus  eum  arguat,  quoniam  non  est  discipulus  super  mao-istrum, 
neque  scrvus  supra  dominum.—  Pseudo-Pii  Epist.  1  (Gratian.  Caus.  vi. 
q.  1  can.  9). 

:i  Criminationes  contra  doctorem  nemo  suscipiat,  quia  non  oportet 
filios  patres  reprohendere,  nee  servos  dominos  lacerare.— Pseudo-Calixt. 
Epist.  1  (Ivon.  Decret.  P.  v.  cap.  234.  Cf.  Capital.  Lib.  vi.  c.  357;  Lib. 
v.  c.  315) . 

4  Qaoniam  tales  accusationes  vim  non  habent,  neque  eis  nocere  possunt. 
Pseudo-Cornel.  Epist.  2. 

5  Pastor  ecclesise  .  .  .  pro  reprobis  moribus  magis  est  tolerandus  quam 
distringendus.—  Pseudo-Anaclet.  Epist.  5  (Remig.  Curiens.  Episc.  can. 
17). 

6  Quorum  tides,  vita,  et  libertas  iiescitur  non  possunt  sacerdotes  accu- 
sare.— Ingilram.  c.  16;  Pseudo-Calixt.  Epist.  2;  Pseudo-Fabian.  Epist.  2 
(Capital.  Lib.  vi.  cap.  359) . 

7  Testimonium   laici   adversus    clericum    nemo   suscipiat.  — Ingilram. 
can.  73. 


72  THE     RISE     OF     THE     TEMPORAL     POWER. 

ings  of  a  council  said  to  have  been  held  in  Rome  under  Syl 
vester  I.,  in  325,  which  repeated  the  canon  of  Ingilram,  with 
the  addition  that  no  layman  should  bring  a  charge  against  a 
clerk.1  The  former  of  these  was  formally  promulgated  as  a 
rule  of  the  church  by  the  council  of  Mainz  in  847  ;2  while  the 
latter  is  adopted  in  a  law  attributed  to  Louis  le  Debonnaire  in 
the  Lombard  code,  with  a  change  which  denied  to  clerks  the 
power  of  accusing  laymen — thus  separating  the  two  classes 
entirely,  and  placing  them  upon  equal  ground.3  Impolitic  as 
this  might  be,  it  was  at  all  events  fair,  and  it  accorded  with 
another  passage  in  the  forgeries,4  but  though  it  subserviently 
became  recognized  to  some  extent,  owing  to  the  influence  of 
the  Isidorian  decretals,5  yet  the  clergy  were  not  prepared  to 
surrender  the  power  which  they  were  rapidly  acquiring  over 
the  laity  by  the  extension  of  their  jurisdiction.  The  Carlo- 
vingian  policy  employed  them  as  an  efficient  instrument  of 
civilization,  and  to  deprive  them  of  the  right  to  accuse  would 
have  been  to  deprive  them  of  much  of  their  influence.  The 
council  of  Mainz,  in  813,  made  it  the  duty  of  every  priest, 
under  penalty  of  degradation,  to  see  that  the  misdeeds  of  his 
parishioners  were  duly  punished  ;6  and  that  this  power  was 
enlarged  rather  than  restricted  will  be  seen  presently  when  we 
come  to  consider  the  jurisdiction  of  the  church. 

1  Constitutum  est  ut  nullus  laicus  crimen  clerico  audeat  inferre  .  .  . 
testimonium  laici  adversus  clericuin  nemo  recipiat. — Pseudo-Sylvester. 
Cf.  Pseudo-Marcellin.  Epist.  3. 

2  Concil.  Mogunt.  ann.  847  can.  7. — This  was,  however,  unsuccessful, 
for  another  council  of  Mainz,  a  few  years  later,  expressly  admits  secular 
accusers. — Concil.  Mogunt.  ann.  851  can.  8. 

3  LI.  Longob.  Ludov.  Pii  iv.     (Lib.  n.  Tit.  51  1.  12.) 

4  Pseudo-Fabian.  Epist.  2.     See  also  the  earlier  forgery  of  the  Roman 
council  under  Sylvester,  can.  xiv.  (Migae's  Patrol.  VIII.  840),  which  is 
held  by  critics  to  have  been  fabricated  in  the  sixth  century. 

5  Gratian.    Caus.  2  q.  7  can.  6. — In   the  twelfth   century,  Alexander 
III.  laid  this  down  as  a  general  rule  (Jaffe,  Regest.  p.  813)  ;  and  it  seems 
to  have  been  in  full  vigor  in  the  Scottish  law  of  the  fourteenth  century. 
"  Approbatione,  acquietatione,  et  testimonio   repelluntur   .    .    .    clerici 
contra  laicos  et  e  converso." — Robert!  I.  Scot.  Stat.  n.  cap.  34. 

6  Concii.  Mogunt.  ann.  813  can.  7. 


THE     CHURCH     AND     THE     STATE.  73 

The  inviolability  thus  claimed  for  the  clerical  office  was  not 
left  entirely  to  theoretical  declarations  of  principle.  Charle 
magne  had  been  induced  to  adopt  one  of  the  canons  of  the 
fabricated  council  of  Home  under  Sylvester,  according  to 
which  it  was  degreed  that  for  the  conviction  of  a  bishop  the 
testimony  of  seventy-two  witnesses  was  requisite,  while  forty- 
four  were  necessary  in  the  case  of  a  priest,  thirty-seven  in  that 
of  a  cardinal  deacon,  and  seven  for  a  sub-deacon — all  to  be 
heads  of  families  and  professing  Christians.1  Louis  le  De- 
bonnaire  issued  a  capitulary  by  which  any  one  offering  insult 
or  injury  to  a  prelate  was  forced  to  compound  for  his  life,  all 
his  property  was  confiscated  to  the  church,  and  in  addition  he 
was  to  pay  to  the  king-the  heavy  line  of  a  triple;  "  bannum," 
or  sixty  solidi,  with  the  proviso  that  if  unable  to  make  the 
payment,  he  became  a  slave  of  the  fisc  until  he  could  do  so — 
which  was  probably  for  life.'2  Benedict  the  Levite  went  even 
further.  According  to  him,  the  accusation  of  a  bishop  was  an 
accusation  of  the  ordinance  of  God,  and  the  calumniator  of 
his  bishop  was  a  homicide,  to  be  dealt  with  accordingly.3 
These  claims  were  too  exaggerated  to  be  fully  admitted,  though 
they  left  their  impress  in  some  degree  upon  the  institutions  of 
the  middle  ages.1  It  was  fortunate,  indeed,  for  the  church, 


VCapit.  Carol.  Mag.  vi.  aim.  80(3  §  23.— Concil.  Roman,  sub.  Sylvest. 
can.  iii.  (Migne  VIII.  800).  Ingilram.  can.  73  ;  Pseudo-Sylvester— though 
the  numbers  of  the  witnesses  are  not  precisely  the  same.  A  variation  of 
this  regulation  occurs  among  the  fragments  attributed  to  Theodore,  Arch 
bishop  of  Canterbury,  towards  the  close  of  the  seventh  century  (Thorpe, 
Ant.  Laws,  etc.,  of  England,  II.  7'3). 

2  Capit.  Ingelenheim.  Ludov.  Pii  cap.  o.— I  believe  the  authenticity  of 
this  capitulary  has  never  been  called  in  question,  and  yet  the  whole  of 
its  provisions  are  so  extravagantly  in  favor  of  the  church  that  I  am  in 
clined  to  regard  it  as  supposititious,  or  at  least  interpolated. 

3  Capitul.  Lib.  vn.  cap.  1(57,  203. 

4  In  the  tenth  century,  Atto  of  Vercelli,  on  the  authority  of  the  False 
Decretals,  asserts  for  the  clergy  as  a  right  the  immunity  from  secular 
accusation  (De   Pressuris  Eccles.  P.  i.)  ;    and  St.  Stephen  of  Hungary 
adopted  the  principle  as  an  absolute  rule  in  his  laws — "  Testimonium  laici 
adversus  clericum  nemo  recipiat." — Legg.  S.  Steph.  Hung.  cap.  iii. 

7 


14  THE     RISE     OF     THE     TEMPORAL     POWER. 

that  they  had  not  all  the  success  desired  by  their  authors.  The 
immunity  acquired  from  secular  jurisdiction  was  an  efficient 
cause  of  the  all-pervading  corruption  which  eventually  infected 
the  church,  and  had  it  been  accompanied  with  immunity  from 
secular  accusation,  the  sacerdotal  body,  thus  elevated  into  a 
supreme  and  inaccessible  caste,  would  have  become  so  pesti 
lential  that  religion  itself  might  have  perished  under  the  inflic 
tion,  and  the  -progress  of  civilization  might  have  been  indefi 
nitely  postponed. 

While  thus  throwing  oflT  all  subjection  to  the  judicial  authority 
of  the  state,  the  church  was  making  rapid  progress  in  acquir 
ing  an  important  share  in  the  general  administration  of  justice. 
The  functions  of  the  judge  are  among  the  most  potent  sources 
of  influence,  and  a  class  that  can  arrogate  to  itself,  as  a  class- 
privilege,  the  right  to  administer  the  law,  has  thereby  secured 
to  itself  no  small  portion  of  the  government  of  the  body  politic. 
To  combine  this  source  of  power  with  the  ministrations  of  re 
ligion,  was  to  control  the  life,  here  and  hereafter,  of  every 
man — a  prize  worth  striving  for,  and  for  which  the  ecclesiastics 
possessed  a  favorable  base  of  operations.  In  the  early  days  of 
Christianity,  the  church  was  a  society  of  voluntary  cohesion, 
purified  to  a  considerable  extent  of  worldly  and  unruly  ele 
ments  by  the  fires  of  occasional  persecution.  Even  without 
the  exhortations  of  St.  Paul  and  the  reproof  administered  by 
him  to  those  whose  litigious  propensities  brought  them  before 
heathen  judges  (1  Corinth,  vi.),  the  law  of  Christian  love 
would  naturally  lead  all  members  to  refer  questions  arising 
among  themselves  to  the  friendly  arbitration  of  the  elders  or 
bishops,  and  the  prevalence  of  this  custom  is  shown  by  its  con 
tinuance  into  the  fifth  century.1  How  perfectly  natural  was 
this  rule  at  its  origin,  in  a  society  holding  itself  aloof  from  the 
institutions  among  which  it  was  placed,  is  manifested  by  the 


1  Constit.  Apostol.  Lib.  n.  cap.  49,  50.— Concil.  Carthag.  III.  ann.  397 
can.  9. — Concil.  Chalced.  can.  9. 


TEIE     CHUROII     AND     THE     STATE.  75 

existence  of  a  similar  regulation  among  the  Jews  of  the  Dis 
persion  as  well  as  among  the  French  Huguenots  of  the  six 
teenth  century  ;l  and  as  long  as  the  church  was  thus  isolated 
and  kept  pure,  there  was  little  risk  that  any  one  would  incur 
the  infamy  of  rejecting  the  decision  of  such  an  arbiter.  When, 
however,  the  despised  and  oppressed  sect  grew  rich  and  power 
ful,  and  when,  at  length,  dominant  in  the  empire,  it  became 
the  channel  through  which  avarice  and  ambition  might  gratify 
their  desires,  the  necessity  arose  of  either  abandoning  the  cus 
tom  or  of  giving  legal  validity  to  the  episcopal  judgments. 
Accordingly,  a  law  of  Arcadius  and  Honorius,  in  398,  declares 
that  those  who  desire  to  refer  civil  suits  to  the  arbitration  of  J 
bishops  shall  not  be  prevented  from  doing  so  ;  and  another,  in 
408,  renders  final  the  decisions  in  such  cases,  and  directs  the 
civil  officials  to  execute  them.2  It  will  be  observed  that  these 
regulations  refer  exclusively  to  powers  of  arbitration  conferred 
by  the  consent  of  both  parties  ;  and  when  a  prelate  enjoyed  a 
reputation  for  sagacity  and  piety,  this  arbitrative  function  was 
extensively  called  into  action.  The  complaints  of  St.  Augus 
tine  are  well  known,  that  pleaders  came  before  him  in  such 
numbers  as  sadly  to  interfere  with  his  legitimate  spiritual  du 
ties,  and  yet  he  had  done  his  share  in  bringing  about  this  state 
of  things,  for  he  taught  that  litigation  between  Christians  was 
a  sfn,  pardonable  only  on  condition  of  being  urged  before  an 
ecclesiastical  judge.3  His  contemporary,  Synesius,  was  no  less 
harassed  with  the  worldly  character  of  the  occupations  in  which 
he  thus  found  himself  involved.  Forced  unwillingly  to  accept 
the  bishopric  of  Ptolemais,  he  inveighed  particularly  against 
the  judicial  functions  fastened  upon  him,  which  he  regarded 
as  altogether  incompatible  with  the  religious  duties  of  his  posi 
tion,  and  he  requested  permission  either  to  resign  or  to  have  a 
coadjutor  more  fitted  for  the  management  of  civil  affairs,  a  ma- 

1  Chiarini,  Talmud  Babli,  II.  12.— Synod  of  Saumur,  aim.  1596,  chap. 
iv.  Art.  35  (Quick,  Synodieon  in  Gallia  Reformata). 

2  Const.  7,  8.  Cod.  I.  4.  3  Augustin.  Serrn.  CCCLI.  §  5. 


7 B  T  FI  E     II  T  S  E     OF     THE     TEMPORAL     POWER. 

gistrate,  apparently,  being  more  wanted  than  a  priest.1  St. 
Martin  of  Tours,  not  long  before,  had  found  an  expedient  for 
escaping,  partially,  at  least,  these  interruptions  of  his  pious 
meditations,  for,  until  he  had  celebrated  mass  each  day,  he 
kept  himself  secluded,  and  delegated  to  his  attendant  priests 
the  office  of  deciding  such  affairs.2  Silvanus,  Bishop  of  the 
Troad,  a  contemporary  of  Synesius  and  St.  Augustine,  adopted 
the  same  system  ;  but  he  soon  found  that  his  priests  were  gain 
ing  filthy  lucre  from  the  judicial  powers  thus  delegated  to  them, 
and  he  won  much  credit  by  substituting  for  them  a  layman  of 
approved  character  and  experience,  whose  decisions  gave  gen 
eral  satisfaction.3  It  is  evident,  therefore,  that  the  custom  was 
widely  prevalent. 

All  prelates,  however,  were  not  so  disinterested  as  Silvanus, 
and  it  is  manifest  from  his  case  that  money  was  to  be  made  by 
abusing  the  public  confidence  thus  reposed  in  the  episcopal 
character.  That  power  and  influence  were  likewise  to  be  ac 
quired  is  self-evident,  and  it  is  scarcely  to  be  supposed  that  the 
temptation  was  always  resisted.  Efforts,  indeed,  were  con 
stantly  made  to  convert  this  friendly  jurisdiction  into  a  legal 
attribute,  for  Valentinian  III.,  in  452,  found  it  necessary  to 
put  a  stop  to  the  discussion  of  the  subject  by  a  constitution 
which  expressly  declared  that  bishops  could  only  exercise  judi 
cial  functions  with  consent  of  both  parties  ;4  ami  Honorius  had 
already  felt  called  upon  to  prevent  the  prelates  from  trespass 
ing  on  the  functions  of  the  courts  by  a  law  declaring  that  they 
had  cognizance  of  religious  matters  only,  all  secular  actions 
belonging  to  the  civil  tribunals.5  Special  cases,  it  is  true,  were 
occasionally  referred  to  them  by  command  of  the  monarch  ;6 
and  Justinian  conferred  on  them  a  certain  amount  of  super 
visory  power.  They  were  instructed  to  visit  the  prisons  weekly 

1  Synesii  Epist.  57.  2  Sulpic.  Sever.  Dial.  ir. 

3  Socrat.  Hist.  Eccles.  Lib.  vn.  cap.  30. 

*  Novell.  Valentin.  III.  Tit.  35. 

s  Lib.  xvi.  Cod.  Theod.  Tit.  11,  1.  1.     Cf.  Tit.  2, 1.  23. 

6  Theodoriei  Const.  67  (Goldast.  III.  49).     Novell.  123  c.  21. 


THE     CHURCH     AND    THE     STATE.  77 

to  see  that  the  prisoners  were  not  harshly  treated,  and  when 
interference  was  necessary  they  were  instructed  to  report  the 
matter  to  the  emperor.1  When  unreasonable  delay  occurred, 
the  plaintiff  in  a  suit  could  appeal  to  his  bishop,  who  might 
summon  the  judge  to  render  speedy  justice;  if  the  pleader 
feared  partiality  he  could  demand  that  the  bishop  should  have 
a  seat  on  the  bench  ;  if  dissatisfied  with  a  judgment  he  could 
appeal  to  the  bishop,  who  then  heard  the  case  as  between  judge 
and  plaintiff,  and  could  condemn  the  former  to  make  good  any 
damage  unjustly  inflicted  on  the  latter,  subject  to  an  appeal  to 
the  emperor.2 

This  power,  though  not  inconsiderable,  was  exceedingly 
limited  in  its  range,  but  tile  Western  Barbarians  were  much 
more  ready  to  foster  the  judicial  functions  of  the  church  ;  and 
the  alacrity  with  which  this  disposition  was  welcomed  is 
shown  in  the  commands  of  an  early  Irish  council  to  bring  all 
disputes  for  settlement  to  the  church,  under  penalty  of  expul 
sion.3  It  is  easy  to  understand  the  causes  which  favored  this 
extension  of  power.  The  rude  and  imperfect  ancestral  codes 
of  the  Barbarians  of  course  became  rapidly  unsuited  to  the 
wants  of  the  possessors  of  the  fairest  provinces  of  Rome,  creat 
ing  the  desire  for  a  more  complex  system  of  law  ;  and  as  every 
man  was  entitled  to  be  judged  by  the  customs  of  his  race,  there 
must  have  arisen  a  confusion  of  jurisprudence  embarrassing  in 
the  highest  degree  to  the  honest,  but  untutored  rackinborg. 
The  impatient  Frank,  when  engaged  in  litigation  with  a 
Roman,  might  disdain  to  submit  to  the  jurisdiction  of  a  judge 
of  the  conquered  race,  and  might  well  prefer  to  lay  his  case 
before  a  bishop  whom  he  regarded  with  deserved  respect  ; 
while,  on  the  other  hand,  the  Roman,  in  a  quarrel  with  a 
Barbarian,  would  likewise  desire  the  sentence  of  a  judge  whose 
decrees  might  command  obedience  when  those  of  a  compatriot 
might  be  received  with  undisguised  contempt.  We  can  thus 

1  Const.  22  Cod.  i.  4.  2  Novell.  86  cap.  1,  2,  4. 

3  S.  Patric.  Synod.  I.  ann.  450  can.  21. 

7* 


78  THE     RISE     OF     THE     TEMPORAL     POWER. 

readily  understand  the  creation  of  an  important  voluntary 
jurisdiction,  of  which  the  extent  can  be  gathered  from  the 
canons  of  the  council  of  Tarragona  as  early  as  51G,  forbidding 
the  clergy  from  hearing  causes  on  Sundays,  or  from  entertaining 
criminal  actions,  though  permitting  them  at  other  times  to  dis 
pense  justice  in  civil  cases  with  the  consent  of  parties;1  while 
the  eleventh  council  of  Toledo,  in  07;"),  found  it  necessary  to 
threaten  deposition  and  perpetual  excommunication  against 
all  ecclesiastics  concerned  in  rendering  sentences  of  death  or 
mutilation2 — a  caution  found  also  in  the  English  canons  of  the 
eighth  century.3  The  Wisigoths,  indeed,  were  disposed  to 
clothe  their  bishops  with  very  extended  jurisdiction,  copied 
with  additions  from  the  legislation  of  Justinian  and  freed  from 
the  check  of  the  supervision  of  the  sovereign.  The  laws  of 
Rioaswind,  for  instance,  empower  a  plaintiff,  who  suspects  his 
judge  of  partiality,  to  demand  the  association  of  a  bishop  with 
him  on  the  bench  ;  when  bishops  were  selected  as  arbitrators 
their  verdicts  were  rendered  binding,  and  the  court  that 
refused  to  execute  them  was  visited  with  a  heavy  fine  ;  and, 
filially,  they  were  authorized  to  reverse  all  unjust  decisions, 
either  with  or  without  the  consent  of  the  judge.4  There  is  little 

1  Coiu-il.  Tarracon.  ami.  51(5  can.  4.  2  Com-il.  Toletan.  XI.  can.  <>. 

3  Kcgberti  Excerpt,  cap.  15(5. 

4  LI.  Wisigoth.  Lib.  ii.  Tit.  1,  11.  23,  20,30.     The  fir,t  and  third  of 
these  laws,  by  far  the  most  important  in  the  power  conferred  by  them, 
are  retained  in  the  Fuero  Juzgo  (Lib.  ir.  Tit.  1,  11.  22,  28),  showing  how 
thoroughly  the  power  of  the  bishops  survived  the  overthrow  of  the  Gothic, 
monarchy.     Yet  under  the  influence  of  the  revival  of  the  Roman  law, 
the  judicial  power  of  the  clergy  declined  there  as  elsewhere.     The  code 
framed  in  the  thirteenth  century  by  Alphonso  the  Wise  gives  the  bishops 
only  an  admonitory  power  over  the  judges,  and  orders  them  to  report  to 
the  king  all  unjust  decisions  (Las  Siete  Partidas,  P.  i.  Tit.  f>,  1.  48). 
The  same  law  forbids  ecclesiastics  to  preside  in  the  adjudication  of  secular 
cases,  "  porque  serie  verguenza  de  se  entremeter  del  fuero  de  los  legos  los 
que  seSaladiemente  son  dados  para  servicio  de  Dios"— except  in  certain 
matters,  the  careful  enumeration  of  which  reveals  considerable  jealousy 
of  clerical  encroachments.    This,  perhaps,  was  essential  when  even  monks 
assumed  judicial  functions,  and  it  became,  necessary  to  prohibit  such  vio 
lation  of  their  vows  (Ibid.  P.  in.  Tit.  4, 1.  4).    That  this  was  not  uncalled 


THE     CHURCH     AND     THE     STATE.  19 

evidence,  however,  that  these  vast  prerogatives,  which  trenched 
so  closely  on  the  royal  power,  had  much  practical  effect  in  an 
age  of  turbulent  anarchy,  though  the  reverence  of  legislators 
might  leave  them  a  place  on  the  statute-book.  That  they 
were  an  innovation  on  the  ancestral  customs  of  the  race  is 
shown  by  the  canons  of  the  fourth  council  of  Toledo  in  633, 
not  long  previous,  in  which  the  supervisory  power  of  the 
bishops  is  limited  to  the  right  of  reporting  to  the  king  all  arbi 
trary  perversions  of  justice  ;  though  another  canon  of  the  same 
council  attributes  to  the  yearly  provincial  councils  the  duty  of 
hearing  complaints  against  magistrates  and  men  in  power,  both 
ecclesiastical  and  secular.1 

In  France  the  same  tendency  to  rely  upon  the  church  to 
correct  the  abuses  of  the  secular  courts  is  seen  in  an  edict  of 
Clotair  I.  in  560,  which  directs  that  in  the  absence  of  the 
king  the  bishops  shall  reprove  the  judges  for  any  unjust  sen 
tences,  in  order  that  on  further  investigation  the  wrong  may  be 
made  right.'2  This,  if  generally  enforced,  must  have  given  to 
the  church  a  very  extensive  appellate  jurisdiction,  which  could 
readily  be  made  the  instrument  of  immense  influence  ;  but  that 
the  stricter  churchmen  regarded  the  exercise  of  judicial  functions 
as  incompatible  with  the  ecclesiastical  character  is  shown  by 
Geogory  of  Tours,  who  reproaches  Badegesilus,  the  unclerical 
bishop  of  Le  Mans,  with  sitting  as  associate  judge  in  secular 
tribunals — evidently  considering  such  proceedings  to  be  as 
irregular  as  the  military  exploits  of  that  rapacious  prelate.3 

for  is  shown  by  its  retention  in  the  Ordenamiento  de  Alcala,  a  subsequent 
body  of  law  remaining  in  force  until  the  latter  half  of  the  fifteenth  century. 

1  Concil.  Toletan.  IV.  can.  31,  3. 

2  Const,  Chlot.  ami.  560  §  6. 

3  Greg.  Turon.  Hist.  Lib.  vin.  cap.  39.     The  Welsh  law  also  pronounced 
ecclesiastics  incapable  of  acting  as  judges  (Dimetian  Code,  Bk.  n.  Chap, 
viii.  §  128).     How  thoroughly  the  views  of  the  church  in  regard  to  this 
became  altered  in  the  course  of  time,  and  how  completely  the  opposite 
principle  became  engrafted  on  the  institutions  of  Christendom,  are  well 
illustrated  by  the  long  line  of  ecclesiastical  chancellors  of  England,  ex 
tending  from  the  Saxon  period  beyond  the  Reformation,  and  even  into  the 


80  THE     RISE     OF     THE     TEMPORAL    POWER. 

About  this  time  we  also  find  the  church  laying  hold  of  an 
extensive  sphere  of  jurisdiction,  which  could  not  but  prove 
greatly  conducive  to  the  enlargement  of  its  power  and  influence. 
Its  duties  of  charity  and  benevolence  rendered  it  naturally  the 
protector  of  the  unprotected.  Tlie  widow,  the  orphan,  the 
freedman,  who  had  no  other  friend,  would  look  to  the  minister 
of  Christ  for  the  assistance  to  be  vainly  expected  elsewhere  in 
a  busy  and  turbulent  world,  and  the  church  would  be  false  to 
its  teachings  if  it  neglected  the  cry  of  the  oppressed  and  friend 
less.  Accordingly,  we  find  Gregory  the  Great  instructing  his 
legates  and  bishops  to  see  that  justice  was  done  to  these  classes 
of  society,  in  a  manner  which  shows  that  he  must  have  been 
frequently  appealed  to,  and  that  throughout  Italy  and  the 
Islands  an  extensive  ecclesiastical  jurisdiction  was  springing 
up  in  civil  suits  of  this  nature.1  The  same  process  was  de 
veloping  itself  even  more  rapidly  in  France,  for,  in  080,  the 
second  council  of  Macon  was  able  to  express  as  a  received 
principle  of  jurisprudence  that,  in  suits  involving  the  right  of 
freedmen,  secular  judges  had  no  jurisdiction,  and  that  where 
orphans  and  widows  were  concerned  the  judge  must  give  notice 
to  the  bishop,  who  should  himself  sit,  or  send  a  deputy  to  pre 
side  along  with  the  civil  magistrate.2 

All  this  passed  away  in  the  anarchy  which  accompanied  the 
downfall  of  the  Merovingians,  and  was  sedulously  avoided  in 

seventeenth  century  in  the  person  of  Bishop  Williams.  A  relic  of  it, 
indeed,  is  still  seen  in  the  strangely  incongruous  functions  of  the  Angli 
can  bishops  as  members  of  the  House  of  Lords — the  High  Court  of  Jus 
tice  of  the  realm.  I  may  add  that  the  earliest  Icelandic  code  extant,  the 
Gra\gds,  compiled  about  1118,  nearly  a  century  after  the  conversion  of  the 
island,  shows  the  bishops  as  a  portion,  ex  officio,  of  the  Logretto,  or  chief 
central  court  (Gr&g&s,  Sect,  n.),  besides  which  they  had  a  limited  jurisdic 
tion  in  their  respective  districts  (Ibid.  Sect.  v.  Tit.  31).  In  France  this 
extension  of  ecclesiastical  functions  was  checked  by  Philippe  Ic  Bel,  who 
declared  clerks  to  be  incapable  of  acting  as  judges  for  the  very  good  and 
sufficient  reason  that  the  immunity  enjoyed  by  them  rendered  them  irre 
sponsible  for  abuse  of  power  (Les  Olim,  T.  II.  p.  269). 

1  Gregor.  PP.  I.  Lib.  i.  Epist.  13,  61,  62,  63;  Lib.  in.  Epist.  5. 

2  Concil.  Matiscon  II.  ami.  580  can.  7,  12. 


THE     CHURCH     AND     THE     STATE.  81 

the  Carlovingian  reconstruction.  Any  traces,  indeed,  that 
might  have  remained  must  soon  have  been  destroyed  by  the 
system  of  Missi  Dominici,  which  formed  so  prominent  a  fea 
ture  of  the  civilizing  and  centralizing  institutions  of  Charle 
magne.  Any  secular  jurisdiction  remaining  to  the  bishops 
must  have  been  limited  solely  to  friendly  arbitration;  and  even 
this  the  intelligent  jealousy  of  the  emperors  was  desirous  of 
abolishing,  for  there  is  a  capitulary  forbidding  anyone  to  select 
ecclesiastical  judges  when  there  was  a  secular  tribunal  acces 
sible,  even  if  both  parties  consented.1  It  is  true  that  Charle 
magne  in  813  directed  the  bishops  to  inquire,  in  their  diocesan 
visitations,  into  all  crimes  committed  within  their  boundaries, 
but  he  was  careful  not  to  accompany  this  with  any  authority 
for  trial  or  punishment.'2  The  only  judicial  power,  there 
fore,  remaining  was  that  which  frequently  attached  to  terri 
torial  possessions,  by  which  the  vassal,  whether  layman  or 
ecclesiastic,  had  the  privilege  of  administering  justice  within 
his  own  domains.3  This  was  a  very  ancient  privilege,  being 
alluded  to  in  an  edict  of  Childebert  I.  in  595,  and  in  one  of 
Clotair  II.  in  615,  while  a  charter  of  Chilperic  II.  in  717 
declares  that  all  donations  from  the  royal  fisc  carry  with  them 
this  immunity  from  public  jurisdiction,  thus  giving  rise  to  the 
seignorial  "  droits  de  justice"  of  the  feudal  system.4  This 

1  Capitul.  Lib.  v.  c.  387.— It  is  evident  from  this  that,  the  clause  "  ut 
episcopi  justitias  faciant  in  suas  parochias"  (Capit.  Carol.  Mag.  aim.  794 
§  4)  refers  only  to  ecclesiastical  questions,  which,  indeed,  maybe  gathered 
from  the  context  itself. 

2  Capit.  Carol.  Mag.  II.  ann.  813  cap.  i. 

3  See  Marculf.  Formul.  Lib.  i.  No.  3,  4,  14,  16,  17,  etc. 

4  These  grants  not  unfrequcntly  took  a  wider  range,  and  in  process  of 
time  contributed  powerfully  to  render  the  hierarchy  a  class  of  feudal 
lords.     Thus,  in  848,  a  grant  from  the  Emperor  Lothair  invested  John, 
Bishop  of  Trieste,  with  all  the  imperial  rights  in  that  city  and  in  its  terri 
tory  for  a  circuit  of  three  miles,  conveying  not  only  the  revenues  from  toll 
and  tribute,  but  also  the  sole  jurisdiction  in  all  suits  (Liinig  Cod.  Ital. 
Diplorn.  I.  24S#).     It  was  thus  that  the  central  power  was  parcelled  out 
and  the  feudal  system  established. 

In  some  places  the  clergy  were  carefully  excluded  from  these  privi- 


82  THE     RISE     OF     THE     TEMPORAL     POWER. 

privilege,  though  it  conferred  the  power  of  life  and  death,1  was 
exclusively  a  private  right,  and,  however  extensive  the  posses 
sions  of  the  church  might  he,  it  was  far  inferior  to  the  public 
supremacy  aimed  at  by  the  authors  of  the  forgeries.     Moreover, 
Charlemagne,   finding    that    it    interfered   with    his  civilizing 
efforts,  and   that   the   ecclesiastical    benefices  were    converted 
through   it  into  asylums  for  malefactors,  restricted  it,  in   his 
additions   to   the   Salic  law  in   803,  by  giving  to  the  imperial 
officials   the   right   to   pursue  criminals   taking  refuge   in   such 
territories,  with  heavy  penalties  for  all  attempts  for  opposition.2 
To  obtain  for  the  church,  as  a  recognized  right,  the  power 
to  administer  justice,  might  well  appear  to  the  fabricators   of 
Jngilram   and   Isidor  an   advantage   worthy  of   serious  effort, 
It  might  seem  conferred  by  the  broad  prerogatives  contained 
in  the  forged  donation  of  the  Western  Empire  by  Constantine 
to  Sylvester;  but  that  document  claimed  too  much,  and  had 
thus  far  been  treated  with    silent    contempt.     Kecourse    was 
therefore  had  to  a  source  of  undisputed  authority,  wherein  the 
presumable  ignorance  of  laymen   might  allow   falsification   to 
escape  detection.      The  Theodosian   code   was    held  in  great 
respect  throughout  the  West,  where  the  legislation  of  Justinian 
was  comparatively  little    known.     The  Wisigoths    had    even 
abandoned  much  of  their  ancestral  jurisprudence  in  its  favor, 
and,  as   the    basis  of  all   law    for  the   populations   not   strictly 
Barbarian,  it  was  the  "Lex  Komana  qua?  est  omnium  humana- 
rum  mater  legum."3     In  this  august  and  authoritative  code  a 
bold  interpolation  was  effected  by  inserting,  amid  laws  directly 
opposite  in  their  tenor,  one  which  authorized  either  party  in  a 
suit,  at  any  stage  of  the  proceedings,  from  the  first  plea  to  the 
time  of  rendering  the  verdict,  to  take  the  affair  Out  of  court 

leges.  Thus  the  Welsh  laws  provided  that  when  an  ecclesiastic  was 
entitled  to  a  place  on  the  bench  in  consequence  of  territorial  possessions, 
he  must  leave  it  before  the  rendering  of  the  sentence.— Dimetian  Code, 
Book  ii.  chap.  viii.  §  132  (Owen's  Ancient  Laws,  etc.  of  -Wales,  I.  479). 

1  Capit.  Carol.  Mag.  IV.  aim.  806  §  1. 

2  Ejusd.  Capit.  II.  ami.  803  §  2.  a  Capitul.  Addit.  iv.  cap.  1GO. 


THE     CHURCH     AND     THE     STATE.  83 

and  place  it  in  the  hands  of  a  bishop,  even  against  the  protest 
of  his  adversary  ;  and  the  decision  of  the  holy  prelate  was  to 
be  without  appeal,  and  to  be  held  inviolate  through  all  time. 
This  monstrous  perversion  of  justice  was  then  transferred  to 
the  capitularies,  where  it  was  prefaced  in  the  most  solemn 
manner  as  having  been  adopted  by  the  emperor,  with  the  con 
sent  of  his  subjects,  as  part  and  parcel  of  the  law  of  the  land, 
binding  on  all  the  nations  which  owed  obedience  to  the  Car 
lo  vingian  sceptre.1  The  False  Decretals  enforced  its  applica- 

1  Capitul.  Lib.  vi.  cap.  366. — Historians  have  generally  admitted  the 
genuineness  of  Charlemagne's  promulgation  of  this  regulation.  No  origi 
nal  capitulary,  however,  has  been  found  containing  it,  nor  is  it  embodied 
in  the  authoritative  collection  of  Ansegise  ;  while  its  direct  opposition  to 
the  leading  principles  of  the  Carlovingian  policy  is,  I  think,  evidence 
sufficient  to  condemn  the  imperial  sanction,  as  well  as  the  forgery  which 
it  indorses.  The  latter  still  occupies  its  place  in  the  Theodosian  Code, 
and  the  demonstration  of  its  falsity  was  reserved  for  the  learned  Godefroy , 
in  the  seventeenth  century  (Lib.  xvi.  Cod.  Theod.  Tit.  12). 

It  thus  passed  current  throughout  the  middle  ages,  and  was  mainly 
relied  on  in  1329  by  the  bishops  when  they  resisted  the  efforts  of  Philip  of 
Valois  to  curtail  the  extensive  and  profitable  jurisdiction  of  the  spiritual 
courts.  They  boldly  affirmed,  indeed,  that  it  was  irrepealable — "  imo  est 
privilegiurn  honorabile,  toti  ecclesise  concessum,  quod  imperator  tollere 
non  potest,  ut  nee  alias  ecclesiae  libertates"  (Bertrandi  contra  P.  de  Cug- 
neriis  Lib.). 

The  wide  extent  of  this  jurisdiction  may  be  conceived  from  the  limita 
tions  imposed  on  it  in  146-t  by  Matthias  I.  of  Hungary — "  Prseter  factum 
testament!,  matrirnonii,  dotum  et  rerum  paraphernaliarum,  perjurii, 
verberationis  et  spoliations  clericorum  et  mulierum,  ac  prneter  illas 
alias  causas  qure  prophanae  non  essent,  in  foro  spiritual!  nulla  causa  trac- 
tetur"  (Batthyani  Legg.  Eccles.  Hung.  I.  503).  This  was  repeated  in 
1492  by  Vladislas  II.  (Legg.  Uladis.  II.  c.  14). 

Until  the  revival  of  the  civil  law,  there  can  be  no  question  that  this 
extension  of  ecclesiastical  jurisdiction  was  in  the  main  a  benefit  to  hu 
manity  ;  but  one  great  source  of  evil  inherent  in  it  was  that  the  papal 
court  constituted  a  tribunal  of  last  resort,  to  which  cases  could  always  be 
carried  by  appeal.  In  process  of  time  this  came  to  be  done  even  from  the 
secular  courts,  for  the  authority  of  the  pope  was  supreme  over  all  human 
legislation.  Innocent  III.  indeed  asserted  for  the  papacy  supreme  original 
jurisdiction  over  all  cases  which  any  one  might  elect  to  bring  before  it. 
He  based  this  claim  on  the  assumption  that  there  must  be  sin  on  the  part  of 
one  side  or  the  other  in  all  suits  which  gave  him  a  right  to  interfere,  and 


84  THE     RISE     OF     THE     TEMPORAL    TOWER. 

tion  by  directing  that  all  questions  should  be  submitted  to  the 
church  for  adjudication,  and  that  every  one  feeling  himself 
wronged  should  have  full  liberty  of  invoking  the  ecclesiastical 
tribunals,  which  would  see  that  he  was  righted.1 

When  such  doctrines  were  successfully  advanced,  it  is  no 
wonder  that  the  text  "  Spirituals  autern  judicat  omnia  ;  et 
ipse  a  nemine  judicatur"  (1  Corinth,  ii.  15)  could  be  advanced 
as  a  maxim  of  law,  showing  that  the  ecclesiastic  was  em 
powered  to  judge  all  men  and  all  things,  and  was  himself  to  be 
judged  by  none2 — and  that  this  pretension  was  measurably 
successful  is  abundantly  manifest.  As  the  royal  power  de 
clined,  it  leaned  more  and  more  upon  the  church  for  support, 
and  endeavored  to  supplement  its  waning  judicial  authority  by 
intrusting  it  to  the  hands  of  those  who  might  have  a  better 
chance  of  obtaining  obedience  by  combining  the  respect  due  (o 
prelates  with  that  due  to  judges.  Thus,  in  the  extradition 
treaties  made  by  the  sons  of  Louis  le  Debonnaire  in  857  and 
860,  providing  for  the  capture. and  delivery  of  all  criminals 

he  strengthened  it  by  adducing  the  interpolated  law  of  Theodosius.  This 
right  of  calling  in  the  papal  judgment  was  known  as  "evangelical  de 
nunciation,"  and  was  adopted  by  the  church  and  became  part  and  parcel 
of  canon  law  (can.  xiii.  Extra  u.  I).  As  regards  the  appellate  jurisdic 
tion,  the  complaints  of  the  council  of  Constance  in»1414  (Coneil.  Con 
stant.  Art.  Reform,  cur.  Rom.  No.  vi.  vii.)  show  that  vast  numbers  of 
cases  were  carried  up  by  suitors  dissatisfied  with  the  decisions  of  local 
judges,  forming  an  abuse  of  no  little  magnitude.  Yielding  to  the  urgent 
solicitations  of  the  council,  Martin  V.  in  1418  issued  a  decree  promising 
that  cases  from  the  secular  courts  should  no  longer  be  revised  at  Rome, 
but  he  stoutly  maintained  his  right  to  review  the  proceedings  of  all  eccle 
siastical  tribunals  (Hartzheim.  V.  137,  140).  The  extensive  secular 
jurisdiction  enjoyed  by  them  rendered  this  an  evil  keenly  felt  by  the 
community,  as  the  power  of  thus  carrying  suits  to  so  distant  a  point  enabled 
wealthy  pleaders  to  dictate  terms  of  settlement  to  poorer  antagonists. 

1  Qusecunque  ergo  contentiones  inter  Christianos  ortge  fuerint  ad  eccle- 
siam  deferantur,  et  ab  ecclesiasticis  viris  termiiientur. — Pseudo-Marcel- 
lin.  Epist.  II. 

Omnis  enim  oppressus  libere  sacerdotum,  si  voluerit,  appellet  judicium, 
et  a  nullo  prohibeatur,  sed  ab  his  fulciatur  et  liberetur. — Pseudo-Anaclet. 
Epist.  I. 

2  Capitul.  Add.  in.  c.  20. 


THE    CHURCH    AND    THE     STATE.  85 

escaping  from  one  kingdom  tc  another,  it  is  curious  to  note 
that  reference  is  made  only  to  fugitives  from  episcopal  sentences1 
—as  though  the  functions  of  the  royal  courts  had  been  vir 
tually  suspended.  This,  indeed,  almost  seems  to  have  been  the 
case.  In  857  we  find  Charles  le  Chauve  commanding  that  all 
malefactors  throughout  the  kingdom —  murderers,  burglars, 
robbers,  thieves,  oppressors,  etc — should  be  tried  by  the  bishops, 
and  then  handed  over  to  the  counts  for  punishment :  while,  to 
render  this  more  efficacious,  all  priests  were  directed  to  make 
out  lists  of  the  offenders  in  their  parishes,  who  were  to  be 
brought  before  the  bishops  if  recalcitrant  under  the  efforts  of 
their  pastors.2  To  make  this  jurisdiction,  if  possible,  more 
complete,  at  the  synod  of  Pontyon  in  876  he  invested  the 
bishops  with  the  authority  of  royal  Missi  in  their  respective 
dioceses.3  Armed  with  this  power,  and  under  cover  of  a  forged 
decretal  attributed  to  Pope  Eutychianus,  a  system  of  the  most 
minute  inquisition  became  established.  In  his  visitations,  the 
bishop  summoned  before  him  in  every  parish  seven  good  men 
and  true,  who  were  sworn  under  the  most  solemn  adjurations 
to  answer  all  questions  without  fear  or  favor.  A  series  of 
eighty-nine  interrogatories  was  then  put  to  them  as  to  the 
commission  in  the  parish  of  all  the  offences  against  human  or 
divine  law  that  the  most  perverse  ingenuity  could  suggest.  A 
^more  searching  grand  inquest  could  scarcely  have  been^  vented, 
as  it  must  have  elicited  all  the  rumors,  scandals,  and  surmises 
that  floated  around  in  each  little  community.4 

The  church  thus  absorbed,  in  theory  at  least,  the  whole  ad- 
ministration  of  criminal  justice,  with  its  overwhelming  influ 
ence  ;  and,  as  if  this  was  not  sufficient,  the  power  of  sitting  in 
judgment  on  the  king  himself,  and  of  deposing  him,  was  not 
only  arrogated,  but  admitted.  The  sons  of  Louis  le  Debonnaire 

1  Capit.  Carol.  Cal.  Tit.  x.  c.  5  ;  Tit.  xxxi.  c.  o  (Baluz.  II.  65,  139). 

2  Capit.  Carol.  Cal.  Tit.  xxiv.  c.  3,  8. 

3  Capit.  Carol.  Cal.  Tit.  XLVII.  c.  12. 

4  Reginon.  de  Discip.  Eccles.  Lib.  n.  cap.  2,  3,  4,  5.— Burchard.  Dec-ret 
Lib.  i.  c.  90-94. 

8 


86  THE     RISE     OF     THE     TEMPORAL     POWER. 

had  thus  made  use  of  the  episcopal  authority  as  a  stalking 
horse  in  their  parricidal  chase,  and,  with  the  increase  of  epis 
copal  prerogative,  the  invention  returned  to  plague  its  inven 
tors.  Charles,  guiltless  in  this  respect  at  least,  is  seen  ad 
dressing  his  prelates  in  859,  even  in  his  hour  of  triumph  after 
the  recovery  of  his  kingdom  :  "  I  should  not  be  dethroned,  at 
least  without  being  heard  and  judged  by  the  bishops,  whose 
ministry  consecrated  me  as  king,  who  are  styled  the  thrones  of 
God,  in  whom  God  resides,  and  through  whom  He  makes  mani 
fest  His  decrees.  To  their  paternal  admonitions  and  punish 
ment  I  am  ready  to  submit,  and  now  do  submit  myself."1  This 
was  the  acknowledgment  and  legitimate  application  of  the  doc 
trine  attributed  by  Jsidor  to  the  humble  Clement,  disciple  of 
St.  Peter,  commanding  princes  and  peoples  to  render  to  priest 
and  bishop  the  same  obedience  as  that  rendered  to  God,  under 
the  severest  penalties  in  this  world  and  the  next.2  The  legiti 
mate  result  of  these  principles  was  seen,  Avhen,  in  the  thir 
teenth  century,  the  secular  lawgivers  of  Germany,  framing  a 
code  for  the  people,  declared  that,  the  pope  is  the  fountain  of 
justice,  temporal  as  well  as  spiritual,  and  that  from  him  is  de 
rived  the  jurisdiction  of  emperors  and  princes,  who  are  bound 
to  execute  his  decrees.3 

1  Capit,  Carol.  Cal.  Tit.  xxx.  c.  3. 

2  Pseudo-Clement.  Epist.  in. — Also  Ejusd.  Epist.  u. — "  Quoniam  qui 
eis  resistit,  Deo  resistit." — Nearly  as  extravagant  was  the  principle  that 
the  laity  should  do  nothing  without  the  consent  of  their  bishops.     Stran 
gers  were  not  to  settle  in  a  diocese,  nor  were  the  inhabitants  to  leave  it, 
without  episcopal  permission — "  Animre  vero  eorum  ei  credit*  sunt ;  ideo 
omnia  ejtis  concilio  agere  debent,  et  eo  inconsulto  nihil." — Pseudo-Cle 
ment.  Epist.  iii. — Remigii  Curiens.  Episc.  can.  4,  5. 

3  Special.  Suevic.  Introit.  §§  22,  23,  24.     That  this  was  extracted  by  the 
compiler  of  the  code  from  the  sermons  of  Berthold  of  Ratisbon  (Alex,  a 
Daniels  de  Saxon  Specul.  Orig.  p.  19),  does  not  render  it  less  an  author 
ized  expression  of  the  recognized  doctrine  of  the  period  that  the  pope  was 
the  source  of  all  human  authority.     It  is  somewhat  singular,  however,  to 
observe  it  in  a  code  wherein  the  revived  imperial  jurisprudence  is  quoted. 
In  1335  we  find  Bishop  Alvarez  Pelayo  proving  the  same  doctrine  from  the 
decretals — that  the  emperor  is  merely  the  vicar  of  the  pope,  and  derives 
from  him  all  his  jurisdiction  (De  PlanctuEccJes.  Lib.  I.  Art.  Ixviii.  No.  I.). 


THE  CHURCH  AND  THE  STATE.         87 

Alongside  of  the  secular  judicial  power  thus  obtained,  there 
had  gradually  sprung  up  a  spiritual  jurisdiction  which  was 
even  more  potent  and  more  lasting  in  its  influence,  and  which 
gave  added  terrors  to  the  exercise  of  secular  justice  by  its 
command  of  the  next  world  through  the  instrumentality  of  the 
dreaded  anathema.  To  give  to  this  important  element  in 
ecclesiastical  authority  the  full  consideration  which  it  deserves, 
would,  however,  lead  us  too  far  from  our  present  subject,  and 
it  will  therefore  be  treated  in  a  subsequent  essay. 

In  the  comprehensive  struggle  for  independence  and  supre 
macy,  of  which  we  have  thus  traced  out  some  of  the  details, 
but  one  point  was  wanting  to  release  the  church  from  all  sub 
jection  to  the  secular  authority.  As  long  as  the  crown  exer 
cised  the  power  of  appointing  to  the  high  places  in  the  hierarchy, 
its  control  could  not  be  entirely  shaken  off,  and  the  inferiority 
of  the  ecclesiastic  was  implied  as  well  as  expressed.  That  an 
effort  should  be  made  to  get  rid  of  the  royal  prerogative  of 
investiture  was  therefore  to  be  expected. 

In  the  early  period  of  the  church  the  choice  of  its  bishops 
was  made  by  popular  election,  the  community  as  well  as  the 
clergy  enjoying  the  right  of  suffrage  ;l  and  in  some  places  the 
people  were  held  responsible  for  the  misdeeds  of  their  prelates, 
because  they  not  only  chose  them,  but  had  the  power  to  eject 
the  unworthy.2  A  certain  amount  of  concurrent  supervision 
over  the  fitness  of  the  aspirant  was  also  exercised  by  the 
neighboring  bishops,  owing  to  the  necessity  of  their  ministry 
in  the  consecration.3  As  these  general  principles  were  every 
where  established,  it  is  hardly  worth  while  to  trace  the  vicis 
situdes  to  which  they  were  exposed  by  time  or  accident,  and 
while  the  Christians  continued  a  poor  and  insignificant  sect, 

1  Qui  praafuturus  est  omnibus  ab  omnibus  eli^atur. — Leon.  PP.  I.  Epist. 
10  cap.  «v 

2  Cyprian.  Epist.  67  (Ed.  Oxon.). 

3  Cyprian,  loc.  cit.— Concil.  Laodicens.  can.  12,  13— Concil.  Sardicens. 
can.  6— Of.  Chr.  Lupi  Scholion  in  Can.  Nicsen.  4  (Opp.  I.  239). 


88  THE     RISE     OF     THE     TEMPORAL     POWER. 

unrecognized  by  the  law,  or  recognized  only  in  persecution,  no 
interference  with  their  choice  of  ecclesiastical  superiors  was  to 
be  expected  from  the  secular  magistrates.  As  the  church 
became  wealthy  and  powerful,  however,  common  prudence 
would  dictate  to  the  sovereign  the  necessity  of  some  control 
over  the  selection  of  those  who  were  in  reality  high  officers  in 
the  state  as  well  as  spiritual  dignitaries.  While  the  minor 
bishoprics  thus  might  continue  to  be  filled  as  of  old  by  the 
choice  of  the  community,  the  powerful  primatial  sees  would 
naturally  fall  under  the  influence  of  the  throne,  and  we  have  seen 
that  eventually  the  right  of  confirmation  virtually  amounted 
to  the  right  of  appointment  in  the  case  of  him  who  was  highest 
of  all.1 

The  church  thus  paid  the  penalty  of  its  worldly  aspirations; 
and  the  temporalities  to  which  it  clung  with  such  tenacity 
weighed  it  to  the  earth  and  rendered  it  the  subject  of  those 
whom  it  desired  to  master.  As  its  territorial  acquisitions 
increased,  so  grew  the  necessity  of  royal  supervision  and  con 
trol  over  those  who  administered  them.'2  The  tribute  of  mili 
tary  service  owed  by  the  lands  was  in  itself  a  sufficient  reason 
for  the  king  to  have  some  part  in  the  nomination  of  those  who 
were  to  render  it  in  person  or  by  proxy,  and  though  Charle 
magne  forbade  ecclesiastics  from  bearing  arms  themselves,  he 
took  care  not  to  exempt  them  from  the  duty  of  furnishing  their 
quota  of  troops.  The  theory  therefore  was  election  by  the 

1  Odoacer  stretched  his  prerogative  somewhat  when  he  demanded  to  be 
consulted  in  advance — a  presumption  which  was  condemned  after  his 
overthrow  (Synod.   Roman,   iv.  c.  2),  but  which  was  apparently  sub 
mitted  to  without  remonstrance  during  his  life. 

2  I  have  not  space  to  enter  upon  the  history  of  the  territorial  aggran 
dizement  which  rendered  the  ecclesiastical  body  so  formidable  a  portion 
of  the  feudal  republic.     The  general  facts  are  well  known,  and  a  detailed 
investigation  would  require  a  treatise  in  itself.     A  single  instance  will 
sufficiently  illustrate  the  result — that  in  the  eleventh  century  the  Abbey 
of  Fulda  held  fiefs  which  were  bound  to  furnish  to  the  imperial  service  no 
less  than  six  thousand  well-appointed  fighting  men.— Englehus.  Chron. 
ed.  1671  p.  199. 


THE     CHURCH     AND     THE     STATE.  89 

diocese  in  general,  confirmation  by  the  king,  and  consecration 
by  the  metropolitan  and  his  suffragans;  but  the  right  of  confir 
mation  implies  the  right  of  rejection,  and  the  latter,  in  the 
hands  of  energetic  or  unscrupulous  sovereigns,  practically 
amounts  to  the  appointing  power. 

Scarcely  had  the  Franks  secured  to  themselves  their  rapid 
conquest  of  Gaul  when  even  the  zealous  piety  of  recent  conver 
sion  could  not  restrain  them  from  assuming  this  right  of  ap 
pointment  in  its  most  absolute  form  as  a  portion  of  the  royal 
prerogative  ;  and  the  repeated  allusions  of  Gregory  of  Tours 
show  that  it  was  the  rule  and  not  the  exception.  Thus,  in  the 
important  diocese  of  Tours  we  find,  in  520,  the  singular  specta 
cle  of  two  bishops  conjoined,  Tlieodorus  and  Proculus,  by  com 
mand  of  Queen  Clotilda.  In  a  little  more  than  a  year  they  are 
succeeded  by  Dinisius,  chosen  by  the  king ;  and  two  years 
later  the  see  is  occupied  by  Omrnatius,  by  order  of  King  Clo- 
domir.1  The  bishoprics  were  wealthy,  the  sovereigns  were 
greedy,  and  it  was  not  long  before  the  royal  prerogative  was 
made  a  source  of  revenue.  As  early  as  517,  when  St.  Quin- 
tianus  was  elected  by  the  people  to  the  see  of  Auvergne,  a  cer 
tain  Apollinaris  hastened*  to  King  Thierry,  and  by  heavy 
bribes  secured  the  appointment  in  defiance  of  the  popular  wish.2 
It,  is  true  that  half  a  century  later  Gontran  showed  his  inde 
pendence  of  such  considerations  when  he  indignantly  rejected 
the  presents  offered  to  induce  him  to  abandon  his  intention  of 
bestowing  the  see  of  Bourges  on  Sulpitius,3  but  an  incidental 
remark  of  Gregory  of  Tours  in  his  life  of  St.  Gall  of  Clerrnont, 
indicates  that  simony  was  already  becoming  a  recognized  cus 
tom,4  and  the  condemnation  of  such  practices  by  the  Council  of 
Orleans,  in  549,  shows  that  they  amounted  to  an  evil  of  mag 
nitude.5  Even  when  the  nomination  to  bishoprics  was  not  a 

1  Greg.  Tiiron.  Hist.  Franc.  Lib.  x.  cap.  31  ;  Lib.  in.  cap.  17. 

2  Ibid.  Lib.  in.  cap.  2.  3  Ibid.  Lib.  vi.  c.  39. 

4  Greg.  Turon.  de  Sanct.  Patr.  cap.  3. 

5  Concil.  Aurelianens.  V.  aim.  549  can.  10.     This  canon  recognizes  the 
concurrent  authority  of  the  sovereign. 

b* 


90  THE     RISE     OF     THE     TEMPORAL     POWER. 

matter  of  bargain  and  sale,  and  when  the  forms  of  an  election 
were  preserved,  it  was  often  nothing  more  than  an  acknowledged 
farce.  On  the  death  of  St.  Gall  of  Clermont,  about  550,  a 
priest  named  Cato  was  elected  his  successor.  Theodebald  the 
king  was  a  mere  boy,  and  Cato  ventured  to  assume  the  episcopal 
functions  without  awaiting  the  royal  confirmation.  He  quarreled 
with  and  imprisoned  his  archdeacon,  Cautinus,  who  managed 
to  escape  and  fled  to  the  court,  where  he  lound  himself  the 
first  to  announce  the  deatli  of  St.  Gall.  Taking  advantage  of 
the  opportunity  he  procured  the  grant  of  the  bishopric,  and 
when  Cato's  messengers  arrived  to  ask  for  confirmation,  they 
found  him  already  consecrated.  Cautinus  took  possession  of 
the  see,  but  his  enjoyment  of  it  was  troubled  by  the  partisans 
of  Cato,  and  to  rid  himself  of  the  annoyance  he  procured  for 
his  rival  an  election  to  the  see  of  Tours  on  the  death  of  Gun- 
ther  in  555.  Cato  meanwhile  had  curried  favor  with  Prince 
Chramnes  and  had  received  a  promise  that  on  the  death  of 
Clotair  he  should  be  reinstated  in  Clermont  ;  so,  when  the 
Tourangeois  came  to  invite  him,  lie  hesitated  to  accept,  and 
they  curtly  told  him  to  decide  at  once,  as  they  had  not  chosen 
him  of  their  own  free  will,  but  bv  the  order  of  the  kino-.  He  let 

•>  '         O 

them  depart,  w  hen  they  elected  Kuphronius,  and  on  presenting 
his  name  for  appointment  to  Clotair  they  were  sternly  asked 
why  they  had  disregarded  his  commands  with  respect  to  Cato. 
The  latter  then  applied  again  for  reinstatement  in  Clermont, 
but  the  king  only  laughed  at  him.1 

Such  habitual  invasions  of  the  primitive  liberties  of  the 
church  were  not  submitted  to  without  a  struggle.  A  council 
of  Paris,  in  557,  protested  against  the  abuse  of  the  royal  power, 
in  a  canon  which  directs  that  any  appointee  not  duly  elected 
shall  be  refused  ordination  by  the  metropolitan  and  his  suffra 
gans,  and  that  any  episcopal  traitor  not  keeping  the  engagement 
shall  be  cut  off'  from  communion  with  the  rest.2  Plow  impossi- 

1  Greg.  Turon.  Hist.  Franc.  Lib.  iv.  cap.  5,  0,  7,  11,  15. 

2  Concil.  Paris.  TIL  ami.  oo7  can.  8. 


THE     CHURCH     AND     THE     STATE*.  91 

ble  it  was  to  maintain  this  resolution  in  opposition  to  the  brute 
force  of  the  Merovingian  kings  is  exemplified  by  a  transaction 
occurring  a  few  years  later.  A  certain  Emerius  was  installed 
as  Bishop  of  Saintes  by  order  of  Clotair  I.,  under  circumstances 
of  peculiar  irregularity,  the  king  having  dispensed  with  the 
services  of  the  metropolitan  in  the  consecration.  At  the  death 
of  Clotair,  the  offended  Archbishop  Leontius,  relying  on  the 
presumable  weakness  of  a  new  king,  vindicated  the  canon 
of  Paris  by  assembling  a  synod,  deposing  the  intruder,  and 
sending  a  new  bishop-elect  to  Charibert  for  confirmation. 
Royalty  asserted  its  rights  after  its  own  fashion.  The  unhappy 
expectant,  Heraclius,  was  banished  after  undergoing  a  savage 
punishment,  Emerius  was  reinstated,  and  the  archbishop  and 
his  prelates  were  visited  witli  fines  graduated  to  the  utmost 
possibility  of  payment — and  thus,  says  the  historian,  the  king 
revenged  the  insult  offered  to  his  father.1 

Yet  the  endless  struggle  continued.  In  61/5  a  council  of 
Paris  made  another  effort  to  achieve  independence  by  pronoun 
cing  null  and  void  the  consecration  of  any  candidate  not  duly 
elected  by  the  people  and  clergy,  with  the  approbation  of  the 
provincial  bishops  ;2  but  the  attempt  was  vain,  for  when  Clo 
tair  II.  gave  legal  validity  to  the  canons  by  publishing  them  in 
a  royal  edict,  lie  introduced  a  clause  excepting  the  royal  cour 
tiers  from  the  effects  of  the  prohibition.3  The  clergy  some 
ten  years  later  gathered  courage  to  return  to  the  attack,  and  at 
the  council  of  Rheims,  in  025,  reaffirmed  the  canon  of  Paris, 
with  the  addition  that  only  inhabitants  of  a  diocese  were  eligi 
ble  to  its  episcopate — apparently  with  the  \7iew  of  precluding 
the  nomination  of  courtiers — and  moreover  suspension  for  three 
years  was  threatened  against  all  who  should  assist  in  the  con 
secration  of  any  one  not  regularly  elected  under  these  condi 
tions.4  OF  how  little  avail  was  this  we  learn  from  a  precept 
of  Dagobert  I.,  in  030,  conferring  the  see  of  Cahors  on  Didier 

1  Greg.  Turon.  Hist.  Franc.  Lib.  iv.  cap.  L>6. 

2  Concil   Paris.  V.  ami.  615  can.  I. 

3  Edict.  Chloth.  TT.  §  1.  *  Conc.il.  Remens.  ami.  625,  can.  25. 


92  THE*  RISE     OF     THE     TEMPORAL     POWER. 

his  treasurer,  who  was  not  even  in  orders  at  the  time.  It 
speaks,  indeed,  of  the  consent  of  the  people  having  been  given 
but  not  of  their  having  elected  the  candidate  ;  and  the  terms  of 
the  act  itself,  as  also  of  the  order  to  the  archbishop  to  conse 
crate  the  nominee,  are  those  of  a  master  exercising  his  pleasure 
without  a  doubt  as  to  its  legality.1  Still  the  clergy  did  not 
abandon  the  field,  and  the  canon  of  Paris  was  re-enacted  by  the 
council  of  Chalons,  in  040  ;2  but  the  tendencies  of  the  age  were 
against  them,  and  even  Marculfus,  in  giving  the  formulas  for 
such  occasions,  couches  them  in  terms  of  absolute  royal  com 
mand,  with  no  allusion  to  any  elective  franchise  having  been 
exercised  in  favor  of  tin;  recipient,  though  a  formula  of  petition 
from  the  people  asking  the  approbation  of  the  king  shows  that 
the  right  of  election  was  occasionally  admitted  in  strict  subor 
dination  to  the  will  of  the  sovereign.3  A  passage  in  the  Bava 
rian  code,  revised  under  Dagobert,  would  also  indicate  that  the 
practice  was  similar  in  the  Christianized  portions  of  Germany.4 
In  Spain,  not  long  after,  a  canon  of  the  twelfth  council  of  Toledo, 
held  in  G81,  allowing  no  right  of  suffrage  whatever  to  either 
clergy  or  people,  shows  that  the  royal  power  of  nomination  was 
even  recognized  and  admitted  by  the  church.5  The  resistance 
of  the  Gallican  clergy  to  the  prerogative  of  the  crown  also  ceased 
when  the  anarchy  under  the  Mayors  of  the  Palace  secularized 
the  church  and  wellnigh  obliterated  all  Christian  observances. 
Charles  Martel  bestowed  without  scruple  the  richest  episcopates 
as  prizes  on  his  rugged  warriors  ;6  and  when  Boniface,  as  papal 
legate,  undertook  with  Carloman  and  Pepin  to  rest-on;  the  re- 

1  Dagoberti  Praecepfcum  (Baluz.)  .     Didier  evidently  considered  himself 
indebted  to  the  king  and  not  to  the  people  for  his  bishopric,  when  he  ad 
dresses  Dagobert — "  Cadurchse  ecclesise  cui  (Deo  auctore)  exjussu  vestro 
prsesideo" — Epist.  Francor.  41  (Freher.  Corp.  Hist.  Franc.). 

2  Concil.  Cabillon.  ann.  049  can.  10. 

3  Marculf.  Lib.  I.  No.  5,  6,  7.  4  L.  Baioar.  Tit.  I.  cap.  11  §  1. 

5  Concil.  Toletan.  XII.  can.  0. 

6  Religio  Christianitatis  paene  fuit  abolita  :  ita  ut  episcopis  in  paucis  lo- 
cis  relictis,  episcopia  laicis  donuta,  et  per  eos  rebus  divisa,  exstiterint — 
Hincmur.  Vit.  S.  Remig.  Prtef. 


THE     CHURCH     AND     THE     STATE.  93 

ligion  of  France,  not  only  was  the  royal  power  of  appointment 
fully  recognized  by  the  synods  of  Leptines  and  Soissons,  but 
the  mayors  were  empowered  to  bestow  for  a  time  a  portion  of 
the  temporalities  of  the  church  to  reward  their  soldiers.1  Bon 
iface  himself,  the  most  uncompromising  advocate  of  ecclesi 
astical  privilege,  received  the  archiepiscopal  see  of  Mainz  from 
his  royal  patrons.2 

As  Charlemagne  thus  by  tradition  and  prescription  had  the 
right  of  investiture  with  respect  to  all  ecclesiastical  dignities, 
the  much-disputed  grant  of  this  prerogative  by  Adrian  in  774 
could  only  serve  as  a  confirmation  and  not  as  a  source  of  the 
power.3  At  all  events,  he  was  not  disposed  to  allow  his  pre- 

1  Lupi  Ferrar.  Epist.  81.  2  S.  Ludgeri  Vit.  S.  Boriif. 

3  According  to  Gratian,  Adrian  not  only  gave,  as  mentioned  above  (p. 
36).  the  right  of  choosing  the  popes,  but  also  that  of  confirming  and  in 
vesting  all  bishops — " Insuper  archiepiscopos  et  episcopos  per  singulas 
provincias  ab  eo  investituram  accipere  definivit  :  et  ut  nisi  a  rege  laude- 
tur  et  investiatur  episcopus  a  nemine  consecretur"  (Gratian.  Dist.  03 
can.  22). 

This  expression  so  exactly  suited  the  pretensions  of  the  emperors  in 
their  quarrel  with  the  popes  over  the  question  of  the  investitures  that  it 
has  a  somewhat  suspicious  appearance  of  fabrication  at  a  time  when 
neither  party  had  much  scruple  in  manufacturing  documents  to  serve 
their  purposes.  It  is  no  wonder,  therefore,  that  Baronius  (Ann.  774,  No. 
10-13)  rejects  it  with  indignation,  pronouncing  it  a  moral  impossibility, 
and  asserting  that  as  Sigebert  of  Gemblours  (Chronog.  aim.  778)  is  the 
earliest  authority  for  the  story,  it  must  be  an  invention  of  his  to  assist 
the  imperialist  party,  which  he  favored.  At  first  sight  this  argument  is 
specious,  but  the  cardinal  forgot  its  presence  in  the  Panormia  of  St.  Ivo 
of  Chartres  (Lib.  vui.  cap.  135)  anterior  to  Sigebert— and  neither  Ivo 
nor  Gratian  was  likely  to  depress  gratuitously  the  sacerdotal  authority. 
Martin  of  Fulda,  a  writer  of  the  fourteenth  century,  alludes  to  it  as  an 
undisputed  fact,  but  assumes  that  the  grant  was  merely  special  and  tem 
porary,  and  subsequently  withdrawn  (Martin.  Fuldens.  Chron.  sub. 
Gregor.  VII.).  Jordan,  an  Italian  chronicler  of  the  same  date,  likewise 
assumes  its  truth  (Chron.  Jordan!  cap.  21S  Partic.  2).  During  the 
quarrels  between  the  popes  and  the  emperors  on  the  subject  of  the  in 
vestitures,  it  was  freely  invoked  as  authority  by  the  imperialists  (Walth- 
ram.  Episc.  Neuenburgens.de  Invest.  Episc.  ann.  1106).  In  modern 
times,  Baluze,  whose  orthodoxy  is  I  believe  admitted,  alludes  to  it  as 
incontestable  (Vit.  Mauri c,.  Bui-din,  cap.  1(5— up.  Miscellan.)  ;  but  Peter 


94  THE     RISE     OF     THE     TEMPORAL    POWER. 

rogative  to  become  obsolete,  and  the  terms  in  which  he  is  ad 
dressed  by  Leidrad,  Archbishop  of  Lyons,  show  that  he  was 

de  Marca  pronounces  it  supposititious,  and  supports  his  opinion  with 
reasons  much  sounder  than  those  of  Baronius  (De  Concord.  Sacerd.  et 
Imp.  Lib.  vin.  cap.  1:2). 

In  80(5  we  find  Leo  III.  treating  Charlemagne's  prerogatives  in  these 
appointments  as  a  matter  of  course  (Leon.  PP.  III.  Epist.  i.  ap.  Cod. 
Caroliii.).  and  a  century  later  the  authenticity  and  binding  force  of  the 
grant  itself  were  admitted  by  John  X.  when  intervening  in  the  quarrel 
between  Hilduin  and  Rieharius,  contestants  for  the  see  of  Tongres,  in 
921,  for  he  expressly  states  that  Charles  the  Simple  had  the  right  of  ap 
pointing  bishops  "  sicut  priores  suos  antecessores,  nostrorum  antecesso- 
rum  auctoritate"  (Ilartzheim.  Concil.  German.  II.  597).  The  very  points 
which  seem  incredible  to  Baronius  are  included  in  a  similar  grant  made 
to  Otlio  the  Great  by  Leo  VIII.  in  i)fc>  (Gratian.  Dist.  <«  can.  '23.— Ivon. 
Panorm.  Lib.  vm.  cap.  l.U>)  ;  and  though  Leo  is  commonly  reckoned  as 
an  antipope,  notwithstanding  that  he  is  counted  in  the  pontifical  series, 
still  his  bull  is  incontestably  genuine,  and  as  it  contains  a  reference  to 
the  previous  grant  by  Adrian — "  ad  exemplum  beati  Adriani  sedis  apos- 
tolici  episcopi" — it  carries  the  affirmation  of  Adrian's  act  nearly  to  the 
end  of  the  second  century  from  its  date.  Even  before  the  condemnation 
of  John  XIL.  and  elevation  of  Leo  VIII.,  the  Romans  had  taken  an  oath 
to  Otho  patterned  on  those  exacted  by  the  earlier  Carlovingians — "  nun- 
quam  so  papani  electuros  aut  ordinaturos  prreter  consensum  et  electionetn 
domini  iinperatoris  Ottonis  Cnesaris  Augusti,  filiique  ipsius  regis  Ottouis" 
(Liudprandi  Hist.  Otton.  cap.  8).  How  complete  was  the  supremacy 
exercised  by  the  Saxon  emperors  is  shown  in  a  charter  of  Otho  III.  to 
Silvester  II.  in  999,  wherein  he  remarks  :  "  Dominum  Silvestrum  magis- 
truni  nostrum  papam  eligitnus,  et  Deo  volente,  ipsum  serenissimum  ordi- 
navimus  et  creavimus"  (Migne's  Patrolog.  T.  148,  p.  840). 

At  the  most,  the  privileges  granted  by  Adrian  were  little  if  any  more 
than  the  traditional  right  possessed  by  the  sovereign  of  Italy,  and  the 
grant  itself  was  rather  a  recognition  of  Charlemagne  as  king  of  Italy  than 
the  specific  donation  of  power.  We  have  seen  how  Odoacer  and  Theo- 
doric  and  Theodatus  exercised  it  without  scruple,  Arians  though  they  were, 
and  how  the  Catholic  emperors  of  Constantinople  followed  their  example 
when  they  fell  heir  to  the  Gothic  kingdom — at  least  with  respect  to  the 
right  of  confirmation  and  rejection.  To  minds  familiar  with  a  custom  of 
such  long  duration,  it  might  readily  seem  that  the  protection  so  earnestly 
craved  at  the  moment — for  the  siege  of  Pavia  was  not  yet  ended — could 
not  be  efficient  without  some  corresponding  control,  and  the  exact  nature 
of  the  right  bestowed  is  merely  a  question  of  terms.  When  the  temporal 


THE     CHURCH     AND     THE     STATE.  95 

regarded  as  the  unquestionable  dispenser  of  episcopal  prefer 
ment.1  If  anything  were  wanting  to  prove  the  unrestricted 
control  which  he  exercised  over  episcopal  appointments,  it 
would  be  supplied  by  the  lively  description  given  by  the  monk 
of  St.  Gall  of  the  intrigues  of  the  courtiers  to  obtain  from 
him  the  nomination  of  their  favorites  on  the  occurrence  of 
a  vacancy,  and  of  the  manner  in  which  the  Empress  Hilde- 
garda,  on  one  occasion,  sought  to  procure  for  a  clerk  of  her 
own  a  bishopric  which  he  had  already  promised  to  another. 
Once,  when  the  death  of  a  prelate  was  announced  to  him  on 
the  eve  of  St.  Martin,  he  gave,  without  waiting,  the  see  to  one 
of  his  attendant  ecclesiastics,  who  proceeded  to  celebrate  the 
unexpected  good  fortune  by  a  feast,  at  which  he  so  intoxicated 
himself  that  he  was  unable  the  next  morning  to  perform  his 
allotted  part  in  the  ceremonial  of  the  day  ;  whereupon  Charle 
magne  withdrew  his  promise,  and  bestowed  the  episcopate 
upon  an  humble  and  ignorant  clerk  who  had  chanced  to  re 
place  the  disappointed  aspirant  in  the  services  of  Martinmas.2 

authority  was  present  and  active,  confirmation  would  imply  selection  ; 
when  distant  or  abased,  the  privilege  might  be  merely  nominal. 

This  question  affords  an  instructive  illustration  of  the  unconscientious- 
ness  which  renders  the  medneval  papal  historians  such  insecure  guides. 
The  Archbishop  Martinus  Polonus,  in  his  Chronol.  Pontilicum,  written  in 
the  thirteenth  century,  when  relating  the  transaction,  by  an  ingenious 
transposition  of  nominative  and  dative  terminations,  makes  Charles  the 
giver  and  Adrian  the  recipient  of  control  over  the  Western  hierarchy 
(Chronol.  Martin,  sub  Adrian.).  Vigilant  criticism  expunged  from  his 
pages  the  obnoxious  account  of  Pope  Joan,  but  found  nothing  to  object 
to  in  this  falsification. 

1  Olim  me  exiguissimum   famulorurn  vestrorum  ad  regimen  eeelesife 
Lugdunensis  destinare  voluistis.  .  .  .  Denique  postquam  secundum  jus- 
sionem  vestram  saepedictam  ecclesiam  suscepi,  etc.     (Mag.  Bib.  Pat.  T. 
IX.  P.  i.  p.  626.)     Cf.  Monach.   S.  Gallens.  de  Vita  Carol.  Mag.  Lib.  I. 
cap.  4,  5,  6, 

2  Monach.  S.  Gall,  de  Vit.  Carol.  Mag.  Lib.  i.  cap.  4,  5.— The  expres 
sion  placed  by  the  monk  in  the  mouth  of  the  emperor — "  Superbus  ille 
....  divino  et  meo  judicio  careat  episcopatu,  et  tu  ilium,  Deo  donante 
et  me  concedente,  juxta  canonicam  et   apostolicam  auctoritatern,  regere 
curato" — shows  that  in  his  time,  at  the  close  of  the  ninth  century,  the 


96  THE     RISE     OF     THE     TEMPORAL    POWER. 

These  and  other  anecdotes  related  by  the  monk  show  that  no 
other  appointing  power  was  thought  of,  and  that  the  eager 
clerks  of  the  imperial  court  were  ever  on  the  watch  for  news 
of  episcopal  vacancies  in  order  to  have  the  first  chance  of  se 
curing  the  favor  of  the  emperor.1 

It  need  not,  therefore,  surprise  us  to  see  that  when  Charle 
magne,  in  803,  granted  to  the  people  and  clergy  of  the  dioceses 
the  right  of  electing  their  bishops,  he  did  it  in  terms  which 
imply  that  it  was  a  favor  of  the;  imperial  grace,  and  not  a 
simple  acknowledgment  of  a  pre-existing  privilege.  That  it 
was  so  regarded  is  shown  by  its  repetition  being  procured  from 
Louis  le  Debonnaire  in  HI  f>,  shortly  after  his  accession.2  As 
there  is  no  allusion  in  these  capitularies  to  the  imperial  assent 
being  required,  it  has  been  assumed  that  the  right  of  confirma 
tion  was  then  formally  abandoned.  This  is  utterly  without 
foundation.  Louis  bestowed  bishoprics  as  freely  as  any  other 
dignities  in  his  realm.3  The  sixtli  council  of  Paris,  in  829, 
recognizes  his  right  in  the  matter,  and  the  corresponding  duty 
incumbent  upon  him  to  exercise  the  power  judiciously.4  When 
elections  were  permitted,  they  took  place  under  the  supervision 
of  an  imperial  commissioner  appointed  for  that,  purpose.  If  an 
unworthy  choice  was  made,  or  if  improper  arts  were  employed 
to  obtain  the  popular  suffrage,  not  only  was  the  successful  can 
didate  rejected  without  hesitation,  but  the  emperor  forthwith 
filled  the  vacant  see  without  reference  to  clergy  or  people,  on 
the  ground  that  they  had  forfeited  the  franchise  by  its  injudi 
cious  exercise.6 

That   these   powers   were   rigidly  enforced  we  may  readily 

grant  of  Adrian  was  regarded  as  indubitable,  and  was  looked  upon  as  the 
least  humiliating  source  of  the  royal  power  over  preferment. 

1  Monach.  S.  Gall.  cap.  6. 

2  Capit.  Carol.  Mag.  I.  aim.  803  cap.  2.— Capit.  Ludov.  Fii  aim.  S16 
cap.  2. 

3  See,  for  instance,  Thegan.  Vit.  Ludov.  Pii  cap.  24,  and  the  supplica 
tion  of  the  citizens  of  Mainz  in  800  (Bonifacii  Epist.  117). 

4  Concil.  Paris.  VI.  can.  22.— Capital.  Add.  IT.  cap.  26. 

5  Form ul.  Promot.  Episcopor.  vr.     (Baluz.  II.  603-4.) 


THE     CHURCH     AND     THE     STATE.  97 

believe  ;  for  even  after  the  civil  wars  had  reduced  the  royal 
power  to  comparative  insignificance,  the  privilege  of  popular 

election    hardly  amounted  to    more    than  the    conye-d'elire 

that  ingenious  fiction  by  which  the  Anglican  church  reconciles 
apostolic  tradition  with  the  supremacy  of  the  Defender  of  the 
Faith.  Thus,  in  844,  the  synod  of  Thionville  requests  the 
sons  of  Louis  to  nominate  incumbents  for  the  sees  then  vacant;1 
and  soon  afterwards  the  synod  of  Verneuil  petitions  Charles  le 
Chauve  not  to  allow  the  see  of  Rheims  to  remain  longer  with 
out  a  bishop,  and  also  not  to  withhold  his  assent  to  the  instal 
lation  of  Agius,  who  a  year  before  had  been  elected  to  the 
diocese  of  Orleans,  and  had  been  consecrated  by  Wenilo,  his 
archbishop.2  So,  when  some  irregularity  prevented  the  induc 
tion  of  Wolfadus,  bishop-elect  of  Langres,  the  synod  of  Chiersy 
applied  to  Charles  to  appoint  another  ;  and  though  the  king 
graciously  permitted  the  synod  to  make  the  election,  yet  they 
considered  it  necessary  to  obtain  the  royal  approbation  of  tl.cir 
choice,  and  they  appealed  to  the  arch-chaplain  Hilduin  for  his 
influence  in  securing  it,  in  terms  which  mark  how  absolute  was 
the  prerogative  of  the  sovereign,  and  how  little  his  assent  was 
to  be  expected  as  a  matter  of  course.3 

The  change  in  tone  wrought  by  a  few  years  is  therefore 
striking,  in  the  bold  epistle  addressed  by  the  Neustrian  bishops, 
in  858,  to  Louis  le  Germanique,  then  in  almost  undisputed 
possession  of  his  brother's  kingdom,  where  we  find  a  declara 
tion  of  independence  to  the  effect  that  the  churches  which  they 
held  were  not  benefices  to  be  bestowed  by  the  king  at  his 
pleasure,  or  resumed;  and  when  in  880  the  unquestionable 
right  of  the  sovereign  to  put  forward  a  candidate  for  election 
was  stigmatized  by  Hincmar,  in  a  letter  to  the  king,  as  a  doc 
trine  belched  forth  by  hell.4  So  Florus  Diaconus,  shortly  after 
the  middle  of  the  century,  stoutly  denies  the  right  of  the  sove- 

1  Capit.  Carol.  Cal.  Tit.  n.  cap.  2. 

2  Capit.  Carol.  Cal.  Tit.  in.  cap.  9,  10. 

3  Flodoard.  Hist.  Reracus.  Lib.  in.  cap.  24. 

4  Capit.  Carol.  Cal.  Tit.  XXVIT.  cap.  15.— Hincmari  Epist.  xix.  cap.  3. 

9 


98  THE     RISE     OF     THE     TEMPORAL     POWER. 

reign  to  dispose  of  bishoprics,  assuming  that  if  his  assent  is 
asked,  it  is  only  to  promote  good-feeling — "ad  cumulum  fra- 
ternitatis;"  while  the  imperial  authority  to  supervise  papal 
elections  is  utterly  repudiated.1  A  similar  contrast  is  afforded 
between  Leo  IV.  in  853  humbly  asking  the  Emperors  Lothair 
and  Louis  II.  to  permit  the  consecration  of  Colonus  as  Bishop 
of  Rieti,  or,  if  they  preferred,  to  bestow  on  him  the  see  of 
Tusculum,  and  Nicholas  I.  in  8G3  sternly  reproving  King 
Lothair  for  using  his  influence  to  sway  the  elections  of  bishops 
in  Lotharingia,  and  forbidding  him  to  allow  certain  sees  to  be 
filled  until  the  papal  pleasure  should  be  consulted.2 

In  Italy,  indeed,  the  papal  power  eagerly  grasped  at  the 
prerogative  which  was  escaping  from  the  sovereign,  and  the 
people  were  further  than  ever  from  regaining  their  rights. 
Thus,  in  879,  we  find  John  VIII.  threatening  Romanus,  Arch 
bishop  of  Ravenna,  with  condign  punishment  for  disregarding 
his  orders  in  filling  the  see  of  Sarcina;3  and  again  in  881  he 
ordered  Romanus  to  consecrate  a  certain  Dominic  as  Bishop  of 
Faenza,  with  the  significant  hint  that  in  case  of  disobedience 
he  would  himself  perform  the  ceremony.  Romanus  thereupon 
grew  restive,  and  installed  a  rival,  Constantine,  whom  John 
promptly  excommunicated,  and,  treating  the  transaction  as 
invalid,  placed  the  bishopric,  as  a  vacancy,  under  the  visita 
torial  charge  of  the  Bishop  of  Cervia.4  As  both  of  these  sees 
belonged  to  the  province  of  Ravenna,  and  as  there  is  no  allu 
sion  to  any  popular  election  in  favor  of  the  papal  nominee,  the 
terms  of  absolute  command  employed  by  John  show  how  com 
pletely  the  popes  had  fallen  heir  to  the  imperial  prerogatives  to 
which  his  predecessors  had  yielded  so  submissively.5 

1  Flori  Diac.  Lib.  de  Elect.  Episc.  cap.  4,  6. 

2  Gratian.  Dist.  63  can.  16.— Nichol.  PP.  I.  Epist.  58. 

3  Johann.  PP.  VIII.  Epist,  199.  4  Ejusd.  Epist.  325,  322,  326. 
5  AVhen  it  suited  his  politics,  however,  John  freely  admitted  the  rights 

of  the  secular  authority.  Thus,  in  879,  when  he  was  anxious  to  follow 
up  his  excommunication  of  Anspert  of  Milan,  he  attributed  to  Carloman, 
King  of  Italy,  the  unrestricted  power  of  bestowing  the  bishopric  of  Ver- 


THE     CHURCH    AND    THE     STATE.  99 

Had  the  popes  confined  their  pretensions  in  this  respect  to 
Italy,  there  would  have  been  no  great  harm  done,  but  event 
ually  they  claimed  the  control  of  every  episcopate  in  Christen 
dom  with  an  energy  which  filled  Europe  with  confusion  for 
centuries.  The  time  as  yet  had  not  come  for  this,  however,  and 
Nicholas  I.  was  disinterestedly  anxious  to  free  the  church  from 
subjection  to  the  temporal  power.  To  secure  this,  he  laid 
down,  in  865,  the  rule  that  bishops  were  to  be  elected  by  the 
clergy  alone,  thus  depriving  the  laity  of  their  immemorial 
right  of  suffrage.1  The  bishops,  too,  were  eagerly  striving  to 
render  the  necessity  of  their  ministration  a  controlling  element 
in  the  selection  of  their  fellow-suffragans,  and  in  this  they 
were  supported  by  various  ancient  canons  which  show  that  it 
was  admitted  to  a  greater  or  less  extent  in  the  early  church,2 
and  by  the  more  recent  authority  of  the  second  general  council 
of  Nicrea,  which  in  787  placed  the  choice  exclusively  in  the 
hands  of  the  provincial  bishops,  and  declared  null  and  void  all 
nominations  by  the  temporal  authority.3  Although  this  coun 
cil  was  received  by  the  Christian  world  as  oecumenic,  still  its 
canons  in  this  respect  had  received  as  little  attention  from 
Charlemagne  as  those  relating  to  image  worship,  and  even  in 
Rome  they  were  soon  disregarded,  for  a  synod  held  in  826  by 
Eugenius  II.  forbade  the  consecration  of  any  bishop  unless  he 
was  regularly  demanded  by  both  clergy  and  people.4  The 
eighth  general  council,  however,  held  at  Constantinople  in  869, 

celli,  and  he  treated  as  null  and  void  the  consecration  bestowed  on  an 
other  candidate  by  the  archbishop. — Johann.  PP.  VIII.  Epist.  2(57. 

1  Nicholai  PP.  I.  Epist.  82  cap.  4. 

2  Concil.  Nicsen.  I.  can.  4,  6. — Laodicens.  can.  12. — Antioch.  can.  16. — 
Carthag.  II.  can.  12. — Arelatens.  II.  can.  5,  54. — In  the  Spanish  collection 
of  Martin  of  Braga,  by  an  interpolation  in  the  Laodicean  canon,  the 
people  were  especially  excluded  from  all  participation  in  episcopal  elec 
tions   (Martin.  Bracar.  can.  1).     We  have  already  seen,  however,  that 
among  the  Wisigoths  the  kings  had  succeeded  in  having  the  appointing 
power  transferred  to  themselves. 

3  Concil.  NicEen.  II.  can.  3. 

4  Pertz,  Legum  T.  II.  P.  n.  pp.  11-15. 


100         THE     RISE     OF     THE     TEMPORAL     POWER. 

repeated  the  commands  of  that  of  Nicrea,  and  endeavored  to 
enforce  it  by  fulminating  the  anathema  against  all  temporal 
princes  who  should  endeavor  to  interfere  in  the  selection  of 
bishops.1 

These  efforts  were  strictly  in  accordance  with  the  practice 
of  the  East,  where,  notwithstanding  the  undisputed  authority 
in  ecclesiastical  matters  assumed  by  the  Byzantine  emperors, 
they  were  accustomed,  nominally  at  least,  to  exercise  much  less 
control  over  episcopal  elections  than  the  sovereigns  of  the 
AVest.  Except  in  the  case  of  the  patriarchs,  they  generally 
allowed  the  church  to  regulate  for  herself  the  personality  of 
her  prelates.  Tlieodosius  the  younger  had  placed  in  the  hands 
of  the  Patriarch  of  Constantinople  the  power  of  confirming  all 
elections  to  bishoprics  ;2  and  though  in  the  next  century  Justin 
II.  had  given  rise  to  great  complaint  by  openly  trafficking  in 
episcopal  nominations,3  still  the  rules  expressed  by  the  councils  of 
Nicaea  and  Constantinople  were  generally  respected.  Justin 
ian  promulgated  the  rule  that  the  people  of  the  diocese  should 
elect  three  candidates,  from  among  whom  the  selection  was 
made  by  the  metropolitan,4  and  this  was  continued  in  force  by 
Leo  the  Philosopher.5  It  was  reserved  for  Nicephorus  Phocas, 
about  9G5,  to  assume  definitely  the  disposal  of  bishoprics, 
which  the  historian  assures  us  he  sold  to  those  who  could  pay 
his  price  from  exactions  on  their  flocks.6  When,  of  all  the 
tyrannical  acts  of  the  abhorred  Nicephorus,  this  was  considered 
to  be  the  worst,  we  may  readily  conclude  that  it  was  an  inno 
vation,  although  the  indignation  of  the  historian  is  doubtless  to 
be  divided  between  the  despotism  and  the  avarice  of  the  em 
peror.  It  was  not  long  endured,  however,  for  when,  in  969, 
John  Zirniskes  by  midnight  assassination  sought  the  crown  of 
his  uncle  and  benefactor,  the  pardon  for  his  crime,  which 
lacked  nothing  to  fill  the  measure  of  its  atrocity,  was  purchased 

1  Concil.  General.  VIII.  can.  22. 

2  Socrat.  Hist.  Eccles.  Lib.  vm.  cap.  28. 

3  Evagrii  Hist.  Eccles.  Lib.  v.  cap.  1.  4  Novell.  123  cap.  1. 

5  Basilicon  Lib.  in.  Tit.  i.  cap.  8.  6  Cedreuus  sub.  Niceph. 


THE     CHURCH    AND    THE     STATE.  101 

by  the  repeal  of  the  obnoxious  laws  of  Nicephorus,  such  being 
the  condition  on  which  the  murderous  usurper  was  crowned  by 
the  Patriarch  Polyeuctes.1 

In  the  West  the  bishops  were  not  so  fortunate,  though 
various  allusions  in  the  epistles  of  Lupus  of  Ferrieres  show 
that  they  strenuously  struggled  to  obtain  control  over  the 
choice  of  their  associates.2  The  necessities  of  the  times  were 
peculiarly  opposed  to  such  pretensions,  for  the  poorer  and  more 
powerless  were  the  kings,  the  more  pressing  became  their 
wants.  Services  which  they  could  not  command  had  to  be 
bought ;  and,  as  the  royal  fisc  was  for  the  most  part  exhausted, 
they  could  be  liberal  only  with  the  property  of  others.  In 
those  dismal  times  of  anarchy,  the  arbitrary  acts  which  pur 
chased  the  temporary  fidelity  of  the  powerful  by  spoiling  the 
weak  grew  more  and  more  frequent,  and  rich  bishoprics  and 
fat  abbeys  were  often  the  readiest  means  at  hand  to  silence  the 
hungry  horde  of  rebellious  chieftains.  In  abuses  such  as  these 
the  crown  and  the  nobles  supported  each  other,  and  the  church 
could  only  submit.  The  regulations  laid  down  by  the  council 
of  Valence,  in  855,  show  that  no  episcopal  election  could  be 
held  without  the  express  permission  of  the  sovereign  ;  and  that, 
if  in  place  of  allowing  this  the  king  chose  to  make  an  arbitrary 
appointment,  the  only  recourse  was  an  humble  remonstrance 
in  cases  of  manifest  unfitness  of  the  nominee.3  How  recklessly 
this  power  was  often  exercised  is  shown  by  the  appointment, 
in  856,  by  Charles  le  Chauve,  of  a  successor  to  St.  Folcuin, 
Bishop  of  Terouane,  before  that  aged  prelate  was  dead — an  in 
discretion  rendered  the  more  conspicuous  by  the  frightful  effects 
of  the  malediction  pronounced  by  the  incensed  saint  on  the 
unlucky  interloper4 — and  scarcely  less  arbitrary  was  his  action 

1  Cedrenus  sub.  Johann.  Zimisk.     Zirniskes,  apparently,  was  a  special 
favorite  of  the  Virgin  Mary. — Zonarae  Annal.  sub  eod.     Cf.  Astolfl  Hist, 
delle  Imagine  della  gran  Madre  di  Dio,  Lib.  V.  (Venet.  1621). 

2  Epist.  79,  81,  98,  etc. 

3  Concil.  Valentin.  III.  ann.  855  can.  7. 

4  Vit.  S.  Folcuin.  cap.  13. 


102         THE     RISE     OF     THE     TEMPORAL     POWER. 

when,  in  8GG,  lie  cut  short  the  deliberations  of  a  synod  on  a 
knotty  point  of  canon  law  by  appointing  on  his  sole  authority 
Wulftidus  to  the  important  archiepiscopal  see  of  Bourges.1 
When,  indeed,  about  the  same  time  he  bestowed  the  wealthy 
abbacy  of  Tours  on  Robert-le-Fort,  the  head  of  the  house  of 
Capet,  lie  little  thought  that  he  was  founding  a  line  of  royal 
hereditary  abbots  who  for  eight  centuries  would  wear  the  mitre 
under  the  crown.2  Yet  the  pretensions  of  the  church  continued 
to  gain  ground  notwithstanding  the  arbitrary  exercise  of  power 
manifested  whenever  the  incessant  turmoil  afforded  the  sove 
reign  an  opportunity  of  exerting  his  ancient  prerogative.  The 
acts  of  the  examination  of  Willibert,  applying  in  868  to  be 
consecrated  to  the  see  of  Chalons,  show  how  rigorously  a  high 
churchman  like  Hincmar  could  assert  his  supervisory  functions, 
even  after  the  performance  of  a  canonical  election  followed  by 
the  confirmation  of  the  sovereign.  In  this  case,  Charles,  in 
place  of  commanding  the  installation  of  the  bishop-elect,  simply 
prayed  that  the  office  might  be  bestowed  on  him  if  he  should 
be  deemed  worthy,  thus  formally  recognizing  the  power  of  re 
jection  assumed  by  the  bishops  of  the  province.3  In  the  general 
scramble  for  the  fragments  of  kingly  authority,  the  metropoli 
tans,  too,  endeavored  to  grasp  a  share,  and  they  readily  yielded 
to  the  temptation  of  abusing  their  supervisory  power  by  acts  as 
arbitrary  as  those  of  the  sovereigns.  Thus,  in  844,  in  a  va 
cancy  occurring  in  the  see  of  Autun,  we  find  Wenilo  of  Sens 
addressing  Amulus,  Archbishop  of  Lyons,  in  the  name  of 
Charles  le  Chauve,  asking  his  confirmation  of  the  royal  nomi 
nation  to  the  bishopric  in  terms  which  show  that,  though  the 
royal  power  to  appoint  was  asserted  to  be  derived  from  the 

1  Annal.  Bertin.  arm.  866. 

2  Abbeys  were  regularly  in  the  gift  of  the  crown.     Though  Louis  le 
Debonnaire,  in  816,  conceded  the  right  of  election  to  the  monks  (Capit. 
Aquisgranens.  ann.   816  cap.  5),  yet,  in  823,  we  find  him   issuing   his 
orders— "  Abbatibus  quoque  et  laicis  specialiter  jubemus  ut  in  monas- 
teriis  qua3  ex  nostra  largitate  habent,"  etc.     (Capit.  Ludov.  Pii  anu.  823 
cap.  8.) 

3  Baluz.  II.  612-6. 


THE     CHURCH     AND     THE     STATE.  103 

popes,  yet  that  without  the  assent  of  the  metropolitan  it  would 
amount  to  but  little  in  practice.1  That  this  was  so  is  proved 
by  the  fact  that,  on  the  death  of  a  Bishop  of  Vence,  the  Arch 
bishop  of  Embrun  refused  consecration  to  a  candidate  duly 
elected  by  the  diocese  and  confirmed  by  the  king,  and  pro 
ceeded  to  install  a  favorite  of  his  own,  whom  he  endeavored  to 
force  upon  the  reluctant  flock.  John  VIII.  readily  listened  to 
the  complaints  of  the  ejected  aspirant,  stigmatized  the  conduct 
of  the  archbishop  as  uncanonical,  and  took  advantage  of  the 
quarrel  to  make  good  the  claims  of  papal  supremacy  by  sum 
moning  both  parties  before  him  for  examination.2 

Still  the  sovereign  struggled  to  maintain  his  prerogative,  and 
was  supported  by  his  nobles,  for  when  Charles  and  his  people 
provided  for  the  conduct  of  the  state  during  his  absence  in 
Italy,  the  celebrated  Capitulary  of  Chiersy  records  the  agree 
ment  that  if  any  bishopric  should  become  vacant  while  he  was 
beyond  the  kingdom,  it  should  remain  unfilled  until  he  could 
be  notified  of  the  fact.3  Yet  notwithstanding  this,  the  bishops 
continued  to  press  their  advantage  and  assumed  that  they  had 
succeeded  to  all  the  powers  once  possessed  by  the  crown.  Thus, 
about  880,  the  people  of  Beauvais  successively  elected  three 
bishops  who  were  one  by  one  rejected  by  Hincmar  and  his  suf 
fragans.  With  the  assent  of  the  Beauvoisins,  Louis  le  Begue 
then  urged  the  nomination  of  a  fourth,  but  Hincmar,  speaking 
for  the  synod  of  St.  Macra,  laid  down  the  law  that  the  func 
tions  of  the  consecrating  bishops  in  reality  constituted  the 
election,  that  the  confirmation  by  the  sovereign  was  a  mere 
formality,  and  that  the  people  of  Beauvais  had  forfeited  the 
right  to  have  anything  to  say  in  the  matter.4  So,  in  895,  the 
interference  of  Pope  Formosus  was  invoked  to  aid  a  certain 
Berthair,  regularly  elected  to  the  see  of  Chalons  and  confirmed 
by  King  Eudes,  whom  Fulk,  Archbishop  of  Rheims,  refused 
to  admit.  King  and  pope  were  alike  powerless  in  the  matter, 

1  Lupi  Ferrar.  Epist.  Ixxxi.  2  Johaun.  PP.  VIII.  Epist.  101. 

3  Capit.  Carol.  Cal.  Tit.  LTII.  cap.  8. 

4  Hincmar.  Epist.  xix.  cap.  4,  6. 


104          THE     RISE     OF     THE     TEMPORAL    POWER. 

for  Fulk  instigated  one  of  his  vassals  to  drive  out  and  imprison 
Berthair,  and  then  lie  placed  the  diocese  of  Chalons  under  the 
charge  of  the  Bishop  of  Terouarie,  who  was  at  that  time  a  fugi 
tive  from  the  ravages  of  the  Northmen.1 

No  general  principles  can  be  deduced  from  the  acts  of  a 
period  of  anarchy,  when  the  law  of  the  strongest  thus  affords 
the  only  right.  When  the  Capetian  revolution  marked  the 
establishment  of  the  feudal  system,  one  of  its  incidents  was  the 
transfer  to  the  great  feudatories  of  the  control  over  the  bishop 
rics  previously  enjoyed  by  the  crown.2  This  was  subsequently 
revendicated  as  the  power  of  the  sovereign  gradually  reasserted 
itself,  and  the  happy  thought  of  a  concordat  enabled  king  arid 
pope  to  share  the  plunder  which  belonged  to  neither.3  How 
little  the  rights  of  those  most  concerned  were  regarded  by  the 
contending  parties  during  the  struggle  may  be  learned  from  the 
quarrel  over  the  succession  to  the  see  of  Bangor  under  Thomas 
a  Becket.  Meurig,  Bishop  of  Bangor,  died  in  11G1,  when 
Owen,  Prince  of  Gwynnedd,  exacted  an  oath  of  the  cathedral 
chapter  to  elect  no  one  without  his  approval.  St.  Thomas 
denounced  this  as  a  flagrant  invasion  of  the  liberties  of  the 
church  ;  he  procured  from  the  pope,  for  the  archdeacons  and 
canons,  an  absolution  from  their  oath,  and,  in  announcing  this 
to  them  as  a  special  favor  in  their  behalf,  he  added  that  if  they 
did  not  promptly  elect  his  nominee  to  the  bishopric,  he  would 
at  once  excommunicate  them,  and  subject  the  whole  diocese  to 
an  interdict.4  Placed  thus  between  two  fires,  the  chapter  natu- 

1  Flodoard.  Hist.  Romens.  Lib.  in.  cap.  3. 

2  Dux  Aquitanorum  et  alii  proceres  potestatem  super  episcopos,  quam 
autea  regis   habuerunt  tenere   coeperunt. —  Chron.  Richard!   Pictaviens. 
(Martene  Ampl.  Coll.  V.  1168.) 

3  See  the  bitter  complaints  of  Nicholas  de  Claminges  over  this  unholy 
alliance  and  his  description  of  its  effects  on  the  character  of  the  church. 
(De  Ruina  Ecclesiae  cap.  xviii.)     The  council  of  Constance,  among  other 
projected  reforms,  proposed  to  restore  the  rights  of  election  to  bishoprics, 
but  it  was  eluded  as  skilfully  as  the  other  well-meant  endeavors  to  stay 
the  downward  progress  of  the  church.— Reform.  Constant.  Decretal.  Lib. 
I.  Tit.  iii.  (Von  der  Hardt,  Tom.  I.  p.  671). 

4  S.  Thoma?  Cantuar.  Epist.  11:2-115. 


THE    CHURCH     AND     THE     STATE.  105 

rally  did  nothing,  and  for  nine  years  Bangor  was  deprived  of  a 
bishop.  The  true  remedy  was  that  suggested  by  the  Emperor 
Henry  V.  when  he  offered  to  surrender  all  the  ecclesiastical 
rights  demanded  by  Rome,  if  the  church  would  abandon  the 
temporalities  which  gave  him  a  claim  to  the  investitures.1  So 
thought  Arnold  of  Brescia,  who  expiated  at  the  stake  his  zeal 
ous  efforts  to  purify  the  temple  by  clearing  it  of  the  worldly 
treasures  which  encumbered  it.  So,  too,  thought  Dante  when 
he  prophesied  that  the  "Veltro"  would  reform  the  abuses 
which  had  so  utterly  perverted  the  design  and  the  principles 
of  Christianity — 

"  Non  fu  la  sposa  di  Christo  allevata 

Del  sangue  mio,  di  Liu,  di  quel  di  Cleto, 
Per  essere  ad  acquisto  d'oro  usata  .   .   . 

In  vesta  di  pastor,  Inpi  rapaci 
Si  veggion  di  quassu  per  tutti  i  paschi,  .   .  . 

Ma  1'alta  providenza  .   .  . 
Soccorra  tosto,  si  com'  io  concipio." 

(Paradise,  xxvn.) 

And  not  long  after  the  death  of  the  great  Florentine,  an 
honest  Swiss  churchman,  in  deploring  the  quarrel  between 
Louis  of  Bavaria  and  the  papacy,  attributes  all  the  disorders 
and  misfortunes  of  the  church  to  the  lust  of  temporal  do 
minion  and  wealth  excited  by  the  donations  of  Constantino 
and  Charlemagne — 

Rex  Constantinus  cum  successoribus  suis 
Si  Papre  regna  tarn  pinguia  non  tribuisset, 
Tune  humilis  staret,  simplicitate  pia  .  .  . 


1  The  church  of  Liege,  in  defending  itself  from  the  thunders  of  Paschal 
II.,  incurred  through  its  fidelity  to  Henry  V.,  quotes  a  passage  from  St. 
Ambrose  singularly  to  the  purpose — "Si  Christus  non  habuit  imaginem 
Coesaris,  cur  dedit  censum  ?  Non  de  suo  dedit ;  sed  reddidit  mundo  quse 
erant  mundi.  Et  tu  si  non  vis  esse  obnoxius  Csesari,  noli  habere  quse 
mundi  sunt.  Sed  si  habes  divitias,  obnoxius  es  Coesari.  Si  vis  nihil 
debere  regi  terreno,  dimitte  omnia  et  sequere  Christum." — Udalr.  Babenb, 
Cod.  Lib.  II.  cap.  234. 


106          THE     RISE     OF     THE     TEMPORAL     POWER. 

Sed  quia  dotavit  Coesar  nimis  atque  ditavit, 
Fertilibus  terris  Papas,  ideo  tumuerunt, 
Et  cupide  certant  carpere  plura  boua  .  .   . 
Hgec  pestis  sseva  causata  avaritia. 
Ecclesiam  nummus  vilem  fecit  meretricem, 
Nam  pro  mercede  scortum  dat  se  cupientl.1 


1  Vitodurani  Chron.  aim.  1344  p.  69  (Thes.  Hist.  Helvet.).  Vitodu- 
ranus  was  a  good  Catholic,  and  a  pious  hater  of  heretics  and  Jews.  The 
opinions  thus  expressed  were  not  singular.  Nicholas  de  Claminges,  in 
treating  of  the  Great  Schism,  attributes  the  evils  which  afflicted  the  church 
to  the  absorption  of  the  nominating  power  by  Rome.  "  Si  ecclesia  ilia 
collationem  omnium  graduum  ecclesise  universalis  nunquam  sibi  arro- 
gasset  caeterasque  suis  j uribus  universas  ingurgitando  ecclesias  nequaquam 
exspoliasset,  vel  hoc  schisma  nunquam  in  ilia  exorturum  fuisse  vel  non 
tanto  saltern  tempore  perdurasse"  (Nic.  de  Clamiugiis  Disput.  super 
Materiem  Concil.  General,  p.  45).  And  again  "Omnium  quippe  eccle- 
siarum  vacautium  .  .  .  jura  et  collationes  sibi  attribuerunt,  electiones  ipsas 
a  sanctis  olim  patribus  cum  tanto  vigilantia  et  utilitate  institutas  cassas 
atque  irritas  decernentes.  Ut  vel  sic  sua  ulterius  explere  possent  marsu- 
pia,  ex  omnique  provincia  Christiano  nomine  dedicata,  molem  auri  atque 
argenti  infinitam,  ad  sure  opus  camera?,  sedula  negotiatione  congregare." 
Nic.  Claming,  de  Ruina  Ecelcsioe  cap.  v.  (Von  der  Hardt,  T.  I.  P.  i.  p. 
9,  10).  So  thoroughly  did  the  Holy  See  eventually  monopolize  this  im 
portant  source  of  wealth  and  influence  that  when  at  the  council  of  Trent 
the  Bishop  of  Cadiz,  Nov.  30, 1562,  ventured  to  remark  that  formerly  some 
bishops  had  been  consecrated  without  papal  intervention,  the  Italian  pre 
lates  stopped  him  with  loud  outcries  and  the  stamping  of  feet,  declaring  him 
accursed  and  demanding  that  he  should  forthwith  be  handed  over  to  the 
ecclesiastical  tribunals  for  punishment  (Le  Plat  Monument.  Concil.  Tri 
dent.  VII.  ii.  92). 

Spain,  indeed,  had  struggled  lustily  against  the  gradually  increasing 
pretensions  of  the  Holy  See  to  control  ecclesiastical  preferment,  and  En 
rique  III.  of  Castile  had  even  gone  so  far,  in  an  edict  of  Jan.  24,  1396,  as 
to  threaten  the  penalty  of  death  for  all  Spaniards  who  should  apply  to  the 
papal  court  for  nomination  to  Spanish  benefices,  but  the  papacy  triumphed 
(MS.  Bib.  Reg.  Hafniens.  No.  216  fol.). 

The  evils  thus  inflicted  on  Christendom  may  be  imagined  from  a  com 
plaint  made  by  the  council  of  Paris  in  1528.  The  progress  of  Luther- 
anism  had  aroused  the  church  to  the  necessity  of  reform,  and  one  of  the 
principal  measures  suggested  by  the  council  was  to  prohibit  the  ordina 
tion  of  unworthy  clerks.  To  this  there  was  the  obstacle  that  those  who 
were  refused  orders  at  home  were  in  the  habit  of  posting  off  to  Rome, 


THE     CHURCH     AND     THE     STATE.  107 

Closely  connected  with  the  question  of  investitures  was  that 
of  episcopal  oaths  of  fidelity.  In  the  formula  provided  for  the 
Italian  bishops,  prior  to  the  Iconoclastic  schism,  of  the  oath  to 
be  taken  on  their  consecration,  there  is  a  clause  by  which  they 
swore  fidelity  to  the  monarch,  and  the  whole  was  strengthened 
by  imprecating  on  themselves  the  fate  of  Ananias  and  Sapphira 
in  case  of  infraction.1  In  the  settlement  of  affairs  under  the 
Carlovingians  the  same  reasons  which  enabled  the  sovereign 
to  claim  the  right  of  confirmation  warranted  him  also  in  de 
manding  from  the  new  incumbent  the  customary  oaths  that  the 
power  thus  intrusted  to  him  should  not  be  used  to  the  detri 
ment  of  the  state,  as  personified  in  the  monarch.  We  have 
seen  that  Charlemagne  and  Louis  exacted  this  even  from  the 
successor  of  St.  Peter  ;  that  prelates  of  inferior  grade  were 
not  exempted  becomes,  therefore,  a  matter  of  course.  When, 
in  802,  the  emperor  caused  to  be  renewed  the  oath  which  his 
subjects  had  already  taken  to  him  as  king,  he  directed  that  it 
should  be  administered  to  all,  laymen  and  ecclesiastics,  without 
exception  ;  and,  though  bishops  are  not  specifically  mentioned, 
the  fact  that  they  were  necessarily  included  is  shown  by  an 
allusion  to  them  in  a  similar  precept  by  Pepin,  King  of  Italy, 
some  years  previously.3  The  form  was  in  no  way  less  stringent 
than  that  of  the  oath  taken  by  laymen,  being  a  comprehensive 
homage  to  the  person  of  the  monarch,  secured  by  the  customary 
oaths  on  the  gospels,  or  on  relics  of  approved  sanctity.*  That 
its  binding  force  was  admitted  on  all  hands  is  shown  in  the 
rebellion  of  833,  when  even  Gregory  IV.  felt  obliged  to  ex 
culpate  himself  from  the  charge  of  perjury  for  the  part  which 

whence  they  returned  endowed  with  all  the  orders  at  once.  This  council 
determined  to  resist,  but  without  success  (Concil.  Paris,  ann.  1528  can. 
vii.  viii.  Harduin.  x.  1953). 

1  Lib.  Diurn.  Roman.  Pon.tif.  cap.  in.  Tit.  viii. 

2  Capit.  Carol.  Mag.  i.  aim.  802  cap.  2. 

3  Capit.  Pippini  ann.  793  cap.  36. 

4  "Sic  me  Deus  adjuvet  et  ista  sancta  patrocinia."     See  the  oath  ex 
torted  from  Hincmar  of  Rheims — HincmariOpp.  I.  1125  (Migne's  Patrol. 
T.  125). 


108          THE     RISE     OF     THE     TEMPORAL    POWER. 

he  took  against  Louis  after  the  oath  of  fidelity  sworn  at  his 
installation,  and  he  attempted  to  justify  himself  only  by  retort 
ing  on  the  Frankisli  bishops  the  charge  of  being  really  guilty 
of  the  same  crime.1  The  church  itself  even  recognized  the 
episcopal  dignity  as  held  only  in  virtue  of  this  homage,  for  we 
find  the  council  of  Aix-la-Chapelle,  in  836,  declaring  that  the 
violation  of  the  oath  shall  entail  the  degradation  of  the  offender 
and  the  forfeiture  of  his  preferment.2  In  this  the  fathers  of 
the  council  were  merely  recording  the  established  usage,  for  in 
794  a  certain  Bishop  Peter,  accused  of  treason,  purged  him 
self  by  the  ordeal,  and  on  thus  proving  his  innocence  it  is  re 
lated  that  he  was  restored  by  Charlemagne  to  the  position  of 
which  he  had  been  deprived.3 

That  Charlemagne,  indeed,  considered  his  bishops  to  be 
vassals  in  the  same  sense  as  secular  dignitaries  is  shown  by  the 
expression  which  he  habitually  used  when  refusing  their  re 
quests  for  some  fragment  of  the  possessions  of  the  crown — 
"  With  such  an  abbey  or  such  an  estate  I  can  secure  the  fidelity 
of  a  better  vassal  than  that  count  or  that  bishop."4  That,  more 
over,  their  sees  were  held  on  tenure  as  precarious  as  that  of 
the  secular  nobles  is  shown  by  a  story  told  by  the  Monk  of  St. 
Gall,  to  the  effect,  that  he  once  ordered  all  the  bishops  of  the 
empire  to  preach  in  their  churches  by  a  certain  day,  under 
penalty  of  dismissal  and  degradation.  A  bishop  who  felt  his 
incompetency  for  the  duty,  and  who,  therefore,  feared  the  loss 

1  "  Subjungitis,  memorem  me  esse  debere  jurisjurandi  causa  fidei  fac- 
tum  imperatori.     Quod  si  feciin  hoc  volo  vitare  perjurium  .  .  .  Vostamen 
quia  proculdubio  jurastis  et  rejurastis,  promittentes  ei  erga  ilium  omnia 
fideliter  vos  agere,  perjuri  estis" — Gregor.  PP.  IV.  deComparat.  Utriusq. 
Regim.  (ap.  Agobardi  Opp.).     The  imperial  party  enunciated  the  rule  in 
the  clearest  manner — "  Episcopos  in   causa  fidei  jusjurandum  prasstare 
solitos  imperatori"   (Goldast.  I.  188) — which  perhaps  indicates  that  the 
rebel  princes  were  endeavoring  to  gain  ecclesiastical  support  by  favoring 
the  pretensions  of  the  church  to  independence. 

2  Concil.  Aquisgr.  II.  ann.  836  cap.  ii.  can.  12.     This  declaration  was 
probably  called  forth  by  the  political  reaction  of  835. 

3  Capit.  Carol.  Mag.  ann.  794  cap.  7. 

4  Monach.  S.  Gall,  de  Vita  Caroli  Mag.  Lib   i.  cap.  x. 


THE     CHURCH     AND     THE     STATE.  109 

of  his  episcopate,  adopted  an  ingenious  expedient  to  avoid  the 
test,  and  suborned  some  courtiers  to  report  in  his  favor  to  the 
emperor.  The  latter,  however,  discovered  the  deceit,  but  mer 
cifully  permitted  him  to  retain  his  bishopric.1 

Such  being  the  recognized  subjection  of  the  prelates  as  vas 
sals  of  the  crown,  doing  homage  for  their  sees,  and  liable  to 
deprivation  for  infidelity  to  the  sovereign,  or  for  other  cause  at 
his  pleasure,  we  see  the  completeness  of  the  revolution  when 
we  find  the  Neustrian  bishops,  in  their  address  to  Louis  le 
Germanique  in  858,  boldly  declaring  that,  unlike  laymen,  they 
were  not  obliged  to  perform  any  act  of  homage  or  to  take  any 
oaths.2  The  effort  was  temporarily  successful,  for  though, 
some  fifteen  years  later,  Charles  forced  the  reluctant  Hincmar  of 
Rheims  to  corroborate  his  suspected  loyalty  by  the  oath  which 
had  not  been  exacted  at  his  installation,  yet  the  humiliated 
prelate  had  his  revenge.  He  takes  especial  care  to  chronicle 
how,  at  the  coronation  of  Louis  le  Begue,  in  877,  the  bishops 
merely  performed  commendation  for  the  churches  and  promised 
fidelity,  while  the  abbots  and  nobles  commended  themselves, 
and  took  the  oaths  prescribed  by  ancestral  custom.3  This  pre 
tension,  however,  was  too  directly  opposed  to  the  tendencies  of 
the  age,  which  was  rapidly  resolving  all  institutions  into  the 
nascent  feudal  system,  to  be  permanently  successful,  though  it 
was  long  and  hotly  contested.  Yet  the  declaration  of  the 
bishops,  in  808,  was  a  correct  index  of  their  position  at  the 
time,  and  an  example  or  two  may  serve  to  mark  the  practical 
advantages  resulting  to  them  within  a  few  years.  In  817, 
when  Bernard  of  Italy  made  his  fruitless  revolt  against  his 

1  Monacli.  S.  Gall.  cap.  xvi.— Licet  indicium  permisit  retiuere  pontifi- 
catum. 

2  Capit.  Carol.  Cal.  Tit.  xxvn.  cap  15.    This  claim  was  founded  on  the 
immunity  from  judicial  and  purgatorial  oaths,  which,  on  the  authority  of 
the  False  Decretals,  ecclesiastics  about  this  time  endeavored  to  obtain 
(Gratian.  Caus.  n.  q.  5  can.  1,  2,  3— Pseudo-Cornel.  Epist.  2).     Promis 
sory  oaths,  which   the  bishops   thus   refused,  were,   however,   allowed 
(Gratian.  Caus.  xxxn.  q.  1  can.  1). 

3  Annal.  Berlin,  ann.  877. 

10 


110         THE     RISE     OF     THE     TEMPORAL     POWER. 

uncle,  there  was  little  ceremony  shown  in  dealing  with  the  pre 
lates  who  were  his  confederates.  Anselm  of  Milan,  Wolwod 
of  Cremona,  Theodulf  of  Orleans,  and  other  ecclesiastics  who 
had  participated  in  the  rebellion,  were  deposed  by  a  synod, 
though  their  dignity  saved  them  from  the  personal  punishment 
adjudged  to  the  secular  participants  in  the  rebellion.1  So,  in 
835,  when  Louis  le  Debonnaire  was  reinstated  after  the  second 
revolt  of  his  sons,  the  bishops  of  the  defeated  party  were  put 
on  trial.  The  primatiul  dignity  of  Lyons  could  not  preserve 
St.  Agobard  from  degradation  ;  the  traditional  veneration  for 
St.  Remi  did  not  save  his  unworthy  successor,  Ebbo,  while 
less  distinguished  prelates  sought  safety  in  flight.2  On  the 
other  hand,  when,  in  859,  Charles  le  Chauve  demanded  judg 
ment  against  Wenilo,  Archbishop  of  Sens,  who,  under  circum 
stances  of  peculiar  treachery,  had  been  a  leading  instrument  in 
the  usurpation  which  for  a  moment  placed  Louis  le  Germanique 

1  Thegaii.  <le  Gest.  Ludov.  c.  22.— Eginh.  Annal.  aim.  818.— Annal.  Vet. 
Francor.  aim.  821.     Theodulf  languished  in  prison  lor  many  years,  and 
was  only  released  when  Louis,  in  passing  his  plaee  of  eonfinement,  was 
touched  by  hearing  him  sing  a  hymn  of  his  ow^n  composition — "Gloria, 
laus,  et  honor  tibi."     In  a  poetical  epistle  addressed  from  his  prison  to 
Modoin,  Theodulf  emphatically  asserts  the  irregularity  of  his   confine 
ment — 

Servus  habet  propriam  et  mendax  aucillula  legcni, 

Opilio,  pistor,  nauta,  subulcua.'arans. 
Proh  dolor  !  amisit  hanc  solus  episcopus,  onlo 

Qui  labefactatur  nunc  sine  lege  sua  ; 
Debuit  et  qui  aliis  legalia  promere  jura 

Officii  perdit  jus,  sine  jure,  sui. 
Culpa  facit  saevum  confessa  perire  latronem, 

Non  est  confessus  prscsul,  et  ecce  peril  .  .  . 
Non  ibi  testis  inest,  judex  nee  idoneus  nllus, 

Nou  aliquod  crimen  ipse  ego  fassus  eram. 
Esto:  for  em  fassus  cujus  ceusura  valeret 

bedere  judicii  cougrua  frsena  mihi? 
Solius  illud  Romani  prscsulis  exstat 

Cujus  ego  accepi  pallia  sancta  manu. 

Theodulph.  ad  Modoin. 

It  is  observable  that  Theodulf  does  not  disclaim  responsibility,  but 
merely  that  he  had  a  right  to  trial  by  the  pope  on  account  of  having  re 
ceived  the  pallium,  of  which  more  hereafter. 

2  Astron.  Vit.  Ludov.  Pii   ann.  835. 


THE    CHURCH     AND     THE     STATE.  Ill 

in  possession  of  his  brother's  kingdom,  the  royal  prosecutor 
could  obtain  no  satisfactory  action1 — and  the  only  punishment 
incurred  by  the  traitor  was  the  tradition  which  embalmed  his 
name,  in  the  Ganelon  of  the  chansons  de  yeste,  as  the  embodi 
ment  of  falsity. 

While  thus  striking  at  all  the  principles  which  subordinated 
the  church  to  the  state,  it  must  not  be  supposed  that  the  saga 
cious  originators  of  the  movement  had  endeavored  to  create  a 
body  of  irresponsible  ecclesiastical  despots,  each  supreme  in 
his  own  diocese  or  province,  to  become  eventually  the  priest- 
king  of  an  insignificant  territory.  Even  as  the  churchman 
was  elevated  above  the  layman,  so  was  the  power  of  the 
hierarchy  developed  in  the  comprehensive  scheme  of  Ingilram 
and  Isidor.  Transmitting  step  by  step  the  new  powers  thus 
acquired  to  the  supreme  head  at  Rome,  the  whole  body  of 
the  church  was  rendered  compact  and  manageable,  either  for 
assault  or  defence ;  and  it  acquired  the  organization  which 
enabled  it  not  only  to  preserve  most  of  the  advantages  thus 
gained,  but  to  extend  in  all  directions  its  influence  and  author 
ity.  Had  the  bishops  maintained  their  individual  independence 
they  could  have  accomplished  nothing  beyond  the  ends  of  per 
sonal  ambition,  as  did  the  nobles  who  were  then  carving  out 
their  hereditary  fiefs  ;  and  even  this  success  would  have  been 
temporary,  for,  in  their  isolation,  they  would  have  succumbed 
one  by  one  under  the  attacks  of  the  rapacious  barons  who 
wielded  the  military  power  of  their  provinces.  Wliat  the 
temporal  sovereign  lost,  however,  was  transmitted  through  the 
hierarchy  to  the  pope,  and  the  church  acquired  the  unity 
which  was  requisite  to  carry  it  through  the  stormy  centime 
to  come. 

1  Annal.  Berlin,  ann.  859. 


112    THE  R  I  8  E  OF  THE  TEMPORAL  POWER. 


THE  PAPACY  AND  THE  CHURCH. 

The  rise  of  the  Papacy,  from  the  persecuted  head  of  an  insig 
nificant  local  church  to  the  supreme  domination  over  both  the 
spiritual  and  the  temporal  hierarchy  of  Europe,  is  one  of  the 
most  curious  problems  in  history.  One  element  in  its  solution 
I  have  already  endeavored  to  elucidate  by  showing  how  the 
church  acquired  control  over  the  state,  and  it  remains  to  see 
how  the  Pope  became  supreme  over  the  church. 

When  the  primitive  Christians  found  that  the  increase  of 
the  faithful  began  to  render  some  form  of  internal  organization 
requisite,  they  naturally  divided  themselves  into  sections,  cor 
responding  with  the  great  prefectures  of  the  empire,  and  these 
were  arranged  into  provinces  according  to  the  civil  demarca 
tions,  the  seat  of  local  government  being  the  head  of  the  local 
church.1  As  the  complexity  of  the  system  increased  with  the 
number  of  converts,  there  thus  arose  throughout  the  East  a 
complete  hierarchy  of  bishops,  metropolitans,  and  exarchs  or 
patriarchs,  which  varied  as  the  political  divisions  of  their  ter 
ritories  were  altered  ;  and  so  complete  was  the  dependence  of 
ecclesiastical  arrangements  upon  the  order  of  civil  government, 
that,  as  late  as  451,  the  council  of  Chalcedon  directed  that 
changes  in  the  civil  hierarchy  should  be  conformed  to  by  cor 
responding  alterations  in  the  constitution  of  the  church.2  With 
all  this^however,  a  certain  undefined  primacy  of  honor  was 
assigned  from  a  very  early  period  to  the  three  apostolic  sees  of 
Rome,  Alexandria,  and  Antioch. 

Rome  was  thus  most  favorably  situated  for  vindicating  what 
ever  pretensions  she  might  advance  of  control  over  her  sisters. 
Until  the  erection  of  a  new  imperial  city  at  Byzantium,  she 
combined  the  claims  of  the  seat  of  government  with  the  tradi 
tional  episcopate  of  St.  Peter,  and  almost  from  the  beginning 
her  bishopric  was  the  most  important  and  influential  in  the 

1  Concil.  Antioch.  ann.  341  can.  9.  2  Concil.  Chalced.  can.  17. 


THE  PAPACY  AND  THE  CHURCH.        113 

Christian  world.  The  number  and  character  of  her  church 
members  would  generally  lead  to  the  selection  of  the  ablest  of 
the  Western  Christians  to  her  episcopal  chair,  and  these  suc 
cessive  bishops,  from  the  weight  of  their  personal  character, 
would  transmit  a  gradually  increasing  influence.  The  centrali 
zation  of  wealth  in  the  Eternal  City  would  also  render  the 
Roman  see  by  far  the  richest  in  Christendom,  and  its  gold  was 
liberally  poured  forth,  during  the  whole  of  the  first  three  cen 
turies,  in  assisting  poorer  communities1 — a  munificence  which 
could  not  be  solicited  or  enjoyed  without  an  appreciable  sacri 
fice  of  independence  on  the  part  of  the  recipients.  Yet  the 
account  given  us  by  Hippolytus,  Bishop  of  Portus,  of  his  long 
controversy  with  Pope  Calixtus  I.,  shows  that  the  Bishop  of 
Rome,  in  the  commencement  of  the  third  century,  had  no 
recognized  supremacy  even  over  the  suburbicarian  sees  ;2  and 
though,  not  long  before,  Irenaius  had  declared  the  Roman  see 
to  possess  a  "  potiorem  principalitatem"  in  the  church,  owing 
to  the  directness  of  its  apostolical  tradition  from  Peter  and 
Paul,3  yet  "his  account  of  the  debates  between  Polycarp  and 
Pope  Anicetus  respecting  the  observance  of  Easter  shows  that 
this  was  merely  a  primacy  of  honor,  and  not  of  authority.* 

In  the  early  period  of  the  ecclesiastical  commonwealth  it 
was  customary  for  men  eminent  in  station  or  piety  to  address 
epistles,  hortatory  or  advisory,  to  other  churches,  either  on 
general  subjects  of  faith  or  discipline,  or  on  special  questions 
which  presented  themselves;  and,  in  time  of  difficulty,  promi 
nent  bishops  were  frequently  appealed  to  for  advice  or  assist 
ance  in  the  settlement  of  doubts.  In  the  second  century  we 
find  Dionysius  of  Corinth  thus  volunteering  without  hesitation 

1  Euseb.  Hist.  Eccles.  Lib.  iv.  c.  23  ;  Lib.  vn.  cap.  6.— To  the  liberality 
recorded  in  the  latter  reference  may  perhaps  be  attributed  the  submission 
of  the  Eastern  churches  to  the  wishes  of  Rome  in  the  vexed  question  of 
the  rebaptisni  of  heretics. 

2  Hippolytus,  Refutation  of  Heresies,  Bk.  IX.  chap.  vii. 

3  Trensei  adv.  Haeres.  Lib.  in.  cap.  iii. 

4  Euseb.  Hist.  Eccles.  Lib.  v.  c.  xxiv. 

10* 


114         THE     RISE     OF     THE     TEMPORAL    POWER. 

his  counsel  to  distant  communities,  and  even  addressing  Soter 
of  Eome  in  terms  which  manifest  the  perfect  equality  existing 
between  them.1  A  century  later,  when  Marcion  of  Aries  be 
came  infected  with  the  Novatian  heresy,  Faustinus  of  Lyons 
writes  repeatedly  to  St.  Cyprian  of  Carthage  and  to  Stephen 
I.  of  Rome,  imploring  their  interposition,  and  Cyprian,  in  an 
epistle  to  Stephen,  urges  him  to  join  in  counselling  the  flock 
of  Marcion  to  unite  in  electing  another  bishop  in  his  place1.2 

In  these  transactions  we  see  the  giadual  crystallization  of 
the  hierarchical  elements.  The  influence  which  the  more  im 
portant  churches  thus  exercised  over  those  in  no  way  subjected 
to  them  is  clearly  manifested,  and  we  cannot  wonder  that  the 
civil  predominance  of  the  imperial  city  should  at  an  early 
period  have  caused  its  bishops  to  be  selected  as  arbitrators  or 
advisers  in  difficult  conjunctures.  The  talents  and  energy  of 
Cyprian  give  a  momentary  prominence  to  his  province,  per 
sonal,  however,  in  its  nature,  and  dying  with  him.  Rome,  on 
the  other  hand,  has  certain  undefined  and  impalpable  claims 
to  superiority,  not  clearly  understood  at  home  or  fully  recog 
nized  abroad — disregarded  by  a  man  like  Cyprian,  secure  in 
his  own  force  and  that  of  the  powerful  African  church,  but 
yet  imposing  a  certain  claim  to  respect  on  weaker  prelates  and 
communities.  Yet  such  assumptions  of  superiority  were  watched 
with  jealousy,  and  were  frequently  repudiated.  When  Victor 
I.,  towards  the  close  of  the  second  century,  endeavored  to  ex 
communicate  the  Asian  bishops  for  the  irregularity  of  their 
solemnization  of  Kaster,  his  threats  were  set  at  naught,  and 
the  other  churches  interfered  in  the  quarrel  in  a  manner  show 
ing  that  entire  equality  existed  between  them.  Iremeus,  whose 
reputation  was  commanding  throughout  Gaul,  wrote  to  Victor 
a  letter  of  reproof  and  exhortation,  which  presupposes  that 
there  was  no  pre-eminence  in  the  see  of  Rome.3  In  269,  when 
the  council  of  Antioch  deposed  Paul  of  Samosata,  the  epistle 

1  Euseb.  Hist.  Ecclcs.  Lib.  iv.  c.  2:?. 

2  Cypriani  Epist.  f>6  (Ed.  Oxon.). 

•*  Eupeb,  Hist.  Eceles.  Lib.  v.  cap.  24. 


THE  PAPACY  AND  THE  CHURCH.        115 

in  which  the  result  was  announced  to  the  Christian  world 
shows  that  Dionysius,  the  existing  pope,  while  named  first,  as 
in  courtesy  to  his  position  in  the  capital,  had  no  special  influ 
ence  or  authority.1  The  superscriptions  of  Cyprian's  epistles — 
"  Cyprianus  Cornelio  fratri  salutem" — manifest  perfect  equal 
ity,  and  contrast  strangely  with  the  "  debitam  obedientiam  et 
subjectionem"  of  the  mediaeval  period ;  and  as  late  as  380  we 
find  Sulpicius  Severus  speaking  of  Pope  Damasus  and  St. 
Ambrose  of  Milan  as  the  two  bishops  who  were  then  of  greatest 
weight  in  the  church — apparently  not  recognizing  that  one 
could  have  any  definite  authority  over  the  other.2 

Yet,  even  under  the  pagan  emperors,  the  position  of  the 
Roman  bishops  near  the  imperial  court  gave  them  constant 
opportunities  of  acquiring  influence,  as  was  manifested  when 
Paul  of  Samosata  refused  obedience  to  the  decree  of  the  coun 
cil  of  Aritioch,  and  persisted  in  maintaining  his  position  despite 
the  appointment  of  a  successor.  Finding  it  impossible  to  dis 
lodge  him,  the  church  finally  appealed  to  Aurelian,  whose 
triumph  over  Zenobia  had  deprived  Paul  of  his  protectress. 
Aurelian  contented  himself  with  ordering  that  the  position 
should  be  given  to  that  one  of  the  contestants  who  was  approved 
by  the  bishops  of  Rome  and  of  Italy3 — through  whom  the 
appeal  had  doubtless  been  made.  The  pagan  Ca3sar  could 
scarcely  comprehend  subtle  disputations  on  the  nature  of  Christ, 
but  he  could  readily  appreciate  the  importance  of  extending 
Italian  influence  throughout  the  recently  disturbed  East.  From 
this  it  is  fair  to  presume  that  if  protection  was  to  be  sought 
from  local  persecution,  exemption  to  be  solicited  from  unjust  or 
oppressive  burdens,  or  other  favor  to  be  procured  from  the  ini- 

1  The  epistle  is  addressed  "  Dionysio,  Maximo,  et  omnibus  ubique  in 
orbe  terrarum  collegis,  episcopis,  presbytcris,  diaconis  et  universre  et 
catholicae  sub  coelo  ecclesire"   (Ejusd.  Lib.  vn.  cap.  30).     Maximus  was 
Bishop  of  Alexandria,  which,  with  Rome  and  Paul's  own  city  of  Antioeh, 
constituted  the  three  apostolic  sees. 

2  Hist,  Sacrae  Lib.  n.  cap.  48. 

3  Euseb.  Hist.  Eccles.  Lib.  vu.  cap.  30. 


116         THE     RISE     OP     THE     TEMPORAL     POWER. 

perial  court,  the  Bishop  of  Rome  would  be  the  natural  channel 
through  which  the  suppliants  would  address  their  master. 
Indeed,  this  was  laid  down  as  the  rule  of  the  church  under  the 
Christian  emperors,  for  the  council  of  Sardica,  in  347,  adopted 
a  canon  directing  that  any  prelate  visiting  Rome  to  obtain  a 
favor  from  the  civil  government  should  present  his  request 
through  the  hands  of  the  Roman  bishop  ;l  and  when  Constan 
tinople  rose  into  power,  the  rule  was  established  that  no  bishop 
could  obtain  an  audience  of  the  emperor  without  the  interven 
tion  of  the  patriarch  of  the  New  Rome.2 

As  the  Roman  church  thus  was  the  official  mediator  between 
her  sisters  and  their  master,  the  relations  thence  arising  tended 
inevitably  to  render  her  the  protector  of  her  nominal  equals. 
When,  therefore,  she  proffered  advice,  it  was  not  lightly  to  be 
rejected,  for  the  next  hour  might  render  her  intervention 
necessary  or  her  benevolence  invaluable  ;  and  if  her  tone 
gradually  grew  authoritative,  and  counsel  imperceptibly  assumed 
the  form  of  command,  she  was  but  yielding  to  temptations  irre 
sistible  to  human  nature.  A  passage  in  Tertullian  shows  that 
tins  took  place  at  an  early  period,  and  also  that  it  was  regarded 
as  a  usurpation  founded  on  no  acknowledged  right;3  but  such 
assertions  of  independence  only  prove  the  progress  making  by 
the  silent  encroachments  of  centralization. 

Yet  still  the  theory  of  church  government  continued  to  be 
that  of  perfect  and  independent  autonomy  in  each  circumscrip 
tion.  By  the  Apostolic  Canons,  framed  towards  the  end  of 
the  third  century,  each  province  is  directed  to  determine  for 
itself  which  of  its  churches  shall  be  deemed  to  hold  the  pri 
macy  ;  the  bishops  are  ordered  to  supervise  the  local  concerns 
of  their  sees,  while  the  primate  is  instructed  to  consult  his 
suffragans  in  all  important  matters,  no  reference  being  made  to 

1  Concil.  Sardiceiis.  can.  9.  2  Hormisdae  PP.  Epist.  2. 

3  Audio  etiam  edictura  esse  propositum,  et  quidem  peremptorium  :  Pon- 
tifex  scilicet  maxirnus,  episcopusepiscoporum  dicit,  ego  et  moechiie  etfor- 
nicationis  delicta  pnenitentia  functis  dimitto.— Tertull.  de  Pudicit.  c.  1. 


THE     PAPACY     AND    THE     CHURCH.  J17 

any  power  outside  of  his  patriarchate.1  This  continued,  nomi 
nally  at  least,  for  some  time  after  Christianity  became  the  re- 
li<non  of  the  state.  In  341  the  council  of  Antioch  substan- 

O 

tially  repeats  these  regulations,  as  the  ancient  rule  of  the 
fathers  ;2  the  second  general  council,  held  at  Constantinople  in 
381,  expressly  forbids  any  prelate  from  interfering  with  the 
concerns  of  his  brethren  ;3  and  in  an  ancient  Arabic  version  of 
the  Nicene  canons  there  is  one  which,  though  not  attributable 
to  that  council,  still  doubtless  represents  the  ecclesiastical 
organization  of  an  early  period.  It  makes  eacli  patriarch 
supreme  in  his  own  province,  and  strictly  forbids  any  one 
from  intervening  in  the  concerns  of  oilier  provinces,  unless 
specially  invited  to  arbitrate  in  cases  of  difficulty ;  and  when 
complaints  arise  against  the  patriarchs  themselves,  on  account 
of  either  their  conduct  or  faith,  it  directs  the  question  to  be 
settled  in  a  council  of  the  provincial  bishops  and  abbots.4 

No  sooner,  however,  did  the  church  emerge  from  persecu 
tion  into  power,  than  the  necessity  was  felt  of  some  central 
authority  if  its  unity  was  to  be  preserved.  The  dissensions  of 
the  Arian  controversy  showed  this,  and  Constantine  endeav 
ored  to  supply  the  want  by  assembling  the  council  of  Nica^a. 
General  councils,  however,  were  only  suited  for  great  occa 
sions,  and  not  for  the  continually  arising  emergencies  which 
called  for  authoritative  settlement ;  and  Rome,  in  the  stormy 
epoch  of  the  Arian  heresy,  made  good  use  of  her  vantage- 
ground  to  assume  the  position  of  an  arbiter  for  the  whole 
church.  Steadfast  in  her  orthodoxy  she  represented  Latin 
Christianity,  which  found  little  attraction  in  the  subtle  theo 
logical  speculations  so  dangerously  enticing  to  the  Eastern 
churches,  and  she  thus  was  the  haven  of  refuge  for  the  perse 
cuted  trinitarians  of  Greece  and  Asia,  whom  she  boldly  stood 
forward  to  protect.  Yet  the  clearer  heads  among  the  Greeks 
foresaw  the  result  of  this  and  strove  to  check  it,  as  when  St. 


1  Canon.  Apost.  No.  35.  2  Concil.  Antioch.  ann.  341  can.  9. 

3  Concil.  Constantinop.  ann.  381  can.  2. 

*  Sanct.  Patrum  CCCXVIII.  Const,  xv.     (Harduin.  I.  503.) 


118         THE     RISE     OF     THE     TEMPORAL     POWER. 

Basil  dissuaded  Gregory  of  Nazianzum  from  appealing  for  sup 
port  to  Rome  in  one  of  the  phases  of  the  contest ;  and  the  con 
temptuous  way  in  which  the  saint  speaks  of  the  Latin  church 
shows  how  little  respect  it  had  won,  even  among  the  orthodox, 
by  its  vigorous  upholding  of  St.  Athanasius.1  Notwithstand 
ing  this  warning,  the  bold  stand  made  by  Rome  under  the 
Arian  persecution  gave  her  unquestioned  prominence,  and  the 
churches  which  sought  her  assistance  in  the  hour  of  trial  could 
not  do  so  without  a  sacrifice  of  independence.  Thus  when  the 
Latin  half  of  the  council  of  Sardica,  in  347,  endeavored  to 
protect  themselves  from  the  assaults  of  their  Eastern  brethren, 
they  constituted  Julius  I.  an  arbiter  to  grant  appeals  in  cases 
of  condemnation,  feeling  secure  that  so  orthodox  a  pontiff 
would  not  allow  the  wicked  to  triumph.  The  language  of  the 
canon  shows  this  to  have  been  a  novel  privilege,  conferred 
temporarily  of  their  own  free  will  ;2  and  it  doubtless  consoled 
the  pope  for  the  denunciations  launched  against  him  by  the 
Eastern  portion  of  the  synod,  though  neither  he  nor  the  Sar- 
dican  fathers  could  anticipate  the  immense  jurisdiction  which 
in  the  course  of  ages  would  be  erected  on  so  narrow  a  founda 
tion. 

The  perverse  ingenuity  of  Greek  theologians  continued  to 
discover  fresh  points  of  debate  in  Christian  doctrine,  and  gave 
to  Rome  the  opportunity,  always  improved  to  the  utmost,  of 
again  and  again  intervening,  on  each  occasion  with  a  more 
decisive  air  of  authority,  as  the  combatants  eagerly  sought  her 
alliance  in  their  internecine  strife.  Meanwhile  a  new  element 
was  introduced  into  the  organization  of  the  church,  which, 

1  Quale  nobis  auxilium  ab  Occidentalium  supercilio  et  fastu  aderit  ? 
Qui  veritatem  neque  norunt  neque  discere  seuMuut,  verum  falsis  opinion- 
ibus  praepediti,  ilia  nunc  faeiunt  quee  prius  in  Marcello  patrarunt. — S. 
Basil.  Epist.  10   (ap.  Chr.  Lupi  Dissert,   dc  Synod.  Sardicens.  cap.  6. 
Opp.  1.325). 

2  Si  vestra?  dilectioni  videtur,  Petri  Apostoli  memoriam  honoremus  ut 
ab  iis  qui  judicaverunt  scribatur  Julio  Romanorum  episcopo.— Synod. 
Sardicens.  can.  3,  4,  5. 


THE  PAPACY  AND  THE  CHUKCHI.        119 

paradoxical  as  it  may  seem,  served  to  give  her  an  additional 
chance  of  humbling  her  sisters — the  erection  of  the  rival 
patriarchate  of  Constantinople. 

The  council  of  Nicoea,  in  recording  the  ancient  custom  of 
the  church,  assigned  the  highest  rank  to  the  apostolic  sees  of 
Rome,  Alexandria,  and  Antioch,  but  reserved  to  every  pro 
vince  the  due  privileges  of  its  own  church.1  There  is  here  no 
mention  of  Constantinople,  but  the  imperial  city,  so  rapidly 
growing  on  the  shores  of  the  Bosphorus,  was  not  long  content 
to  remain  in  subjection  to  the  province  of  Thrace,  and  it 
speedily  aspired  to  the  primacy  of  the  East.  Accordingly  at 
the  second  (Ecumenic  Council,  held  at  Constantinople-in  381, 
a  new  declaration  was  made,  in  which,  after  reciting  the  names 
of  the  great  provinces  of  the  church — Alexandria,  the  East, 
Antioch,  Asia,  Pontus,  and  Thrace — it  adds  that  the  Bishop 
of  Constantinople  has  the  primacy  of  honor  after  the  Bishop 

1  "  Antiqua  consuetude  servetur  per  .^Egyptum,  Libyam  et  Pentapolim, 
ita  ut  Alexandrinus  episcopus  harum  omnium  habeat  potestatem  ;  quia 
et  urbis  Romge  episcopo  parilis  mos  est.  Similiter  autem  et  apud  Anti- 
ochiam,  cieterasque  provincias,  suis  privilegia  serventur  ecclesiis."- 
Concil.  Nicsen.  can.  6.  I  give  the  version  of  Dionysius  Exiguus,  as  the 
one  authorized  by  Rome  in  the  sixth  century.  The  earlier  one  of  Ruflnus 
(Hist.  Eccles.  Lib.  I.  cap.  0)  is  even  less  favorable  to  Rome — "  Et  ut 
apud  Alexandrian!  et  in  urbe  Roma  vetusta  consuetude  conservetur, 
ut  vel  ille  ^Egypti  vel  hie  suburbicariarum  ecclesiarum  sollicitudinem 
gerat."  We  shall  see  hereafter  that  Leo  I.  endeavored  at  the  council  of 
Chalcedon  to  substitute  a  supposititious  canon,  but  the  attempt  was 
abandoned. 

It  is  rather  curious  that  the  forged  donation  of  Constantino,  fabricated 
in  the  eighth  century,  should  contain  a  special  grant  to  Rome  of  supremacy 
over  the  churches  of  Alexandria,  Antioch,  Jerusalem,  and  Constantinople. 
That  supremacy  was  thus  attributed  to  an  earthly  power,  and  not  to 
primitive  tradition  or  to  the  primacy  of  St.  Peter,  and  it  was  admitted, 
even  at  that  day,  that  forgery  was  necessary  to  substantiate  a  claim  for 
which  at  the  same  time  an  antiquity  coeval  with  the  Christian  religion 
was  assumed.  Wickliffe  was  shrewd  enough  to  see  the  incompatibility 
of  this  with  the  power  asserted  to  be  derived  from  Christ  through  St. 
Peter — "  Certum  videtur  ex  chronicis  quod  non  a  Christo  sed  a  Csesare 
Constantino  Romanus  episcopus  accepit  vel  usurpavit  potestatem." — 
Univ.  Oxon.  Litt.  de  Error.  Wicklif.  art.  114  (Wilkins  Concil.  III.  344). 


120         THE    RISE    OF     THE    TEMPORAL    POWER. 

of  Rome,  because  his  city  is  the  New    Rome;1  but  still  no 
interference  is  to  be  allowed  with  the  autonomy  of  the  several 

provinces. 

As  the  bishop  of   the    imperial   city  was    the    pastor   an. 
spiritual  director  of  the  emperor,  and  as  the  emperor  was  the 
suzerain  who  was  all-powerful  in  deciding  religious  quarrels 
and  civil  and  criminal  cases,  it  will  readily  be  perceived  what 
ample  opportunities   the   bishops   of   Constantinople    enjoyed, 
when  they  chanced  to  be  on  good  terms  with  their  masters,  of 
extending  their  influence  over  their  older  rivals.2     Of  this  they 
made  good  use,  and  the  upstart  church  became  the  common 
centred  attack  by  all  the  venerable  prelates  of  the  East.     In 
this   Alexandria,   the    most    powerful    and    wealthy,  was    the 
leader,  and  Theophilus,  Cyril,  and   Dioscorus   filled   the   firs 
half  of  the  fifth   century  with  their  ceaseless  assaults  on   St. 
John  Chrysostorn,  Nestorius,  and  Flavianus,  whose  principal 
fault  was  that  their  see  was  rapidly  overshadowing  the  influence 
of  the  traditional  apostolic  churches.     This  rivalry  furnishes 
the  key  of  the  disgraceful  contests  which  constitute  the  eccle 
siastical  history  of  the    time,  and  we  shall  see  presently  how 
frequent  and  how  useful  were  the  opportunities  which  it  offered 
to  Rome,  as  each  rival  sought  her  alliance  in  the  effort  to  cru, 
its  antagonist. 

It  was  a  time  of  confusion  when  ambitious  men  wer 
incr  On  every  hand  to  extend  their  power,  and  a  minor  quarrel 
which  was  in  progress  between  Jerusalem  and  Antioch  wel 
-illustrates  the  reckless  temper  of  the  period  and  the  eagernes 
to  attribute  to  Rome   any  prerogative  which  might  seem  t 
serve  the  interest  of  the  moment.     Juvenal  of  Jerusalem  was 
anxious  to  emancipate  his  see  from  the  supremacy  of  Antioch, 
and  even   entertained  a  wild  hope  of  subjecting  the  latter  t, 
his  power  when  the  Patriarch  John  of  Antioch  embrace 

1  Verumtarnen  Conetantinopolitanus  episcopus  habeat  honoris  prima- 
tura   post   Romanum   episcopum  ;   propterea   quod   urbs   ipsa  si 
Koraa.— Concil.  Constantinop.  I.  can.  2. 

2  Chr.  Lupi  Append,  ad  Ephesin.  Latrocin.  cap.  3  (Opp.  11 


THE  PAPACY  AND  THE  CHURCH.       121 

cause  of  Nestorius  at  the  council  of  Ephesus  in  431.  He  ac 
cordingly  insisted  that  John  should  purge  himself  before  the 
Bishop  of  Rome  of  the  crimes  imputed  to  him,  and  alleged 
ancient  custom  in  behalf  of  this  demand.1  The  falsity  of  this 
was  shown  by  the  absence  of  any  effort  on  the  part  of  the 
offending  patriarch  to  propitiate  Tope  Celestin,  and  by  the 
final  patching  up  of  a  reconciliation  between  him  and  Cyril 
and  the  withdrawal  of  mutual  excommunication,  without  any 
reference  of  the  matter  to  Home.  Yet  Juvenal  further  en 
deavored  to  associate  his  own  see  with  that  of  Rome  as  pos 
sessing  jurisdiction  over  Antioch,  and,  according  to  Leo  the 
Great,  sought  to  substantiate  his  claims  by  producing  forged 
documents  in  the  council.2 

For  a  time  Alexandria  triumphed.  Theophilus  enjoyed  the 
satisfaction  of  seeing  Chrysostom  banished,  and  the  high 
handed  proceedings  of  Cyril  at  the  council  of  Ephesus  [  ro- 
cured  the  condemnation  of  Nestorius.  His  successor  Dios- 
corus,  even  more  reckless,  contrived,  with  the  aid  of  intrigues 
in  the  imperial  court,  so  to  engineer  the  Robber  Synod  of 
Ephesus  in  449,  as  to  proclaim  the  orthodoxy  of  the  heretic 
Eutyches  and  to  inflame  the  bishops  to  the  murder  of  the 
Patriarch  Elavianus.  Flushed  with  these  successes,  Alexan 
dria  threatened  soon  to  contest  supremacy  with  Rome.  At 
the  Robber  Synod  Dioscorus  presided,  under  imperial  com 
mand,  though  the  legates  of  Leo  were  present,3  and  soon  after 
the  rivals  exchanged  excommunications  ;  but  Dioscorus  had 
been  too  violent.  The  rising  influence  of  Alexandria  forced 
Rome  and  Constantinople  into  alliance.  A  change  of  emperors 
deprived  Dioscorus  of  support  in  the  palace,  and  when  the 
council  of  Chaleedon  assembled  in  451,  all  united  engerly  in 
his  downfall,  after  which  we  hear  little  of  the  Alexandrian 
church.  Constantinople  at  last  was  in  the  ascendant,  and  was 
little  disposed  to  gratitude  towards  Rome  for  her  assistance  in 

1  Concil.  Ephesin.  Act.  iv.     (Harduin.  I.  1490.) 

2  Leon.  PP.  I.  Epist.  cxix.  cap.  4. 

3  Concil.  Chalced.  Act.  i.     (Harduin.  II.  79.) 


122         THE     RISE     OF     THE     TEMPORAL     POWER. 

the  hour  of  trouble.  Against  the  protests  of  the  Roman  legates 
a  canon  was  adopted  which  gave  her  the  supremacy  of  the 
Eastern  churches  and  placed  her  on  an  equality  with  Home, 
alleging  as  a  reason  that  both  were  imperial  cities.1  This 
struck  at  the  root  of  the  papal  claims,  as  it  not  only  created  a 
co-equal,  but  declared  that  the  prerogatives  of  Rome  were 
based  on  civil  and  not  on  divine  attributes,  and  it  was  to  the 
last  degree  distasteful.  Something  of  the  kind  apparently  had 
been  anticipated,  for  Paschasinus,  the  representative  of  Leo, 
was  provided  with  a  version  of  the  Nicene  canon  which  con 
ceded  to  Rome  undisputed  primacy,  but  when  he  produced  it, 
he  was  met  by  the  Eastern  bishops  whose  copies  of  the  canons 
contained  nothing  of  the  kind,2  and  the  forgery  was  tacitly 
conceded  by  Rome,  for  Leo's  version  never  has  since  been  em 
bodied  in  the  authorized  collections  of  canons.3 

The  council,  however,  incidentally  bestowed  upon  Leo  the 
title  of  (Ecumenic  Patriarch,  but  such  consolation  as  he  might 
derive  from  this  was  neutralized  by  its  being  given  indiffer 
ently,  for  a  century  and  a  half,  to  the  bishops  both  of  Rome 
and  Constantinople,  without  attracting  special  attention,  and 
Justinian  habitually  uses  it  when  addressing  the  Patriarch  of 
Constantinople,  thus  showing  it  to  be  his  official  title.4  At 
length  the  jealousy  of  Rome  was  excited,  when,  in  addition  to 
other  movements  looking  to  universal  domination  befitting  the 
name,  John  the  Faster  formally  assumed  it  at  the  council  of 
Constantinople  in  o87,  and  Pelagius  IT.  and  Gregory  the 
Great  protested  vigorously  against  it.  The  Constantinopolitans 
were  obdurate,  however,  and  persisted  in  using  a  title  which 
gratified  their  vanity,  notwithstanding  the  arguments  of  Gre 
gory,  who  did  not  assume  that  it  was  the  prerogative  of  Rome, 
but  remonstrated  that  it  could  properly  be  bestowed  on  Christ 
alone  ;  and  his  proud  humility  bequeathed  to  his  successors  the 

1  Concil.  Chalced.  can.  28. 

2  Concil.  Chalced.  Act.  xvi. 

8  Chr.  Lupi  Schol.  ad  Can.  Nic$en.  vi.     (Opp.  I.  244.) 
*  Novell,  vi.  vn. 


THE     PAPACY    AND     THE     CHURCH.  123 

well-known  formula  of  "  the  servant  of  the  servants  of  God." 
Yet  in  his  earnest  entreaties  to  his  patriarchal  brother  not  to 
usurp  so  proud  and  so  foolish  an  appellation,  and  in  his  arguments 
to  prove  the  equality  of  all  bishops,  it  is  not  easy  to  recognize 
the  representative  of  a  see  which  for  centuries  had  lost  no 
opportunity  of  arrogantly  asserting  its  domination  over  sister 
churches.1 

While  the  Papacy  had  thus  virtually  failed  in  its  efforts  as 
respects  one-half  of  Christendom,  it  had  been  more  successful 
with  the  other  half.  Western  Europe  had  no  Apostolic  sees 
and  no  imperial  city  to  rival  and  to  counterbalance  the  influ 
ence  of  the  mistress  of  the  world.  In  Spain,  Gaul,  and  Britain 
there  seem  to  have  been  no  recognized  primacies,  and  various 
provinces  arrogated  to  themselves  and  contested  with  one 
another  a  transient  superiority,  as  the  vicissitudes  of  personal 
influence  or  political  fortune  afforded  them  the  opportunity. 
The  prominence  of  Rome  as  the  seat  of  government,  however, 
insensibly  led  them  to  recognize  an  uncertain  degree  of 
authority  as  inherent  in  the  Eternal  City.  Africa,  under  the 
lead  of  Cartilage,  by  turns  yielded  a  qualified  obedience  to,  or 
asserted  independence  of,  Rome,  as  the  policy  of  the  moment 
was  dictated  by  internal  or  external  pressure.  Italy  was 
divided  into  two  vicariates,  of  which  Milan  ruled  the  northern, 
and  Rome  the  southern  ;  and  so  precarious  was  the  general 
supremacy  of  the  latter,  that  from  the  sixth  to  the  eighth  cen 
tury  the  archbishops  of  Ravenna  affected  airs  of  equality,  in 
consequence  of  the  residence  of  the  imperial  exarchs  in  that 
city,  which  Adrian  I.  could  not  overcome  until  he  had  called 

1  Gregor.  PP.  I.  Regest.  Lib.  v.  Epist.  18,  20,  21,  43;  Lib.  vir.  Epist. 
4,  27,  31,  33,  34 ;  Lib.  ix.  Epist.  68. 

It  was  shortly  after  this,  in  607,  that  Boniface  III.,  taking  advantage 
of  a  favorable  political  conjuncture,  obtained  from  the  usurper  Phocas 
a  recognition  of  the  supremacy  of  Rome  over  Constantinople  (Anastas. 
Biblioth.  No.  68).  This,  however,  was  not  long  submitted  to,  and  in 
692  the  Quinisext  in  Trullo  repeated  the  canon  of  Chalcedon,  declaring 
that  Constantinople  was  equal  in  privileges  though  next  in  rank  to  Rome 
(Can.  36). 


124         THE     RISE     OF     THE     TEMPORAL     POWER. 

in  the  omnipotent  arm  of  Charlemagne;1  while  as  late  as  the 
eleventh  century  the  Milanese  clergy,  appealing  to  the  old  tra 
ditions  of  their  church,  disclaimed  the  authority  of  the  popes, 
set  them  at  defiance,  and  were  forced  to  abate  their  pretensions 
only  after  a  desperate  war  of  nearly  thirty  years. 

As  the  Arian  controversy  and  the  deplorable  dissensions  of 
the  Eastern  churches  gradually  enabled  Rome  to  assume  the 
tone  of  a  mistress,  she  naturally  sought  to  make  her  power  felt 
throughout  the  West  as  well  as  the  East.  Towards  the  end  of 
the  fourth  century  the  decretals  of  Siricius  show  the  rapid 
strides  of  centralization.  A  local  synod  of  Rome,  such  as  that 
of  384,  assumes  to  lay  down  rules  for  the  governance  of  the 
church  at  large.  Prelates  in  Gaul  and  Spain  apply  to  Rome 
for  the  solution  of  their  doubts,  and  receive  the  reply  as  final. 
The  popes,  as  the  mouthpiece  of  the  synods,  announce  the 
decisions  to  the  Christian  world,  and  undertake  to  see  to  the 
execution  of  the  canons  promulgated.  The  high  and  over- 
bearing  spirit  of  Innocent  I.  lent  a  powerful  impulse  to  this 
tendency.  In  410  he  sharply  reproves  Aurelius  of  Carthage 
for  the  acknission  of  unworthy  men  to  bishoprics  in  the  African 
church,  peremptorily  orders  the  discontinuance  of  the  abuse, 
and  commands  that  the  missive  be  read  in  all  the  churches. 
Its  whole  tenor  is  that  of  a  superior  discharging  his  duty  in 
enforcing  the  law  upon  his  inferiors.2 

Not  long  after  this  we  find  the  historian  Socrates  complain 
ing  that  the  bishop  of  Rome  was  imitating  his  brother  of  Alex 
andria  in  efforts  to  supplant  the  temporal  authorities.3  ^The 
Alexandrian  church,  indeed,  under  the  lead  of  the  fiery  Cyril, 
was  making  rapid  strides  to  independence  and  supremacy 
throughout  Egypt  and  the  neighboring  provinces.  With  his 
body-guard  of  turbulent  clerks,  and  with  the  savage  hordes  of 
Nitrian  anchorites  at  his  command,  Cyril  lorded  it  over  the 

1  Cod.  Carolin.  cap.  liii. 

2  The  genuineness  of  this  epistle  has  been  questioned,  but  Jaffe 
siders  it  authentic.— Regesta  p.  26. 

3  Socrat.  Hist.  Eccles.  Lib.  vn.  cap.  11. 


THE  PAPACY  AND  THE  CHURCH.       125 

city,  and  reduced  the  Imperial  Prefect,  Orestes,  to  a  subordi 
nate  position. i  The  revolution  which  he  thus  organized  was 
attempted  by  his  successor  Dioscorus  ;  his  lawless  acts  were  un- 
repressed,  and  he  ventured  openly  to  assert  that  the  imperial 
authority  in  Egypt  was  subordinate  to  his  own,2  while  the  spirit 
ual  tyranny  that  had  been  erected  throughout  the  province  is 
manifested  when,  after  his  fall  in  the  council  of  Chalcedon,  the 
Egyptian  bishops  piteously  entreated  to  be  allowed  not  to  sub 
scribe  to  the  orthodox  profession  of  faith,  since  if  it  should  prove 
unacceptable  to  the  future  patriarch  of  Alexandria,  they  would 
all  spend  the  rest  of  their  days  in  exile.3  They  evidently  felt 
that  neither  the  empire  nor  the  church  at  large  could  afford  them 
protection. 

Warned,  perhaps,  by  the  fate  of  Dioscorus,  the  successors  of 
St.  Peter  prudently  abstained  from  trespassing  further  upon  the 
temporal  power,  but  they  continued  to  imitate  the  Alexandrian 
prelates  in  extending  and  confirming  their  spiritual  domination, 
until,  in  49f>,  Gelasius  I.  was  emboldened  to  assert  it  in  the 
most  unqualified  terms,  as  the  direct  prerogative  of  St.  Peter 
and  his  successors  ;4  and  when,  in  the  following  year,  Anastasius 
II.  announced  his  election  to  the  Emperor  Anastasius,  he 
coupled  a  request  for  the  imperial  assistance  with  a  declaration 
of  the  same  nature.5  This  was  not,  however,  in  all  cases  tamely 
submitted  to,  and  occasionally  the  old  spirit  of  independence 
\vould  burst  forth,  as  when,  in  550,  the  African  church  launched 
the  thunder  of  excommunication  against  Pope  Vigilius  for  his 
unworthy  conduct  in  reference  to  the  Three  Chapters.6  The 
quarrel  between  Rome  and  Constantinople  over  the  churches 
of  Illyricum,  including  those  of  Macedonia  and  Greece  proper, 
affords  another  instance  of  a  rebuff  administered  to  the  aspiring 

1  Socrat.  Hist.  Eccles.  Lib.  vn.  cap.  13,  14,  15. 

2  Libell.  Sophronii  ap.  Concil.  Chalced.  Act.  in. 

3  Concil.  Chalced.  Act.  ix.      (Harduin.  III.  418-9.) 

4  GelasiiPP.I.Epist.  13. 

5  Anastasii  PP.  II.  ad  Anastas.  Imp. 

6  Victor.  Tunenens.  Chron.  ami.  550. 

11* 


126         THE     RISE     OF     THE     TEMPORAL     TOWER. 

spirit  of  the  Universal  Bishop.  Though  they  were  undoubtedly 
at  one  time  included  within  the  jurisdiction  of  the  popes,  yet 
as  the  influence  of  the  Western  Empire  declined,  the  Roman 
prelate  gradually  lost  his  hold,  and  as  early  as  421,  a  rescript  of 
Theodosius  the  Younger  transferred  them  to  Constantinople  in 
terms  which  mark  the  pretensions  of  the  upstart  patriarchate 
to  succeed  to  the  waning  power  of  the  rival  city.1  Yet  Rome 
did  not  willingly  surrender  her  rights,  until  at  length  a  fruitless 
struggle  of  three  centuries  ended  in  transferring  to  the  Eastern 
metropolis  the  prerogatives  once  enjoyed  by  the  West,  and 
Leo  the  Isaurian  was,  in  this  at  least,  able  to  wreak  his  ven 
geance  on  the  intrepid  Gregory  II. 

In  the  vicissitudes  of  this  long  contest  for  supremacy,  the 
main  reliance  of  the  popes  was  the  universal  jurisdiction  which 
they  arrogated  to  themselves  over  the  Christian  church.  If  it 
could  once  be  fairly  established  that  all  sentences  on  ecclesias 
tical  offenders  were  liable  to  revision  and  reversal  at  the  hands 
of  the  successor  of  St.  Peter,  he  became  at  once  the  custodian 
of  the  canons  and  the  sole  and  irresponsible  arbiter  of  all  ques- 
'tions,  with  a  corresponding  right  to  interfere  in  every  transac 
tion  affecting  the  internal  government  of  the  church —  a  power 
which  in  skilful  hands  was  limited  only  by  the  moderation  of 
the  possessor.2 

In  the  earlier  ages  of  the  church  this  appellate  power  had  no 
existence.  The  ecclesiastical  sentence  of  excommunication 
could  be  removed  by  him  only  who  had  pronounced  it,  until  the 

1  Lib.  XVI.  Cod.  Theod.  Tit.  ii.  1.  4">. 

2  It  is  upon  this  appellate  power  that  the  pretensions  of  the  Roman  see 
to  supremacy  are  founded.     In  a  report  of  an  interview  held  May  16, 1869, 
between  the  Patriarch-elect  of  Alexandria  and  the  Roman  Catholic  Bishop 
of  the  same  see,  commissioned  by  the  pope  to  invite  him  to  the  approach 
ing  cecumenic  council,  the  papal  representative  asserted  the  sovereignty 
of&Rome  by  alleging  its  supreme  jurisdiction—"  Ma  che  il  Papa  e  il  capo 
delle  chiese  S  reso  chiaro  dal  fatto  che,  in  caso  d'appello,  si  ricorre  a  lui 
come  giudice  ;  il  diritto  di  guidicarc  gli  appelli  comprende  naturalmente 
la  supremazia."— L'Emancipatore  Cattolico,  5  Giugno,  1S69. 


THE  PAPACY  AND  THE  CHURCH.        127 

council  of  Nicrea  established  courts  of  appeal  by  ordering  the 
assembling  of  semi-annual  synods  in  each  province  to  examine 
into  the  cases  of  those  who  might  consider  themselves  unjustly 
treated.1  That  Rome  originally  made  no  attempt  to  assert  a 
superior  jurisdiction  is  shown  by  the  story  of  Marcion  the  here- 
siarch,  about  the  year  150.  While  leading  an  ascetic  life  as  a 
hermit,  he  fell  from  grace,  and  committed  the  heinous  offence 
of  seducing  a  virgin,  for  which  he  was  promptly  excommunicated 
by  his  father,  a  bishop  of  high  repute.  It  is  evident  that  already 
the  influence  of  the  Roman  church  was  widely  extended,  when 
Marcion  sought  the  imperial  city  and  asked  to  be  admitted  to 
communion  ;  but  it  also  shows  that  Rome  claimed  no  supervis 
ory  power  when  the  request  was  refused — "  We  may  not  do  .this 
without  the  permission  of  your  venerable  father.  We  are  one 
in  faith  and  goodwill,  and  cannot  place  ourselves  in  opposition 
to  our  good  brother."2 

A  hundred  years  later  we  find  the  papal  court  considerably 
advanced  in  its  assumptions  of  appellate  jurisdiction,  though 
the  rest  of  the  church  was  as  yet  by  no  means  prepared  to  sub 
mit  to  them.  In  253  two  Spanish  bishops,  Basilides  and  Mar 
tial,  were  deposed  and  excommunicated  for  idolatrous  practices 
and  other  offences,  and  their  places  were  regularly  filled.  Ba 
silides,  in  fact,  had  confessed  his  errors,  had  voluntarily  resigned 
his  see,  and  had  expressed  his  gratitude  for  admission  to  lay 
communion.  Yet  he  proceeded  to  Rome,  where  he  prevailed 
upon  Stephen  I.  to  receive  him  into  full  communion,  and  both 
he  and  his  partner  in  guilt  claimed  restoration  to  their  episcopal 
positions.  This  shows  the  influence  which  Rome  was  rapidly 
attaining,  but  the  resistance  offered  proves  that  its  supremacy 
was  not  recognised.  The  African  church,  moreover,  took  alarm, 
and  urged  its. Spanish  sister  not  to  yield  to  the  usurpation.  In 
the  name  of  the  African  bishops,  St.  Cyprian  addressed  a  letter 
to  the  Spanish  churches  in  which  he  not  only  assumed  that  the 
action  of  Stephen  was  null  arid  void,  but  that  Basilides  had 

1  Coneil.  Nicam.  can.  5.  '-'  Epiphau.  Panar.  Haeres.  42. 


128        THE     RISE     OF     THE     TEMPORAL     POWER. 

greatly  increased  his  crime  by  deceiving  the  ignorant  Roman 
bishop,  who  was  less  to  blame  for  his  negligence  than  was  Ba- 
silides  for  his  cunning.  He  declared  that  they  are  worthy  of 
death  who  thus  offer  an  illegal  communion  to  unrepentant  sin 
ners,  and  he  wound  up  by  exhorting  the  Spaniards  to  stand  firm 
and  not  to  join  in  the  sacrilegious  communion  of  their  profane 
and  disgraced  bishops.1  It  would  be  difficult  to  conceive  of  a 
more  complete  denial  of  all  power  on  the  part  of  Rome  to  revise 
the  proceedings  of  her  sister  churches. 

This  was  not  the  first  time  that  Cyprian  had  been  called  upon 
to  rebuke  the  encroachments  of  Rome,  which  he  did  with  a 
fearless  spirit,  though  he  acknowledged  a  primacy  of  honor  in 
the  see  of  St.  Peter  and  deemed  it  the  source  of  catholic  unity. 
In  251  a  Carthaginian  deacon  named  Felicissimus  lapsed  from 
the  faith  under  persecution,  and  when  his  restoration  was  sternly 
refused  by  Cyprian  he  appealed  to  Pope  Cornelius,  whom  he 
endeavored  to  overawe  with  a  crowd  of  graceless  wretches 
carried  to  Rome  for  the  purpose  by  his  friend  Fortunatus. 
Cyprian  with  little  ceremony  reproached  Cornelius  with  having 
been  intimidated  by  these  worthless  characters,  and  protested 
against  any  revision  of  a  sentence  legally  rendered  by  local 
bishops,  who  had  the  advantage  of  ample  evidence  on  the  spot, 
and  thus  he  formally  condemned  any  attempt  by  a  criminal  to 
seek  a  foreign  jurisdiction.2 

It  is  true  that  the  dignity  of  Rome  might  occasionally  cause 
its  bishop  to  be  chosen  as  judge  in  special  cases,  as  when  Con- 
stantine  nominated  Pope  Melchiades  to  preside  over  a  tribunal 
for  the  trial  of  Csecilianus,  Bishop  of  Carthage;3  but  the  re 
script  of  the  emperor  shows  that  this  was  a  position  conferred 
by  him  in  a  particular  instance  and  not  a  prerogative  inherent 
in  the  Holy  See.  The  Nicene  canon,  already  alluded  to, 
proves  that  in  ordinary  cases  the  only  appeal  lay  to  a  provin 
cial  synod.  When  bishops  were  concerned,  the  regulations  ot 

1  Cypriani  Epist.  67.      (Ed.  Oxon.) 

2  Cypriaui  Epist.  59.  3  Euseb.  Hist.  Ec-eles.  Lib.  x.  cap.  5. 


THE  PAPACY  AND  THE  CHURCH.       129 

the  council  of  Antioch  declare  that  the  unanimous  condemna 
tion  of  a  bishop  in  his  local  synod  cannot  be  revised  .elsewhere, 
while  the  careful  provision  for  the  different  cases  that  might 
arise  shows  that  the  customary  appeal  was  to  the  emperor,  and 
that  no  ecclesiastical  power  existed  superior  to  the  synod.1 

It  probably  was  not  found  easy  in  practice  to  assemble  the 
semi-annual  synods  established  by  the  Nicene  canon,  and  some 
other  device  was  requisite  to  neutralize  the  constantly  increas 
ing  abuse  of  the  sacerdotal  power.  The  council  of  Sardica,  in 
347,  therefore,  provided  that  if  a  bishop,  through  anger,  should 
unjustly  deprive  any  of  his  clerks  of  communion,  the  latter 
might  appeal  to  the  metropolitan  of  the  province,  or,  in  his 
absence,  to  the  metropolitan  of  the  adjoining  province.2  There 
is  evidently,  thus  far,  no  thought  of  erecting  a  court  of  first  or 
last  appeal  in  Rome ;  and  yet  this  same  council  of  Sardica,  in 
its  eagerness  to  find  some  mode  of  escape  from  the  persecution 
of  the  Arians,  invoked  the  assistance  of  Pope  Julius  in  a  man 
ner  which,  cautious  and  restricted  though  it  was,  has  served 
as  the  foundation  for  the  overshadowing  supremacy  of  the 
Roman  see. 

That  the  Sardican  canons  were  adopted  temporarily  and  for 
a  special  purpose  is  evident  both  from  their  provisions  and 
from  the  manner  in  which  they  long  continued  to  be  treated. 
The  appeal  which  they  create  is  to  Pope  Julius  personally, 
and  not  to  the  Bishop  of  Rome,  as  though  the  Latin  churches 
wished  to  secure  mutual  aid  in  an  immediate  danger,  without 
instituting  a  permanent  custom  ;  and,  moreover,  the  only  in 
tervention  which  they  prescribe  is  that,  if  a  bishop  considers 
himself  unjustly  condemned,  the  case  may  be  submitted  to 
Julius,  who  can  either  confirm  the  judgment  or  send  legates  to 
the  spot  where  a  now  trial  may  be  had.3  The  council  seems 

1  Concil.  Antioch.  ann.  341  can.  4,  12,  14,  15. 

2  Concil.  Sardicens.  can.  17. 

3  Concil.  Sardicens.  can.  3,  4,  7.      What  are  called  the  canons  of  the 
Sardican  council  seem  rather  to  be  minutes  of  its  proceedings ;  and  of 
the  three  canons  quoted  here,  the  first  is  the  only  one  of  which  the  adop- 


130         THE     RISE     OP     THE     TEMPORAL    POWER. 

to  have  foreseen  the  evil  of  allowing  appeals  to  a  distant  point, 
and  to  have  guarded  carefully  against  the  danger  of  such  abuse 
of  the  power  which  it  was  granting.  The  establishment  of 
such  authority,  to  be  wielded  by  an  irresponsible  court  in  far- 
off  Rome,  was  a  later  assumption,  which  practically  gave  to 
the  prerogative  its  immense  power  for  evil. 

That  these  canons  passed  completely  from  memory  with  the 
exigency  which  caused  their  adoption  is  evident  from  an  epistle 
addressed  to  the  Emperor  Gratian  by  the  council  of  Rome  in 
378,  entreating  him  to  put  in  force  a  rescript  by  which  he  had 
granted  appellate  power  to  the  Roman  church  in  the  existing 
troubles — a  rescript  which  had  met  with  scant  observance.1 
Similar  proof  is  afforded  by  the  provisions  of  the  second  occu- 
menic  council,  held  in  Constantinople  in  381,  which  recognizes 
no  appeal  from  the  synod  of  the  province,  and  expressly  orders 
that  none  should  be  made.2  Howr  little  the  popes  themselves 
believed  that  they  were  invested  with  any  general  appellate 
power,  even  when  specially  called  upon,  is  shown  in  the  case  of 
Bonosus.  Accused  of  an  error  of  faith  respecting  the  per 
petual  virginity  of  the  Mother  of  Christ,  his  trial  was  referred 
by  the  council  of  Capua,  in  389,  to  Anysius,  Archbishop  of 
Thessalonica,  and  the  Macedonian  bishops.  These  applied  to 

tion  is  recorded.  The  matter  apparently  led  to  some  debate,  and  after 
the  adoption  of  canon  3,  offered  by  Osius,  Gaudentius  added  a  proposi 
tion  looking  to  the  new  trial  being  held  in  Rome,  and  designed  to  protect 
the  interest  of  the  condemned  bishop  during  his  absence.  This  appa 
rently  was  not  passed,  and  then  Osius  suggested  the  seventh  canon,  which 
prescribes  that  the  second  trial  shall  be  held  on  the  spot,  permitting  the 
pope,  if  he  thinks  fit,  to  send  deputies  to  assist  as  assessors.  The  whole 
is  evidently  an  attempt  to  frame  some  new  device  by  which  to  meet  a 
new  danger,  and  not  a  record  of  a  pre-existing  custom. 

At  the  most,  the  whole  only  represents  the  action  of  the  Latin  half  of 
the  council  after  it  had  quarrelled  and  divided,  and  but  for  the  use  sub 
sequently  made  of  the  canons  by  Rome  they  would  be  unworthy  of  con 
sideration. 

1  Coucil.  Roman,  aim.  378  (Harduin.  I.  8iO-l). 

2  Concil.   Constantinop.   I.   can.  6.     From  the  tenor  of  this  canon  it  is 
evident  that  appeals  were  customarily  made  to  the  secular  power. 


THE  PAPACY  AND  THE  CHURCH.       131 

Pope  Siricius  for  his  judgment.  Siricius  was  usually  not  back 
ward  in  extending  the  prerogatives  of  his  see,  and  yet  he  de 
clined,  on  the  ground  of  incornpetency,  to  entertain  the  ques 
tion,  and  told  the  applicants  that  they  alone  could  decide  it.1 
So  a  law  of  Arcadius  and  Honorius,  in  400,  providing  penalties 
for  bishops  who  refused  to  submit  to  sentences  of  deposition 
regularly  pronounced  by  the  neighboring  prelates,  makes  no 
allusion  to  any  appeal  or  reference  to  Rome.2 

It  is  true  that  Baronius  produces,  from  the  inexhaustible 
storehouse  of  the  Vatican,  a  rescript  of  Gratian  and  Valen- 
tinian,  dated  in  381,  directing  that  the  decisions  of  the  Roman 
bishop,  acting  with  seven  others,  shall  be  final ;  that  metro 
politans  shall  of  necessity  be  judged  by  the  pope,  and  that, 
when  the  provincial  judges  are  liable  to  suspicion,  the  accused 
may  demand  to  be  tried  by  the  pope,  or  by  fifteen  neighboring 
bishops ;  but  that  this  change  of  venue  had  to  be  made  before 
the  trial,  as  no  appeal  from  or  revision  of  a  sentence  is  allowed.3 
This  was  prohably  issued  in  response  to  the  request  of  the 
synod  of  378  ;  it  cautiously  withholds  all  appellate  power,  and 
the  restricted  jurisdiction  which  it  bestows  is  merely  a  tempo 
rary  one,  granted  as  a  relief  to  themselves  by  princes  wearied 
with  the  internecine  strife  between  Damasus  and  his  unsuccess 
ful  competitor  Ursinus,  and  bewildered  with  the  ceaseless 
wrangling  of  the  Arian  controversy,  for  the  canons  of  the  coun 
cil  of  Constantinople  in  the  same  year  show  how  anxious  were 
the  secular  authorities  to  escape  from  these  perplexities.  That 
it  could  only  have  possessed  temporary  validity,  is  shown  by 
its  omission  from  the  Theodosian  code,  and  the  conflicting  ten 
dency  of  subsequent  legislation.  If  genuine,  moreover,  it  proves 

1  "  Advertimus  quod  nobis  judicandi  forma  competere  non  possit  .  .  .  . 
vestrurn  est  igitur  qui  hoc  accepistis  judicium,  sententiam  ferre  de  omni 
bus,  nee  refugiendi  vel  elabendi  accusatoribus  vel  accusato  copiara  dare." 
In  the  text  of  this  epistle  as  given  by  Batthyani  (Legg.  Eccles.  Hung.  T. 
I.  p.  210)  the  "  uon"  is  omitted  from  the  first  clause  of  this  sentence,  but 
the  context  shows  that  this  reading  is  an  error,  and  the  authorized  editions 
give  it  as  quoted.     Cf.  Harduin.  I.  859  ;  Jaffe  Regesta  p.  21. 

2  Lib.  xvi.  Cod.  Theod.  Tit,  ii.  1.  35. 

3  Baron.  Annal.  ann.  381  No.  2-7, 


132         THE     RISE     OF     THE     TEMPORAL     POWER. 

that  the  Sardican  canons  had  not  succeeded  in  conferring  any 
permanent  appellate  jurisdiction  on  the  Roman  court. 

It  is  almost  a  work  of  surplusage  to  pursue  further  the  proof 
of  the  worthlessness  of  those  canons  as  the  basis  of  the  super 
visory  power  of  Rome  ;  and  yet  another  instance,  fully  as  con 
clusive,  may  be  cited.  St.  John  Chrysostom,  when  the  illegal 
synod  ad  Quercum  deprived  him  of  the  see  of  Constantinople, 
never  thought  of  appealing  to  the  friendly  Innocent  I.,  as  lie 
would  have  been  entitled  to  do  had  the  validity  of  the  Sardi 
can  canons  been  recognized;  but,  as  he  himself  states  when 
writing  to  Innocent,  he  only  demanded  to  be  tried  by  a  fuller 
synod.1  When,  moreover,  Innocent  interfered,  he  claimed  no 
special  power;  though,  curiously  enough,  his  action  has  been 
adduced  by  zealous  Catholics  as  an  evidence  that  the  Sardican 
canons  were  then  in  force.  So  far  was  he  from  assuming  this 
that  he  told  the  followers  of  Chrysostom  that  the  canons  of 
Nicrca  were  the  only  ones  entitled  to  implicit  obedience;  and 
though  he  alluded  to  the  council  of  Sardica,  it  was  only  to 
substantiate  his  condemnation  of  the  council  of  Antioch,  which 
had  been  quoted  by  the  persecutors  of  Chrysostom.  He  based 
on  it  no  claim  to  appellate  jurisdiction,  and  could  only  advise 
that  an  (ecumenic  council  be  held,  as  the  sole  tribunal  which 
could  decide  on  the  justice  of  the  condemnation  of  Chrysostom.2 

1  S.  Joann.  Chrysost.  ad  Innocent.  Epist.  i.  cap.  2. 

2  Innocent.  PP.  I.  Epist.  vn.  oap.  2,  :J,  4.      The  absence  of  legitimate 
and  recognized  authority  on  the  part  of  the  popes  to  interfere  in  such 
matters  is  confessed  by  the  fabrication  of  an  epistle  in  which  Innocent  is 
made  to  excommunicate  Arcadius  the  emperor  and  Eudoxia  his  wife  for 
the  part  they  had  taken  in  the  persecution  of  the  saint ;  and  also  of  au 
humble  appeal  from  them  for  restoration  to  communion.     As  late  as  the 
end  of  the  seventeenth  century  these  documents  were  still  cited  as  genuine 
(Chr.  Lupi  Schol.  in  Canon.  Sardicens.  iv.— Opp.  T.  I.  p.  294-)—  but  they 
are  now  universally  admitted  to  be  spurious.     Not  content  with  this  for 
gery,  it  was  improved  on  by  the  medieval  popes  into  an  assertion  that 
Innocent  actually  deposed  Arcadius  ;  and  this,  with  a  similar  fabrication 
of  the  deposition  of  the  Emperor  Anastasius  by  Pope  Anastasius  II.,  was 
the  warrant  for  Innocent  IV.  in  depriving  Frederic  II.  of  the  imperial 
crown  at  the  council  of  Lyons  in  1247.— Nic.  de  Curbio  Vil.  Innoc.  PP. 
IV.  cap.  19  (Baluze  et  Mansi  I.  199). 


THE  PAPACY  AND  THE  CHURCH.       133 

Yet  the  earliest  claim  of  a  general  prerogative  to  revise  the 
judgment  of  provincial  synods  appears  to  have  been  asserted 
by  Innocent  I.  An  epistle  of  his  to  Victricius  of  Rouen  orders 
all  important  cases  to  be  referred  to  Rome  for  revision,  after 
decisions  had  been  rendered  on  the  spot,  and  he  bases  this  de 
mand  on  custom  and  the  synodal  decrees — probably  alluding 
to  those  of  Sardica.1  That  this,  indeed,  was  becoming  not  un 
common  is  manifested  by  his  correspondence  in  414  with  the 
bishops  of  Macedonia.  Bubalius  and  Taurianus,  after  con 
demnation  at  home,  had  exhibited  letters  purporting  to  come 
from  Innocent.  The  Macedonian  prelates  thereupon  com 
plained  to  him  of  this  interference,  to  which  he  replied  that 
the  letters  in  question  were  forgeries2 — an  evidence  that  the 
evils  of  the  new  system  were  already  beginning  to  make  them 
selves  felt,  and  that  the  church  was  not  as  yet  prepared  to 
submit. 

These  pretensions  at  length  aroused  resistance,  and,  as  soon 
as  their  basis  was  investigated,  Rome  herself  was  obliged  to 
confess  that  they  could  not  be  justified.  A  priest  of  Sicca,  in 
Nurnidia,  named  Apiarius,  was  deprived  of  holy  orders  after 
due  investigation  and  trial  by  the  provincial  bishops.  He  car 
ried  his  case  to  Pope  Zozimus,  who  restored  him  to  communion, 
and  sent  him  back  to  Africa  with  legates  to  sustain  him.  At 
the  sixth  council  of  Carthage  the  matter  was  solemnly  taken 
up  and  debated.  The  epistle  of  Zozimus  grounded  his  right 
of  interference  on  the  Sardican  canons,  to  which  he  attributed 
the  name  of  the  venerable  council  of  Nica?a.3  The  authority 

1  Innocent.  PP.  I.  Epist.  n.  cap.  3. 

2  Ejusd.  Epist.  xvm. 

3  The  mariner  in  which  Zozimus  insisted  on  the  authority  of  these 
canons  as  emanating  from  the  council  of  Nicyea,  and  the  discussions  con 
cerning-  them  in  the  council  of  Carthage,  show  that  the  importance  of 
the  substitution  was  keenly  appreciated  at  the  time,  and  that  it  scarcely 
could  have  been  accidental.     The  labored  arguments  of  Baronius  (Ann. 
419  No.  65-71)  to  prove  that  it  was  of  little  moment  are  their  own  best 
refutation.     It  was  the  fashion  in  Rome  to  confound  the  two  councils 
together.     Their  canons  were  all  included  under  the  head  of  Nicsea  in  an 

12 


134         THE    RISE     OF     THE     TEMPORAL    POWER. 

of  the  first  oecumenic  council  was  irrefragable,  and  the  African 
fathers  bowed   submissively  to  it  ;    but  as  the   principles  ad 
vanced  were  in  such  total  conflict  with  the  decrees  usually  attri 
buted  to  that  august  body,  they  only  yielded  provisionally,  and 
demanded  a  fuller  investigation.     Professing  implicit  obedience 
to   the  Nicene   code  of  discipline,   they  forthwith   dispatched 
messengers  to    Alexandria    and    Constantinople  for  authentic 
copies,  thinking   that  their  own   might  possibly  be  imperfect. 
Great  was  their  joy  on  being  able  to  prove  that  the  obnoxious 
claim  was  an  unauthorized  interpolation,  and  greater  still  when 
Apiarius  confessed  the  irregularities  for  which  he  had    been 
•condemned.      During  these  lengthened   proceedings,   Zozimus 
had    died,   and   his    successor,  Boniface,  had    likewise  passed 
away,  after  a  pontificate  of  nearly  four  years.     To  Celestin  I., 
therefore,  did   the  African  church  communicate  the  result,  in 
an  epistle  remarkable  for  its  spirit  of  independence.     The  pope 
was  requested,  with  slender  show  of  respect,  no  more  to  enter 
tain  appeals  from   those  who  had  been   condemned  at  home, 
for  no  authority  could  be  alleged  in   support  of  such   preten 
sions.     Ample  provisions,  moreover,  existed  to  secure  impar 
tial  justice  on  the  spot  where  offences  were  committed,  and  no 
principle  could  justify  conclusions  formed  from  ex  parte  state 
ments  in  distant  regions,  inaccessible  to  witnesses  and  testi 
mony.1      Not   content   with    this,  to  secure   their  church  from 
further  aggression,  the  council  revived  a  canon  which   threat 
ened  excommunication  against  all  who  should  appeal  to  Rome 
after  undergoing  due  trial  at  home,  in  terms  which  show  that 
this  was  by  no  means  the  first  struggle  which   had  taken  place 
on  this  question.2    To  appreciate  this  transaction  in  its  full  sig- 

ancieht  collection  (Migne's  Patrolog.  T.56,  p.  412)  which  Quesnel  thinks 
was  authoritatively  used  in  Kome  during  this  period,  but  which  the  Bal- 
lerini  attribute  to  Gaul.  The  fact  is  that,  in  525,  Dionysius  Exiguus,  in 
his  preface,  explains  that  he  himself  had  added  them,  with  the  African 
canons,  to  the  authoritative  Greek  code,  in  the  collection  made  by  him 
for  the  Roman  court. 

1  Cod.  Eccles.  African,  can.  13?  (Concil.  Cartlmg.  VI.  can.  14). 

2  Non  provocent  ad  transmarina  judicia,  sed  ad  primates  suarum  pro- 
Vinciarum,  sicut  et   dc  episcopis  Kccpe  constitution  cst.     Ad    transmarina 


THE  PAPACY  AND  THE  CHURCH.       135 

nificance,  \ve  must  remember  that  at  this  period  the  church  of 
Africa  was  the  stronghold  of  orthodoxy,  under  the  leadership 
of  the  brilliant  St.  Augustine,  who  took  part  in  all  these  pro 
ceedings — and  further,  that  when  the  Sardican  canons  were 
traced  to  their  true  source,  they  were  treated  by  unanimous 
consent  as  void  of  all  authority. 

Even  while  the  African  church  was  thus  sturdily  and  suc 
cessfully  vindicating  its  independence,  Rome  was  managing  to 
extend  over  Gaul  the  jurisdiction  which  St.  Augustine  denied 
it  to  possess.  In  419  the  clergy  of  Valence  appealed  to  Boni 
face  I.,  complaining  of  their  bishop,  Maximus,  whom  they  ac 
cused  of  Manicheism  and  other  crimes,  and  who  had  refused* 
submission  to  the  synods  assembled  for  his  trial.  Boniface  had 
no  scruple  in  seizing  the  opportunity  thus  offered.  Pie  ordered 
another  synod  to  be  convened,  in  which  sentence  should  be 
pronounced,  whether  Maximus  appeared  to  defend  himself  or 
not ;  but  the  result  was  to  be  transmitted  to  Rome  for  papal 
approval.1  So  in  428  Celestin  I.  consoled  himself  for  his  van 
ishing  sway  over  Africa  by  writing  to  the  bishops  of  Vienne 
and  Narbonne,  blaming  them  for  the  consecration  as  a  bishop 
of  a  certain  Daniel,  whose  misdeeds  in  the  East  were  at  that 
time  undergoing  investigation  in  Rome,  and  whom  he  had 
been  vainly  summoning  and  searching  for.  He  also  inveighed 
against  the  conduct  of  a  priest  of  Marseilles,  implicated  in  the 
murder  of  a  brother,  whom  he  ordered  to  be  tried  by  the  eccle 
siastical  authorities.2 

The  gradual  advances  thus  made  culminated  under  the  en 
ergetic  management  of  Leo  I.  The  Barbarian  invasions  were 
daily  rendering  the  transalpine  churches  more  in  need  of  aid 
and  sympathy,  and  as  the  temporal  sway  of  Rome  declined, 
her  spiritual  authority  grew  stronger.  The  splendid  talents  of 

autem  qui  putaverit  appellandum  a  nullo  inter  Africam  ad  commu- 
nionem  suscipiatur. — Cod.  Eccles.  African,  can.  28  (Concil.  Milevit.  ami. 
402  can.  22). 

1  Bonifac.  PP.  I.  Epist.  2. 

2  Cnelest.  PP.  I.  Epist.  ad  Episc.  Gall.  cap.  3,  6. 


138         THE     RISE     OF     THE     TEMPORAL     POWER. 

Leo,  his  unimpeachable  character  and  vigorous  temper,  fitted 
him  to  take  full  advantage  of  this  conjuncture,  and  to  him  the 
Holy  See  owes  the  establishment  of  its  prerogative.  The 
quarrel  of  St.  Hilary,  Metropolitan  of  Aries,  with  the  Arch 
bishop  of  Vienne,  afforded  a  fair  opportunity,  which  was  im 
proved  to  the  utmost.  Hilary,  confident  in  his  own  integrity 
of  purpose,  the  justice  of  his  cause,  and  his  blameless  life,  was 
not  disposed  to  submit  himself  to  a  domination  which  he  did 
not  recognize.  He  was  broken  in  the  struggle,  and  though 
the  Gallican  church  did  not  pay  heed  to  the  deprivation  of 
communion  pronounced  against  him,  no  resistance  was  made 
to  his  degradation  from  the  primatial  see  of  Gaul.  The  tri 
umph  of  the  apostolic  see  was  completed,  and  its  supremacy 
was  established,  not  only  by  this  example  of  its  power,  but  by 
an  imperial  edict  which,  in  445,  during  the  progress  of  the 
affair,  Leo  procured  from  the  feeble  Valentinian  III.  In  this 
extraordinary  document  the  most  extravagant  pretensions  of 
the  Roman  church  receive  the  full  sanction  of  law  ;  its  autho 
rity  is  declared  competent  to  any  stretch  of  power  ;  any  attempt 
at  resistance  is  made  a  violation  of  the  obedience  due  to  the 
emperor  himself;  the  secular  magistrates  are  directed  to  com 
pel  the  presence  at  Rome  of  any  prelate  whose  case  may  be 
evoked  there  for  judgment  by  the  pope  ;  and  Ae'tius,  the  mili 
tary  governor  of  Gaul,  is  directed  to  levy  a  fine  of  ten  pounds 
of  gold  on  any  judge  who  may  infringe  the  privileges  thus  be 
stowed.1  These  enormous  prerogatives  are  declared  to  be  in 
pursuance  of  the  decrees  of  a  synod  ;  but  as  no  special  council 
is  mentioned,  we  may  presume  that  the  Sardican  canons  were 
those  used  to  give  color  to  the  usurpation,  Valentinian  being 
more  easily  imposed  upon  than  St.  Augustine. 

Armed  with  such  a  weapon,  it  is  no  wonder  that  Leo  could 
declare  to  the  prelates  of  Gaul  that  his  church  was  competent 
to  entertain  appeals  from  any  source,  that  Hilary  was  guilty 
in  denying  the  obedience  which  he  owed  to  St.  Peter,  and 

1  Novell.  Valentin.  III.  Tit.  xvn.  §§  3,  3. 


THE  PAPACY  AND  THE  CHURCH.        137 

that  whoever  refused  to  admit  the  authority  of  the  see  of 
Rome  condemned  himself  to  hell.1  Encourged  by  success,  he 
carried  his  prerogative  still  further,  and  assumed  that  no  sen 
tence  could  be  rendered  until  the  case  should  be  submitted  to 
him  and  his  pleasure  be  expressed,  thus  erecting  the  Roman 
church  into  a  court  of  first  and  last  resort.2  The  papal  decre 
tals,  moreover,  he  declared  to  be  binding  on  the  whole  church, 
any  infringement  or  neglect  of  their  commands  being  an 
offence  for  which  there  was  no  pardon.3 

How  entirely  this  supreme  jurisdiction  was  the  creation  of 
imperial  power  was  seen  when  the  final  death-struggle  bet\veen 
Alexandria  and  Constantinople  seemed  to  give  Leo  the  op 
portunity  of  coercing  both  antagonists  into  submission,  and 
the  East,  notwithstanding  its  distracted  condition,  utterly  re 
pudiated  the  pretensions  of  the  West.  When  Eutyches  was 
first  condemned  in  the  synod  of  Constantinople  in  448,  Leo 
assumed  that  he  appealed  to  Rome  ;  but  when  the  matter  was 
investigated  in  the  synod  of  the  succeeding  year,  it  was  proved 
that,  after  sentence  had  been  passed  upon  him,  he  had  said  to 
the  imperial  commissioner  that  he  appealed  to  a  council  em 
bracing  Rome,  Alexandria,  Jerusalem,  and  Thessalonica — 
that  is  to  say,  to  an  oecumenic  council,  which  was  strictly  in 
accordance  with  established  precedent.4  It  is  true  that  when 
Eutyches  had  his  revenge  in  the  Robber  Synod  of  Ephesus  in 
449,  where  the  deposition  of  one  of  his  opponents,  Theodoret 
of  Cyrus,  was  confirmed,  the  latter  sought  refuge  in  Rome, 
and  appealed  to  Leo  in  terms  of  fulsome  supplication,5  but  this 
is  not  to  be  admitted  as  a  precedent  of  any  authority.  Sup 
ported  by  the  imperial  court,  Eutychianism  for  the  moment 
controlled  the  East.  Leo's  legates  at  Ephesus  had  been 

1  Leon.  PP.  I.  Epist.  x.  cap.  2. 

2  Ejusd.  Epist.  xiv.  cap.  1.  3  Ejusd.  Epist.  iv.  cap.  5. 

*  Condi.  Chalced.  Act.  I.  (Harduin.  II.  198,  207.)  Eutyches  omitted 
Antioch  purposely,  because  he  considered  Doinnus,  its  metropolitan,  to 
be  tainted  with  Nestorianism. 

5  Leon.  PP.  I.  Epist.  52. 

12* 


138        THE     RISE     OP    THE    TEMPORAL    POWER. 

treated  with  the  scantiest  respect,  and  one  of  them,  Hilary  the 
Deacon,  had  been  forced  to  fly  for  his  life.     Rome,  of  course, 
became  the  haven  of  refuge  for  the  orthodox  Greeks,  who  were 
ready  to  say  or  do  anything  to  insure  protection  for  themselves. 
Leo  himself  was  utterly  without  jurisdiction  in  the  premises, 
and  all  that  he  could  do  was  to  join  in   the  council  of  Chalce- 
don,  when  the  death  of  the  Emperor  Theodosius  rendered  it 
possible    to    cancel    the    proceedings   at    P^phesus   by   another 
synod.     Meanwhile,  as  Dioscorus  of  Alexandria,   the  Kuty- 
chian    leader,  and   Leo    had    mutually   excommunicated   each 
other,  the  latter  had  no  hesitation  in  admitting  Theodoret  to 
episcopal  communion  ;  and,  on   the  strength   of  this,  and   the 
special  command  of  the  Emperor  Marcian,  Theodoret,  after  a 
sharp  struggle,  was  admitted  to  a  seat  in  the  council  of  Chal- 
cedon.1     When,  however,  his  case  came  up  in  the  council,  the 
action  of  Leo  was  treated  as  null  and  void.      He  was  ordered 
to  prove  his  orthodoxy  by  anathematizing  Nestorius,  and  on 
his  tergiversating,  the  holy  fathers  shouted  "  He  is  a  heretic  ! 
He   is  a   Nestorian  !      Turn   out  the   heretic!'1       It  was  not 
until  he  had  thus  been  forced  formally  to  curse  Nestorius  and 
Eutyches  that  the  council  acknowledged  him  to  be  orthodox, 
and  then  proceeded  to  decree  his  restoration  to  his  see.'2     The 
previous  action  of  Leo  on   his  appeal  went  for  nothing,  and 
the  council,  as  we   have  seen,  took  care   to  rebuke   the  papal 
aspirations  by  asserting  the  equality  of  Constantinople  with 
Rome.     The  failure    was   the   more   disgraceful,  as   Leo  had 
imitated   Zozimus   in   twice  attempting  during   the   course  of 
the  quarrel  to  foist  upon  the  Emperor  Theodosius   the  Sardi- 
can  canons  as  those  of  Nicaea.3     It  was  probably  to  prevent  a 
repetition  of  such  attempts  that  the  council  formally  adopted 
a  canon,  against  which  the  legates  of  Leo  registered  no  pro 
test,   providing   that    any   one    wronged   by   his   metropolitan 
should  appeal  to  the  primate  of  the  diocese  or  to  Constanti- 

1  Concil.  Chalced.  Act.  I.     (Harduin.  II.  71-4.) 
~2  Ejusd.  Act.  vni.     (Ibid.  pp.  498-9.) 
3  Leon.  PP.  I.  Epist,  43,  56. 


THE    PAPACY    AND     THE     CHURCH.  139 

nople.1  The  Roman  bishop  thus  was  treated  as  simply  the 
primate  of  his  own  province,  and  if  any  general  superior  juris 
diction  was  erected  it  was  reserved  to  the  New  Rome. 

While  the  East  thus  vindicated  its  independence,  the  pre 
tensions  of  Rome  were  submitted  to  in  the  West  for  some  time 
with  more  or  less  regularity.  The  epistles  of  Leo,  and  of  his 
successor  Hilary,  bear  ample  testimony  to  their  activity,  and 
to  the  numerous  cases  in  which  the  authority  of  the  Holy  See 
was  invoked  by  the  ecclesiastics  of  distant  provinces.  The 
appeal  of  the  Tarragonensian  bishops,  at  the  synod  of  Rome, 
in  465,  is  couched  in  terms  which  abundantly  testify  to  the 
submission  of  the  Spanish  church  to  the  most  imperious  as 
sumptions  of  St.  Peter's  superiority.2  When  in  495  the  strug 
gle  over  the  excommunication  of  Acacius  had  given  a  fresh 
impetus  to  the  pretensions  of  Rome  over  her  hated  rival  of 
Constantinople,  Gelasius  I.  felt  himself  warranted  in  declaring 
that  the  Apostolic  see  had  the  power  of  judging  the  whole 
church,  and  was  to  be  judged  of  none  ;  that  it  would  receive 
appeals  from  the  whole  Christian  world,  and  that  from  its 
decisions  there  was  no  appeal  ;3  and  when  Euphemius,  the 
successor  of  Acacius,  urged  that  the  excommunication  of  the 
latter  by  Felix  HI.  was  irregular,  as  the  act  of  a  single  bishop, 
without  a  formal  trial,  Gelasius  indignantly  retorted  that  such 
an  assertion  proved  his  contempt  for  the  canons  which  con 
stituted  the  see  of  Peter  as  the  universal  judge  of  the  Christian 
church.4 

Yet  this  supremacy,  so  confidently  proclaimed,  rested  on 
the  most  unstable  foundation,  and  was  crumbling  even  while 
Gelasius  sent  his  swelling  words  over  Christendom.  The  gift 

1  Concil.  Chalced.  can.  9,  17. 

2  Concil.  Roman,  ann.  465. — Hilar.  PP.  Epist.  ad  Ascanium. 

3  Gelasii  PP.  I.  Epist.  ad  Episc.  Dardan.     (Harduin.  II.  909.) 

4  Ejusd.  Commonit.  ad  Faust.  Magist.     (Ibid.  885.)     The  groundless 
ness  of  these  claims  was  confessed  not  long  afterwards  by  introducing  an 
assertion  of  them  in  the  fabricated  council  said  to  have  been  held  by  Sil 
vester  I. — Concil.  Roman,  sub.  Silvest.  can.  xx.     (Migne's  Patrol.  VIII. 
840.) 


140         THE     RISE     OF     THE     TEMPORAL    POWER. 

of  the  imperial  power,  it  vanished  with  that  power,  and  when 
the  Christianized  Franks  and  Goths  erected  new  kingdoms  in 
France  and  Spain,  independence  of  the  temporal  authority  of 
Rome  brought  with  it  independence  likewise  of  its  spiritual 
domination.  The  Merovingian  and  Gothic  princes  were  well 
nio-h  absolute  rulers  over  church  as  well  as  state,  and  felt  little 

D 

reverence  for  the  antagonistic  claims  of  St.  Peter. 

It  is  true  that  when  in  534  Contumeliosus,  Bishop  of  Riez, 
was  tried  for  incontinence,  the  bishops,  to  relieve  some  doubts, 
applied  to  John  II.  for  advice,  and  punished  the  criminal  in 
accordance  with  the  papal  recommendation,  and  that  Con 
tumeliosus  appealed  to  the  next  pope,  Agapet  I.,  who  ordered 
a  new  trial.  The  whole  case,  however,  affords  a  striking  con 
trast  to  the  condition  of  affairs  under  Leo  and  Hilary.  John 
merely  transmits  canons  and  points  out  what,  ought  to  be  done 
in  the  premises,  and  Agapet's  epistle  is  absolutely  apologetic 
in  its  tone,  as  though  he  felt  that  he  was  assuming  a  novel 
power  which  might  be  disputed,  and  which  required  to  be 
explained.1 

Even  more  significant  is  the  history  of  the  bishops  Salonius 
of  Embrun,  and  Sagittarius  of  Gap.  Their  dissolute  and 
riotous  conduct  becoming  unbearable,  they  .were  deposed  by 
the  synod  of  Lyons  in  567,  and  made  no  pretension  to  any  di 
rect  right  of  appeal.  Knowing,  however,  that  they  were  in 
favor  with  King  Gontran,  they  invoked  the  royal  power  for 
permission  to  carry  the  matter  to  Rome.  This  was  granted, 
and  Gontran  moreover  furnished  them  with  special  letters  to 
the  pope.  John  III.  heard  their  story,  and  sent  to  the  king 

not  to  the  bishops — an  order  for  their  restoration,  which  was 

duly  accomplished.  As  they  became  more  reckless  than  ever, 
Gontran  sent  for  them,  when,  irritated  by  an  audacious  speech, 
he  stripped  them  of  all  their  possessions,  and  threw  them  into 
a  monastery.  This  was  arbitrary  and  illegal,  but  they  dared 
to  take  no  appeal  to  Rome,  and  at  length  Gontran  relented 

1  Joarm.  PP.  IT.  Epist.  5,  0.     Agapeti  PP.  I.  Epist.  7. 


THE     PAPACY     AND     THE     CHURCH.  141 

and  restored  them.  Then,  in  579,  the  synod  of  Chalons  took 
up  the  case.  The  accusations  of  homicide  and  adultery  brought 
against  them  were  thought  sufficient  to  justify  penance  only, 
so  a  charge  of  treason  was  framed,  upon  which  they  were  con 
demned  and  imprisoned  in  the  church  of  St.  Marcel ;  and 
although  they  succeeded  in  escaping,  other  bishops  were  in 
stalled  in  their  sees,  and  they  never  ventured  to  appeal  to  Rome.1 
This  whole  story  shows  how  completely  the  papal  authority 
had  been  superseded  by  the  royal  prerogative,  and  the  same 
is  evident  in  the  cases  of  Pretextatus  of  Rouen,2  and  Giles  of 
Rheims,3  neither  of  whom  would  have  failed  to  appeal  to  Rome 
had  he  imagined  that  he  had  any  chance  of  being  saved  by 
papal  intervention. 

In  the  numerous  councils,  moreover,  held  in  France  and 
Spain  during  the  sixth  and  seventh  centuries,  there  are  con 
stant  enactments  of  provisions  for  the  settlement  of  ecclesias 
tical  difficulties,  while  no  allusion  occurs  to  any  customary 
reference  to  Rome.  Thus,  in  the  second  council  of  Lyons,  held 
in  567,  all  questions  between  bishops  are  directed  to  be  finally 
settled  by  their  provincial  brethren,  and  any  one  endeavoring  to 
elude  this  judgment  is  threatened  with  three  months'  withdrawal 
of  friendly  intercourse.4  It  is  true  that  it  was  from  the  decision 
of  this  very  council  that  Contumeliosns  appealed  to  Rome,  but 
for  this  action  he  found  it  necessary  to  invoke  the  royal  power, 
and  the  undeviating  action  of  the  frequent  synods  shows  that 
the  Gallican  and  Spanish  churches  were  successfully  vindi 
cating  their  independence  of  papal  jurisdiction  as  far  as  con 
cerned  their  internal  affairs.5  This  severance  from  Rome  grew 
wider  and  wider,  in  the  wild  disorders  of  the  later  Merovingians, 


1  Greg.  Turon.  Hist.  Franc.  Lib.  v.  cap.  21,  28. 

2  Ibid.  Lib.  v.  cap.  19  ;  Lib.  vii.  cap.  16. 

3  Flodoard.  Hist.  Remens.  Lib.  u.  cap.  2. 

4  Concil.  Lugdun.  II.  can.  1. 

5  Concil.  Aurelianens.  III.  can.  4. — Concil.  Aurelianens.   V.  can.  3. — 
Concil.  Turon.  II.  can.  2. — Concil.  Matiscon.  II.   can.  19. — Concil.  Paris 
ians.  V.  can.  11. — Martin.  Bracarens.  can.  13,  etc. 


142         THE     RISE     OF     THE     TEMPORAL     POWER. 

until,  as  France  passed  into  the  hands  of  the  Mayors  of  the 
Palace,  it  was  separated  from  Rome  almost  as  effectually  as  was 
Spain  by  the  Saracen  conquest. 

It  is  by  no  means  improbable  that  the  custom  of  bestowing 
\\\e  pallium  was  introduced  by  the  popes  in  the  hope  of  arrest 
ing  this  movement  of  disintegration.  As  early  as  the  fourth 
century,  the  Eastern  emperors  were  in  the  habit  of  giving  a 
cope  to  their  prelates  as  a  mark  of  dignity.  The  popes  at 
length  adopted  the  plan  of  granting  its  use  to  primates  and 
apostolic  vicars,  as  a  token  of  their  possessing  certain  privileges, 
in  return  for  which  they  were  expected  to  render  peculiar  obe 
dience  to  the  Holy  See.  This  was  in  some  sort  a  delegation  of 
imperial  power,  for  in  one  of  the  curliest  recorded  instances  of 
its  use,  when  Auxanius  of  Aries  applied,  in  f>43,  to  Vigilius 
for  the  pallium,  which  had  been  conceded  to  his  predecessor  by 
Pope  Symmachus,  Vigilius  replies  that  he  cannot  give  it  without 
the  permission  of  the  emperor.  Nearly  two  years  passed  away 
in  obtaining  Justinian's  consent,  and  in  54f>  Vigilius  formally 
authorized  Auxanius  to  wear  it,  and  at  the  same  time  consti 
tuted  him  papal  vicar  throughout  Gaul,  with  full  exercise  of  papal 
prerogatives  over  the  Gallic  hierarchy,  excepting  that  cases  of 
peculiar  magnitude  and  intricacy  were  to  be  referred  to  Rome 
for  consultation.1  It  was  evidently  an  attempt  to  retain  through 
a  deputy  the  nominal  possession  at  least  of  authority  over  a  re 
gion  which  was  rapidly  becoming  virtually  independent.  So 
in  f)9f>,  when  Gregory  the  Great  transmitted  the  pallium  with 
the  same  dignity  to  Virgil  of  Aries,  he  instructed  the  latter  that 
all  important  cases  were  to  be  reserved  for  settlement  by  the 
Holy  See.2  It  is  instructive  to  observe  that  these  special  efforts 
were  necessary  to  secure  attention  for  claims  so  exceedingly 
moderate  in  comparison  with  the  prerogatives  exercised  in  the 
preceding  century  by  Leo  and  Hilary. 

France  in  the  eighth  century  had  become  almost  a  heathen 

1  Vigilii  PP.  Epist.  C,  7,  8,  0. 

2  Gregor.  PP.  I.  Regest.  Lib.  v.  Epist.  53,  54,  55. 


THE  PAPACY  AND  THE  CHURCH.       143 

country,  and  when,  about  the  year  700,  Willibrod  was  deputed 
as  missionary  to  the  Frisians  by  Pope  Sergius,  and  in  719, 
Gregory  II.  encouraged  St.  Boniface  who  was  bound  to  north 
ern  Germany  on  the  same  pious  errand,  a  new  opportunity  was 
offered  to  the  papacy  to  regain  its  lost  ground.  The  churches 
founded  by  these  missions  were  more  dependent  than  their  elder 
sisters  upon  the  Holy  See,  and '  the  missionaries  themselves 
more  full  of  zeal  for  the  prerogatives  of  St.  Peter,  from  whom 
they  derived  alike  their  inspiration  and  their  authority.  The 
golden  opportunity  was  skilfully  improved.  When  Boniface 
was  recalled  to  Rome  in  723  to  receive  the  reward  of  his  holy 
labors  in  Thuringia  and  Saxony,  Gregory  consecrated  him  as 
bishop,  and  administered  to  him  an  oath  till  then  unknown  in 
the  observances  of  the  transalpine  churches.1  On  the  blessed 
relics  of  the  apostle,  and  under  terrible  imprecations,  Boniface 
swore  fealty  and  obedience  to  St.  Peter  and  to  the  pope  as  his 
vicar  ;  and  he  specially  promised  that  whenever  he  was  cogni 
zant  of  irregularities  among  prelates  he  would  correct  them  if 
possible,  and  if  he  were  powerless  to  effect  this,  that  he  would 
report  them  to  Rome.2  Thus  bound  by  every  tie  of  fealty,  he 
was  the  missionary  equally  of  St.  Peter  and  of  Christ. 

When  Carloman  and  Pepiri  undertook  to  rechristianize 
France,  Boniface  was  the  instrument  providentially  at  hand, 
and  he  labored  not  only  to  restore  religion  but  to  revive  the 
almost  forgotten  reverence  for  Rome.3  In  a  letter  to  his  friend 
Cuthbert  of  Canterbury,  he  dwells  at  much  length  on  the  pro 
ceedings  of  a  synod  in  which  he  made  the  assembled  prelates 
subscribe  a  promise  of  obedience  to  St.  Peter  and  to  his  vicar, 

1  Compare  the  oath  of  Boniface  with  that  previously  taken  by  the  subur- 
bicarian  bishops,  as  given  in  the  Lib.  Diurn.  Roman.  Pontif.  cap.  m.  Tit. 
8.     A  clause  in  the  latter  swearing  fidelity  to  the  temporal  sovereign  is 
replaced  in  the  former  by  the  pledge  to  report  to  Rome  all  recalcitrant 
prelates. 

2  Bonifacii  Epist.  inter  117  et  118. 

3  Ejusd.  Epist.  132.     Et  quantoscunque  audientes  vel  discipulos  in  ista 
legatione  mihi  Deus  donaverit,  ad  obedientiam  apostolicfe  sedis  invitare  et 
inclinare  non  cesso. 


144         THE     RISE     OF     THE     TEMPORAL    POWER. 

and  that  all  metropolitans  should  seek  the  pallium  from  the 
pope — and  when  this  obligation  was  received  at  Rome  it  caused 
much  rejoicing.  He  further  procured  the  adoption  of  a  canon 
by  which  all  irrepressible  disorders  were  to  be  reported  by  the 
bishops  to  their  metropolitans  and  by  them  to  the  pope — a  reg 
ulation  which  Boniface  evidently  felt  to  be  novel,  and  which 
he  endeavored  to  justify  by  the  example  of  his  own  oath.1 

It  might  well  seem  to  Boniface  that  the  fearful  laxity  of  dis 
cipline  in  the  Gallican  church  could  be  cured  only  by  the  in 
tervention  of  a  power  higher  than  that  of  the  local  authorities 
of  the  kingdom,  whether  spiritual  or  temporal,  and  he  incul 
cated  the  invocation  of  that  power  with  a  directness  of  appeal 
unknown  in  earlier  times.  Thus  we  see  him  calling  in  the 
interference  of  Stephen  II.,  in  his  quarrel  with  the  Archbishop 
of  Cologne,  respecting  the  ruined  see  of  Maestricht,  and  his 
successor  St.  Lull  appealing  at  once  to  Rome  to  repress  the 
insubordination  of  a  troublesome  priest.2  His  see  of  Mainz 
thus  became  peculiarly  connected  with  the  papacy,  and  we  can 
readily  understand  that  it  was  but  faithful  to  its  traditions  when 
it  produced  the  forgeries  of  Riculfus  and  Benedict  the  Levite. 

In  the  effort  to  resuscitate  the  influence  of  the  papacy  over 
western  and  northern  Europe  the  pallium  again  makes  its 
appearance  as  a  potent  instrument.  In  the  synod  above  alluded 
to,  the  reference  to  it  is  significant,  showing  how  Boniface 
urged  upon  his  metropolitans  the  duty  of  seeking  it  at  the 
hands  of  the  supreme  pontiff.  They  showed  themselves,  how 
ever,  fearful  of  the  honor  and  chary  of  the  dignity,  evidently 
dreading  to  incur  the  obligations  connected  with  it  more  than 
they  coveted  its  attendant  advantages.  In  743  or  744,  Boni 
face  writes  to  Pope  Zachary  that  the  Frankish  prelates  ob 
jected  to  sending  for  it  on  account  of  the  expenses  assessed 
upon  the  applicant  by  the  papal  court — an  abuse  which  they 
did  not  hesitate  to  stigmatize  as  simony.  Zachary  denied  this 
emphatically,  and  to  remove  all  difficulty  promised  to  abolish 

1  Bonifacii  Epist.  32.  2  Ejusd.  Epist.  97,  100. 


THE  PAPACY  AND  THE  CHURCH.        145 

the  fees  exacted  by  his  officials.1  This  concession  to  the  com 
plaints  put  forward  did  not  seem  to  remove  the  deep-seated 
mistrust  entertained  of  the  dangerous  gift,  for  in  749  we  find 
Boniface  again  declaring  to  the  pope  that  he  had  made  every 
effort  in  his  power  and  that  he  had  not  yet  been  able  to  induce 
the  archbishops  to  apply  for  it.2  How  difficult  it  was  to  over 
come  the  repugnance  of  the  Teutonic  prelates  is  manifest  in 
the  fact  that  St.  Lull,  the  especial  disciple  of  Boniface,  in 
whose  favor  the  latter  exercised  the  exceptional  privilege  ac 
corded  him  of  nominating  a  successor  to  his  primatial  see  of 
Mainz,  though  appointed  in  754  had  not  yet  sought  the  pallium 
in  772,  when  Adrian  I.  wrote  to  Tilpin  of  Rheims  (the  Arch 
bishop  Turpin  of  the  chansons  de  gcste*),  ordering  him  to 
investigate  the  doctrine  and  virtues  of  Lull,  and,  if  the  result 
was  satisfactory,  to  give  him  a  certificate,  on  the  strength  of 
which  the  pallium  would  be  sent  to  him.3  It  was  evident  that 
some  additional  inducements  were  necessary  to  overcome  this 
aversion  and  to  bind  the  hierarchy  to  the  throne  of  St.  Peter. 

1  Bonifacii   Epist.  143.      The   complaints  of  exaction  were   probably 
not  unfounded.     In  808  we  find  the  bishops  of  England  remonstrating1 
against  a  demand  that  their  archbishops  should  go  to  Rome  for  the  pal 
lium,  in  place  of  its  being  sent  to  them  as  formerly,  concluding  with  a  sharp 
intimation  that  the  object  of  the  innovation  was  to  exact  a  simoniacal 
payment.     (ITaddan  and  Stubbs,  Councils,  III.  559-61.)     Some  two  cen 
turies  later,  Cnut  the  Great,  of  England,  in  writing  from  Rome  and 
detailing  his  efforts  to  obtain    privileges  for  his  people,  states— "  Con- 
questus  sum  iterum  coram  domino  papa,  et  mihi  valde  displicere  dixi, 
quod  mei  archiepiscopi  in  tautura  angariebanturimmensitate  pecuniarum 
quee  ab  eis  expetebantur  dum  pro  pallio  accipiendo  secundum  morern 
apostolicam  sedem  expeterent ;  decretumque  est  ne  id  deinceps  flat"— 
(Florent.  Wigorn.  ami.  1031).     When,  in  1243,  two  rivals  were  contest 
ing  the  arehiepiscopal  see  of  Tieves,  and  Innocent  IV.  sent  the  pallium 
to  one  of  them,  the  fact  that  it  was  granted  gratuitously  was  carefully 
noted  by  the  chronicles  as  a  rare  and  exceptional  favor.     (Gesta.  Trevir. 
Archiep.  cap.  clxxxii.)     How  great  a  source  of  revenue  it  finally  became 
may  be  judged  from  the  Gravamina  Germanics  Nationis  in  1510  (Freher. 
et  Struv.  II.  702),  and  the  complaints  of  the  German  archbishops  at  the 
Congress  of  Ems  in  1780  (Dalham  Condi.  Salisbury,  p.  664). 

2  Bonifacii  Epist,  141 . 

3  Flodoard.  Hist.  Remens.  Lib.  n.  cap.  17. 

13 


146        THE    RISE    OF    THE    TEMPORAL    POWER. 

Charlemagne,  in  reconstructing  the  civil  and  ecclesiastical 
institutions  of  the  empire,  was  careful  not  to  allow  encroach 
ments  on  any  portion  of  his  prerogative,  and  we  have  seen 
above  how  absolutely  he  retained  in  his  hands  the  jurisdiction 
over  the  church  as  well  as  over  the  state.  The  appellate  power, 
and  the  right  to  interfere  in  the  internal  concerns  of  the  western 
church,  once  arrogated  by  the  popes,  slumbered  during  his 
reign  and  that  of  his  son  as  completely  as  they  had  during  the 
anarchic  period  of  Pepin  d'Herestal  and  Charles  Martel. 
Whatever  hopes  had  been  excited  by  the  zealous  labors  of 
Boniface  had  proved  vain,  and  further  efforts  were  necessary. 
The  first  endeavor  seems  to  have  been  made  through  the  in 
strumentality  of  the  pallium. 

It  is  a  noteworthy  evidence  of  the  desuetude  into  which  the 
appellate  jurisdiction  of  Rome  had  fallen  that  among  the  special 
privileges  now  conceded,  to  render  the  pallium  attractive,  was 
one  which  entitled  its  wearer  to  appeal  to  the  pope  from  the 
judgment  of  a  local  synod.  The  earliest  instance  of  this  that 
I  have  noticed  occurs  in  772,  when  the  pallium  was  conferred 
on  Archbishop  Tilpin  of  Rheims,  and  the  terms  of  the  grant 
show  that  this  right  of  appeal  was  a  novel  privilege  and  a 
special  indulgence.1  Allusion  has  already  been  made  to  the 
case  of  Theodulf  of  Orleans,  which  shows  not  only  the  privi 
leges  claimed  in  virtue  of  the  pallium,  but  also  how  little 

1  "  Non  solum  vetera  .  .  .  sed  et  nova,  tibi  pro  tuo  bono  studio  con- 
cedimus  .  .  .  confirmamus  atque  solidamus  .  .  .  Et  te  aut  futuris  tem- 
poribus  Remensem  episcopum  et  primatum  illius  dioecesis  nou  prtesumat 
neque  valeat  unquam  aliquis  de  episcopatu  dejicere  sine  canonico  judieio 
neque  in  ullo  judieio  sine  consensuRomani  pontificis,  si  ad  hanc  sanctam 
sedem  Romanam  .  .  .  appellaverit  de  ipso  judieio"— Flodoard.  Hist. 
Remens.  Lib.  n.  cap.  17. 

The  privilege  thus  connected  with  the  pallium  will  explain  some  trans 
actions  of  the  ninth  century,  which  have  been  quoted  to  prove  the  ap 
pellate  jurisdiction  of  the  papacy— see  Thomassin,  Discip.  de  1'Eglise,  P. 
in.  Liv.  1  chap.  1.  Thus,  Charles  le  Chauve,  in  863,  admitted  the  right 
of  Adventius,  Bishop  of  Metz,  to  appeal  to  Rome  (Goldast.  III.  28-4), 
for  the  bishops  of  Metz  at  that  time  enjoyed  the  pallium  and  were  styled 
archbishops,  though  they  were  not  metropolitans. 


THE  PAPACY  AND  THE  CHURCH.        147 

respect  they  received  even  from  so  religious  a  monarch  as  Louis 
le  Debonnaire.  Even  after  the  principle  of  appellate  jurisdic 
tion  in  all  cases  had  been  established,  as  will  presently  be  seen, 
by  the  vigorous  efforts  of  Nicholas  I.,  when,  about  870,  Adrian 
II.  sent  the  pallium  to  Actardus,  Bishop  of  Nantes,  as  a  per 
sonal  reward  for  his  constancy  under  the  Norman  devastations, 
the  gift  was  accompanied  with  the  special  privilege  of  appeal 
ing  to  the  pope  in  last  resort.1  From  the  use  made  of  the 
pallium  in  after  ages,  and  the  difficulty  which  was  long  ex 
perienced  in  forcing  the  gift  upon  an  unwilling  hierarchy,  we 
may  not  unreasonably  suppose  that  there  was  a  double  object 
aimed  at  in  this  policy — to  extend  the  prerogative  and  influ 
ence  of  the  Holy  See,  and  to  overcome  the  repugnance  mani 
fested  by*the  prelates  to  seek  the  pallium.2  Even  this,  how- 

1  Adrian!  PP.  II.  Epist.  9. 

2  The  questions  connected  with  the  pallium  are  deserving  of  fuller 
treatment  than  space  will  here  allow.     Even  before  the  quarrel  over  the 
investitures  had  definitely  arisen  between  the  empire  and  the  papacy,  the 
pallium  gave  to  the  latter  control  over  the  nominations  to  the  loftier  sees. 
This  was  accomplished  by  means  of  a  forged  decretal,  attributed  to 
Damasus,  by  which  all  metropolitans,  under  pain  of  degradation,  were 
obliged  to  seek  the   pallium  within   three  months   after   consecration. 
(Burchard.  Dec-ret.  Lib.  i.  cap.  25.)     Thus  when  in  1060  the  Empress-Re 
gent  Agnes  appointed  Sigfrid  to  the  see  of  Mainz  and  applied  for  his  pal 
lium,  she  was  informed  that  he  must  go  to  Rome  and  be  examined  as  to 
his  fitness,  so  that,  if  approved,  he  should  receive  it  (P.  Damiani  Lib.  vn. 
Epist.  4).     A  more  effective  expedient  could  hardly  be  devised,  especially 
when  it  came  to  be  conceded  that  the  possession  of  the  pallium  was  a 
prerequisite  to  the  enjoyment  of  the  archiepiscopal  functions.     This  ap 
pears  from  a  petition  of  the  Archbishop  of  Canterbury  in  1293,  u  Postulat 
devota  vestra  fllia  ecclesia  Christ!  Cantuarensis  concedi  pallium  de  corpore 
sancti  Petri  sumptum,  electo  suo  consecrato,  ut  habeat  plenitudinem  officii, 
et  pro  hac  instanter  et  fortiter  supplicat  sanctitati  vestrse."     (Wilkins 
Concil.   II.  109.)     As  though  this  were  not  enough,  the  applicant  was 
obliged  to  take  a  full  and  regular  oath  of  fidelity  to  St.  Peter,  the  Roman 
church,  the  pope  and  his  successors,  with  only  the  exception  "  salvo  ordine 
meo,"  no  exception  being  made  in  favor  of  any  allegiance  due  to  the  king 
or  other  temporal  authority.     (Wilkins  ubi  sup.)     See  also  the  oath  ex 
acted  of  Philip,  Archbishop  of  Cologne,  on  granting  him  the  pallium,  at 


148         THE     RISE     OP     TFIE     TEMPORAL     POWER. 

ever,  was  not  sufficient  to  bring  its  use  into  favor,  and  in  877 
John  VIII.  endeavored  at  the  synod  of  Ravenna  to  compel  its 

the  third  council  of  Lateraii  in  1170   (Hartzheim  Concil.   German.  III. 
470). 

The  progress  to  this  point  was  gradual,  and  for  a  long  time  considerable 
opposition  and  hesitation  were  manifested  with  regard  to  it.  Thus,  in 
1023,  Fulbert  of  Chartres,  one  of  the  best  canonists  of  his  time,  writes  to 
Arnoul,  Bishop  of  Tours,  in  a  strain  which  manifests  how  little  respect 
was  paid  to  the  fabricated  decretal  of  Darnasus  at  that  period—"  Si  pal 
lium  requisistis  a  Romano  pontifice  et  vobis  illud  sine  causa  legitima  dene- 
gavit,  propter  hoc  non  est  opus  dimittere  ministeriurn  tuum  ;  et  si  vestra 
tarditate  nondum  est  requisitum,  cautela  est  expectare  donee  requiratur" 
(Fulbert.  Carnot.  Epist.  59).  The  aggressive  energy  of  Gregory  VII. 
vindicated  this  assumed  prerogative  of  Rome  with  the  same  vigor  that  he 
showed  in  other  cases.  When  Guillaume  Bonne-Ame,  the  successor  of 
Lanfranc  in  the  abbacy  of  Caen,  received  the  Archiepiscopate  of  Rouen 
in  1079,  and  neglected  to  apply  for  the  pallium,  Gregory,  in  1081,  addressed 
him  with  bitter  reproaches  for  his  tardiness,  and  forbade  him  to  ordain 
priests  or  to  consecrate  bishops  or  churches  until  he  should  have  obtained 
it,  (Greffor.  PP.  VII.  Regest.  Lib.  ix.  Epist,  1.) 

The  nice  questions  which  arose  during  the  process  of  enforcing  this 
unfamiliar  custom  are  well  illustrated  by  the  case  of  Peter,  Archbishop 
of  Braga,  who,  in  1017,  was  deposed  by  the  Archbishop  of  Toledo  for  re 
ceiving  the  pallium  and  its  attendant  privileges  from  Clement  II.,  and 
Braga  for  fifty  years  remained  without  a  bishop.— Bernald.  Vit,  B.  Geraldi 
Archiep.  Bracarens.  cap.  6  (Baluz.  et  Mansi  I.  133). 

Among  the  complaints  against  the  papacy  by  the  French  nation,  in  a 
protest  registered  at  the  council  of  Bale  in  1435,  is  a  case  in  which  an 
archbishop  had  for  five  years  vainly  sought  to  obtain  his  pallium,  and  was 
obliged  at  length  to  pay  heavily  for  it,  though  his  claims  were  earnestly 
supported  by  the  council  itself.  (Martene  Ampl.  Coll.  VIII.  921.) 

In  1516,  Jacob  Wimpfeling,  in  a  treatise  on  the  oppressions  of  Germany 
by  Rome,  complains  especially  of  the  enormous  sums  exacted  for  the  pal 
lium,  which  were  collected  from  miserable- peasants  and  clerks,  depriving 
the  former  of  the  means  of  educating  their  children,  and  the  latter  of  the 
necessaries  of  life.  (Von  der  Hardt  Concil.  Constant.  T.  I.  P.  v.  p.  234-.) 
Even  as  late  as  178(5  the  Archbishops  of  Germany  assembled  in  Congress 
at  Ems,  complained  bitterly  of  the  changes  in  the  discipline  of  the  church 
introduced  on  the  strength  of  the  False  Decretals,  and  instanced  particu 
larly  the  immense  sums  exacted  by  the  Roman  curia  for  annates  and  the 
pallium,  the  payment  of  which  frequently  reduced  the  prelates  to  insol 
vency  ;  and  they  threatened,  if  the  pallium  could  not  be  given  to  them 
gratis,  that  they  would  execute  their  functions  without  it.  (Dalham 
Concil.  Salisbury,  pp.  659,  6«4.) 


THE  PAPACY  AND  THE  CHURCH.       149 

adoption  by  ordering  that  all  metropolitans  should  be  ejected 
who  did  not  apply  for  the  pallium  within  three  months  after 
consecration1 — a  regulation  which  met  .with  little  more  respect 
than  previous  attempts  in  the  same  direction.  Perhaps  it  was 
to  break  the  power  of  this  stubborn  class  by  bringing  their 
suffragans  into  direct  relations  with  the  Holy  See  that  in  873 
the  same  pope  had  sent  to  Walo,  Bishop  of  Metz,  the  pallium, 
with  special  instructions  as  to  its  use.  The  first  time  he  wore 
it,  however,  his  metropolitan  Bertolf  of  Treves  called  him  to 
account  for  the  innovation,  and  would  not  give  heed  to  the 
papal  letter  alleged  in  its  defence.  The  quarrel  waxed  warm 
until  Hincmar  of  Rheims  interposed  and  brought  about  peace 
by  inducing  Walo  to  abandon  his  pretensions,  the  pope  appa 
rently  being  powerless  to  enforce  the  precedent  which  he  had 
sought  to  establish.2 

The  power  to  be  obtained  by  the  Papacy  through  this  danger 
ous  gift  was  however  only  indirect,  and  the  prerogative  of 
universal  appellate  jurisdiction,  so  long  and  so  unavailingly 
sought,  was  finally  obtained  through  the  instrumentality  of 
the  False  Decretals.  The  clear  perceptions  which  planned 
and  executed  the  forgeries  laid  especial  stress  upon  the  appel 
late  power,  and  lost  no  opportunity  to  inculcate  its  necessity 
and  to  remove  all  obstacles  to  its  exercise  in  the  widest  sense. 
The  authority  of  the  primitive  church  was  invoked  for  new 
rules  by  which  bishops  under  accusation  could  elect  to  appear 
at  once  before  the  papal  tribunal,  and  indeed  were  directed  to 
do  so  if  .they  thought  their  fellow  prelates  prejudiced  against 
them — the  warmth  of  the  invitation  justifying  them  in  the 
assumption  that  such  a  manifestation  of  filial  confidence  in  the 
Holy  See  might  cover  a  multitude  of  sins.3  Other  canons 

1  Synod.  Kavenn.  ann.  877  can.  1,  2.     These  canons  are  given  in  Gra- 
tian  (P.  I.  Dist.  C.  can.  1),  where  they  are  attributed  to  Pelagius  I. 

2  Histor.  Trevirens.  (D'Achery  Spicileg.  II.  213). 

3  Libere  apostolicam  appellent  sedem,  atque  ad  earn  quasi  ad  matrem 
confugiant,  ut  ab  ea  (sicut  semper  fuit)  pie  fulciantur,  defendantur  et 

13* 


t^O         THE     RISE     OF     TTIE     TEMPORAL     POWER. 

were  promulgated  by  which  the  trial  of  a  bishop  could  be 
undertaken  only  by  a  synod  called  for  that  special  purpose  by 
command  of  the  pope  himself  ;T  and  a  still  further  extension 
of  power  was  assumed  by  the  production  of  a  regulation  under 
which  no  verdict  could  be  rendered  until  it  had  been  submit 
ted  to  the  papal  court  and  there  approved.2  Indeed  a  decretal 
was  fabricated  under  the  name  of  Eleutherius,  a  pope  of  the 
second  century,  by  which  the  most  exaggerated  pretensions  of 
Leo  and  Hilary  were  attributed  to  the  primitive  church  and 
were  extended  to  the  whole  body  of  ecclesiastics.  Bishops 
were,  it  is  true,  to  be  allowed  to  take  testimony  and  pronounce 
judgment  in  accusations  of  their  subordinate  clergy,  because  it 
was  physically  impossible  that  all  such  cases  should  be  at 
tended  to  in  Rome  in  the  first  instance,  but  no  judgment  was 
final  until  it  should  be  submitted  to  the  pope  for  approval  or 
reversal,  and  if  a  sentence  of  deposition  had  been  rendered  no 
appointment  to  the  vacant  church  could  be  made  until  the 
final  decree  of  the  Holy  Father  was  received.3  The  pope  was 
thus  pronounced  to  be  the  sole  judge,  in  first  and  last  resort, 
for  every  member  of  the  clergy;  and  as  the  one  source  of 
justice  he  simply  delegated,  for  the  sake  of  convenience,  to 
the  local  prelates,  such  portion  of  his  power  as  would  enable 
them  to  take  testimony  and  forward  it  to  him,  with  their 
opinion  expressed  in  the  form  of  a  verdict.*  In  fact,  the 
constant  iteration  of  these  principles  throughout  the  False 

liberentur  (Pseudo-Julii  Epist.  3. — Ivon.  Decret.  P.  iv.  can.  257).  Cf. 
Ingilram.  c.  23  (Capital.  Lib.  vn.  cap.  315).— Ingilram.  cap.  20  (Capi 
tal.  Lib.  vn.  cap.  314). 

1  Ingilram.  c.  3— Pseudo-Julii  Epist.  2;    Pseudo-Marcelli  Epist.  1— 
Capitul.  Add.  iv.  cap.  24. 

2  Pseudo-Victor.  Epist.  1   (Remig.  Curiens.  Episc.  can.  39) — Pseudo- 
Zephyrini  Epist.  1 — Pseudo-Fabiani  Epist.  3  cap.  5 — Pseudo-Sixti  Epist. 
1,  etc. 

3  Pseudo-Eleuther.  Epist.  cap.  2— Cf.  Pseudo-Fabian.  Epist,  3  cap.  3. 

4  In  the  final  triumph  of  the  Isidorian  principles  this  came  to  be  the 
recognized  doctrine  of  the  church — that  the  episcopal  power  was  simply 
enjoyed  as  a  delegation  from  the  papacy.     It  is  fully  enunciated  by  Inno 
cent  III.— Regest.  Lib.  i.  Epist,  350. 


THE     PAPACY     AND    THE     CHURCH.  151 

Decretals,  in  every  possible  variation  of  language,  shows  the 
importance  attached  to  them  and  the  magnitude  of  the  change 
in  existing  customs  which  they  involved.  When  innovations 
so  bold  could  be  confidently  asserted  and  arrogantly  enforced, 
it  is  easy  to  account  for  the  immense  increase  of  papal  pre 
rogative,  which  brought  under  its  influence  every  portion  of 
the  ecclesiastical  body,  even  to  its  ultimate  fibres. 

The  first  attempt  to  give  them  practical  effect  is  found  in 
the  epistle  attributed  to  Gregory  IV.  in  833,  evoking  to  Rome 
the  case  of  Aldric,  Bishop  of  Le  Mans.  Jaffe1  expresses  him 
self  unable  to  decide  as  to  its  authenticity,  but  it  is  so  tho 
roughly  in  the  style  of  the  forgeries  that  whether  genuine  or 
not  it  evidently  proceeded  from  the  men  who  were  concerned 
in  them.  It  purports  to  be  written  when  Gregory  was  return 
ing  from  the  Field  of  Falsehood,  while  he  was  in  the  hands 
of  Wala  and  the  ambitious  churchmen  who  had  shortly  before 
nerved  him  to  the  performance  of  their  will  by  proving  to  him 
the  illimitable  prerogatives  attributed  to  the  successor  of  St. 
Peter  in  the  False  Decretals.  Its  bold  assertions  of  the  au 
thority  of  Rome,  its  lengthened  arguments  to  vindicate  that 
authority,  and  its  threats  against  the  disobedience  which  was 
evidently  anticipated,  all  show  that  it  was  written  to  obtain 
power,  and  not  merely  to  exercise  it.2 

Another  attempt  was  made  to  assert  the  appellate  jurisdic 
tion  of  Rome  by  Sergius  II.,  when,  in  844,  he  conferred  the 
vicariate  on  Drogo,  Archbishop  of  Metz,  and  directed  all 
bishops  conceiving  themselves  unjustly  condemned  by  local 
synods  to  appeal  to  Drogo,  and  through  him  to  Rome.3 
Though  Drogo  was  the  son  of  Charlemagne,  this  attempt 
would  appear  to  have  been  treated  with  silent  contempt,  and 
no  effort  seems  to  have  been  made  to  enforce  it.  A  glance  at 

1  Regest.  p.  227. 

2  Gregor.  PP.  IV.  Epist.  1.     A  second  epistle  attributed  to  Gregory, 
ordering  the  restitution  of  Ebbo  of  Rheims,  is,  I  believe,  admitted  on  all 
hands  to  be  an  undoubted  forgery. 

;1  Sergii  PP.  TT.  Epist.  ap.  Hartzheim  Coneil.  German.  II.  145. 


152         THE     RISE     OF     THE     TEMPORAL     POWER. 

two  or  three  transactions  of  the  period,  moreover,  will  show 
how  little  respect  was  paid  to  these  prehensions  until  after  the 
middle  of  the  century,  and  how  they  were  finally  lealized 
through  the  vigorous  action  of  Nicholas  I.  Thus,  in  the  re 
action  of  83'),  Ebbo,  Archbishop  of  Rheims,  was  condemned 
and  deposed  by  a  synod  for  his  active  complicity  with  Gregory 
IV.  in  the  rebellion  against  Louis  le  Debonnaire.  The  in 
sulted  majesty  of  Rome  did  not  interfere,  but  five  years  later, 
when  his  patron,  the  Emperor  Lothair,  regained  power,  Ebbo 
was  forcibly  reinstated,  and  on  the  defeat  of  Lothair  he  was 
obliged  to  fly,  after  enjoying  his  recovered  dignity  for  about  a 
year.  After  some  time  he  went  to  Rome  and  appealed  to 
Sergius  II.,  who  only  restored  him  to  communion.  Hincmar, 
who  was  installed  in  the  see  of  Rheims  in  845,  made  applica 
tion  for  the  pallium,  and  this  gave  Lothair,  then  supreme  in 
Italy,  the  opportunity  of  forcing  Sergius  to  inquire  into  the 
previous  proceedings.  The  investigation,  however,  was  a 
mere  farce.  Sergius  did  not  venture  to  evoke  the  case  before 
himself,  and  did  not  even  attempt  to  send  a  legate  to  France, 
nor  did  Ebbo  dare  to  appear  before  the  synod  which  assembled 
for  the  purpose  of  verifying  Hincmar's  position.  The  bishops, 
when  convoked,  contented  themselves  with  forbidding  Ebbo 
to  assume  the  rank  from  which  he  had  been  degraded,  and 
Sergius  withdrew  from  the  affair  by  sending  the  pallium  to 
Hincmar.1  Twenty  years  later  Nicholas  I.  heard  that  Hinc 
mar  had  degraded  certain  priests  who  owed  their  ordination 
to  Ebbo — probably  during  his  term  of  forcible  reinstatement. 
This  pontiff's  vigorous  action  contrasts  strangely  with  his 
predecessor's  hesitation,  for  he  wrote  at  once  to  Hincmar, 
asking  him  to  restore  them.  If  he  could  not  conscientiously 
do  so,  he  was  commanded  to  summon  a  council  on  the  subject, 
of  which  the  decision,  with  the  testimony  on  which  it  was 
based,  was  to  be  submitted  to  Nicholas  for  his  final  action — 

1    Flodoard.  Hist.  Remens.  Lib.  n.  cap.  20. 


THE     PAPACY    AND    THE     CHURCH.  153 

and  all  this  under  threats  of  instant  penalties  for  disobedience.1 
In  858,  Wenilo,  Archbishop  of  Sens,  was  desirous  of  deposing 
Herman  of  Nevers  on  the  ground  of  insanity.  The  favor  of 
Charles  le  Chauve  supported  the  threatened  prelate,  and  the 
suffragan  bishops  hesitated  to  assist  their  metropolitan.  To 
accomplish  his  purpose,  Wenilo  therefore,  on  the  authority  of 
the  False  Decretals,  referred  the  matter  directly  to  Nicholas, 
without  risking  a  preliminary  trial  ;  and  the  answer  of  the 
pontiff,  complimenting  him  on  his  reverence  for  St.  Peter,  and 
contrasting  it  with  the  insubordinate  independence  of  those 
who  were  not  ready  to  perform  such  acts  of  obedience,  betrays 
in  every  line  the  joy  of  one  who  hopes  to  gain  an  unlooked-for 
victory,  and  who  is  receiving  aid  as  welcome  as  it  was  unex 
pected.2 

The  battle  between  centralization  and  independence,  how 
ever,  was  fought  in  the  case  of  Rothadus,  Bishop  of  Soissons. 
A  regularly  organized  synod  under  Hincmar  condemned  and 
deposed  Rothadus,  without  seeking  from  Rome  a  confirmation 
of  the  sentence,  or  heeding  the  appeal  of  the  convicted  bishop 
from  the  decision,  which  was  put  into  execution  after  he  had 
vainly  demanded  a  reference  to  the  pope.3  This  was  too 
flagrant  a  denial  of  the  new  doctrines,  and  too  favorable  an 
opportunity  for  their  vindication  to  be  overlooked  by  the  vigi 
lant  Nicholas.  Branding  the  verdict  with  nullity,  he  evoked 
the  case  to  Rome,  but  he  met  a  stubborn  resistance.  Rothadus 
was  not  permitted  to  cross  the  mountains  until  after  the  most 
vigorous  threats  and  appeals  to  the  bishops  of  France,  to  the 
king,  and  even  to  the  queen.  Nicholas  triumphed.  Rothadus 
at  last  appeared  in  Rome,  where  for  nine  months  he  awaited 
his  accusers.  In  sullen  dignity  they  held  themselves  aloof, 
and  the  sentence  was  reversed.  Another  struggle  ensued  to 
procure  his  reinstatement ;  but  in  this,  also,  by  liberal  threats 
of  excommunication,  Nicholas  was  successful,  and  the  supreme 

1  Nicolai  PP.  I.  Epist.  80. 

2  Lupi  Ferrar.  Epist.  130.— Nicolai  PP.  I.  Epist.  1. 

3  Annal.  Bertin.  arm.  862. 


154        THE    RISE     OF    THE     TEMPORAL    POWER. 

jurisdiction  of  the  Head  of  the  Church  was  decisively  vindi 
cated.1  The  Gallican  bishops  had  maintained  that  when,  in 
the  trial  of  a  bishop,  questions  arose  not  provided  for  in  the 
canons,  then,  and  then  only,  the  authority  of  the  Holy  See  was 
to  be  invoked — a  reasonable  concession  which  greatly  moved 
the  indignation  of  Nicholas — and  to  the  last  Hincmar  asserted 
that  the  pope  had  usurped  a  power  to  which  he  was  not  right 
fully  entitled,2  stigmatizing  the  universal  right  of  appeal  as  a 
new  law  in  conflict  with  all  received  custom.3  One  argument 
advanced  by  Nicholas  is  fairly  illustrative  of  rtie  kind  of  logic 
which  Rome  so  successfully  employed.  The  council  of  Chalce- 
don  (can.  9,  17),  to  limit  the  jurisdiction  claimed  by  Rome, 
directed  that  where  an -ecclesiastic  had  a  complaint  against  his 
metropolitan,  he  should  bring  it  before  the  primate  of  the  pro 
vince  or  the  Patriarch  of  Constantinople.  Nicholas  absolutely 
quotes  this  canon,  and  reverses  its  purport  by  asserting  that 
the  "  primate"  can  only  mean  the  pope.4  Incidental  to  the 
discussion  was  a  dispute  by  which  the  authority  of  the  False 
Decretals  was  finally  affirmed  and  enforced.  The  Gallican 
bishops  had  ventured  to  cast  some  doubt,  if  not  upon  their 
authenticity,  at  least  upon  their  validity,  to  which  Nicholas 
angrily  replied  that  they  might  as  well  call  in  question  the 
authority  of  the  Old  and  New  Testaments,  because  they  were 

1  Nicolai  PP.  I.  Epist.  33-38,  47-49,  71-77.— Anastas.  sub  Nicol.  PP.  I. 

2  Hincmari  Epist.  2. — Aunal.  Bertin.  ami.  805.    His  expression  is  "  Ro- 
thadum  a  Nicolao  Papa  non  regulariter  scd  potentialiter  restitutum." 
The  doctrine  that  appeal  to  Rome  lay  only  in  doubtful  cases  he  adhered 
to,  notwithstanding  the  indignation  of  Nicholas,  and  he  again  enunciated 
it  in  an  epistle  to  Adrian  II.,  in  872,  concerning  Hincmar  of  Laon.     Yet 
the  confusion  of  the  period  is  well  illustrated  by  the  fact  that  Hincmar, 
when  it  suited  the  purpose  of  the  moment,  had  no  hesitation  in  arguing 
that  the  pope  was  empowered  to  revise  the  proceedings  of  local  and  pro 
vincial  synods,  and  to  confirm  or  annul  them  as  might  seem  proper  to 
him.— De  Divort.  Lothar.  et  Tetbergae  Qusest.  II. 

3  Goldast,  Const.  Imp.  I  206. 

4  Nicolai  PP.  I.  Epist.  73.    He  developed  the  argument  more  fully  and 
more  ludicrously  in  a  letter  to  the  Emperor  Michael,  during  his  quarrel 
with  Photius  (Epist.  86). 


THE  PAPACY  AND  THE  CHURCH.       155 

not  to  be  found  in  the  ancient  collections  of  canons.1  In  this 
double  victory,  therefore,  we  learn  both  what  the  internal  regu 
lation  of  the  church  had  been,  and  what  it  was  rapidly  becom 
ing  under  the  influences  which  were  subjecting  it  to  the  control 
of  a  single  mind  for  good  or  for  evil. 

The  evil  connected  with  the  new  system,  indeed,  was  not 
long  in  making  itself  felt,  and  its  more  superficial  effects  be 
came  soon  the  subject  of  complaint,  as  interfering  with  the 
local  administration  of  justice,  destroying  all  certainty  of  pun 
ishment,  and  affording  illimitable  opportunities  for  deception 
as  regards  documents  emanating  from  distant  Rome.  Even  as 
early  as  742,  Boniface  found  that  the  papal  jurisdiction  which 
he  labored  so  earnestly  to  establish  proved  a  serious  impedi 
ment  to  the  reformation  which  was  his  other  great  object. 
Prelates  whose  lives  were  passed  in  open  adultery  and  shame 
less  licentiousness  went  to  Rome,  and,  on  their  return,  defied 
him  by  exhibiting  papal  letters  restoring  them  to  the  exercise 
of  their  functions  ;  and,  on  his  complaining  to  Zachary,  his 
only  comfort  was  the  reply  that  the  thing  was  impossible.2 
The  vigorous  government  of  Charlemagne  put  a  stop  to  all 
such  abuses,  but  with  the  abasement  of  the  civil  power,  and 
the  recrudescence  of  papal  pretensions,  they  again  flourished 
to  an  alarming  extent.  The  conviction  soon  became  universal 
that,  no  matter  for  what  crimes  an  ecclesiastic  might  be  con 
demned  at  home,  a  valid  reversal  of  sentence  was  readily  pro 
curable  at  Rome,  which  invited  so  pressingly  such  applications, 
and  doubtless  appreciated  fully  their  pecuniary  fruitfulness. 
The  transalpine  church  grew  restless  under  the  insubordination 
and  vice  naturally  resulting  from  this  state  of  things,  and  in 
878,  Charles  le  Chauve  addressed  to  John  VIII.  a  long  and 
earnest  remonstrance,  in  which  he  described  the  subversion  of 
discipline  which  it  entailed.  He  speaks  of  the  bishops  who, 
appealing  from  the  just  sentences  of  their  metropolitans,  felt  se 
cure  that  the  distance  and  dangers  of  the  journey  would  protect 

1  Nicol.  PP.  I.  Epist.  75.  2  Bonifacii  Epist.  132,  133. 


156         THE     EISE     OF     THE     TEMPORAL     POWER. 

them  against  the  production  in  Rome  of  the  testimony  which 
proved  their  guilt ;  of  the  priests  who,  after  episcopal  condem 
nation,  disappeared,  no  one  knew  whither,  until  their  return 
with  a  papal  letter  of  acquittal — the  genuineness  of  which, 
however  doubtful,  no  one  dared  to  dispute — showed  that  their 
absence  had  not  been  fruitless  ;  and  he  dwells  especially  on  the 
protection  which  this  system  gave  to  concubinage,  which  for  a 
thousand  years  lias  remained  a  corroding  ulcer  of  the  church.1 
We  see  by  this  that  the  appellate  jurisdiction  of  Rome  already 
extended  over  all  classes  of  the  clergy,  and,  comparing  it  with 
the  legislation  of  Charlemagne  designating  the  royal  court  as 
the  ultimate  tribunal  in  such  cases,'2  we  learn  the  rapid  growth 
of  the  power  and  influence  of  the  Holy  See.  Charles  might 
remonstrate,  but  the  power  of  the  sovereign  was  subdued  by 
this  time,  and  he  did  not  venture  to  put  an  end  to  the  evils 
which  he  so  correctly  appreciated.  Indeed,  the  confused  and 
shifting  policy  of  those  tumultuous  times  occasionally  induced 
both  king  and  bishops  to  recognize  the  pretensions  of  Rome, 
for  the  purpose  of  gaining  some  temporary  advantage.3 

Yet  the  church  did  not  submit  without  occasional  remon 
strance  to  these  pretensions,  which  clearly  threatened  to  subdue 
the  hierarchy  to  vassalage,  and  to  surround  the  enforcement  of 
discipline  with  unaccustomed  difficulties.  In  895,  for  instance, 
the  council  of  Tribur  speaks  of  the  papal  right  of  appellate 
jurisdiction  as  a  grievous  and  almost  insupportable  burden,  to 
be  borne  with  such  patience  as  the  churches  might  command  ; 
but  at  the  same  time  it  endeavored  to  counteract  in  some  de 
gree  the  evil  by  another  complaint  made  of  the  numerous  cases 
in  which  clerks  brought  forward  in  their  defence  forged  letters 
purporting  to  come  from  Rome,  and  it  empowered  the  bishops 
to  imprison  all  offenders  suspected  of  such  practices  until  con- 

1  Hincmari  Epist.  32  cap.  3,  20,  21,  etc. 

2  Capit.  Carol.  Mag.  ann.  794  cap.  4. 

3  Goldast.  op.  cit.  III.  284.— Thomassin,  Discip.  de  Eglise,  P.  m.  liv.  i. 
cap.  1. 


THE  PAPACY  AND  THE  CHURCH.       157 

sultation  could  be  bad  \vitb  the  Roman  court1 — a  regulation 
evidently  intended  as  an  indirect  mode  of  inflicting  punishment 
on  all  wbo  appealed  from  the  local  tribunals  to  the  apostolic 
see.  In  1018  the  council  of  Seligenstadt  sought  to  check  the 
aggressiveness  of  Rome  by  a  canon  forbidding  any  one  to  jour 
ney  thither  without  special  permission  of  the  bishop  or  vicar 
of  his  diocese.2  The  papal  court,  however,  persisted  in  en 
forcing  and  extending  its  supremacy,  and  its  interference  called 
forth  constant  and  well-founded  remonstrances.  About  1030 
the  Bishop  of  Angouleme  excommunicated  one  of  his  flock, 
and  refused  to  admit  him  to  penitence  until  he  should  have 
rendered  due  satisfaction.  The  offender  travelled  to  Rome  and 
brought  back  a  papal  letter  prescribing  a  certain  penance  for 
him,  and  requesting  its  approval  by  the  bishop.  The  latter, 
however,  boldly  affirmed  the  letter  to  be  a  forgery,  because  it 
represented  the  pope  as  asking  of  him  what  it  was  his  place  to 
ask  of  the  pope,  and  he  turned  the  criminal  unceremoniously 
out  of  the  church.  About  the  same  period  the  prelates  of 
Aquitaine  were  much  annoyed  by  this  constant  interference 
with  their  jurisdiction,  which  destroyed  all  their  authority, 
and  in  1031  they  assembled  at  Limoges,  where,  after  a  full 
debate,  they  agreed  that  the  papal  mandate  should  only  be 
obeyed  when  the  local  tribunal  had  sent  the  offender  to  Rome, 
as  often  happened  in  doubtful  cases,  with  letters  asking  the 
papal  judgment  as  to  sentences  imposed  ;  and  that  Rome  had 
no  right  to  interfere  when  her  intervention  was  not  requested 
by  the  provincial  authorities.3  The  popes  were  not  disposed 
to  admit  these  claims  of  local  self-government,  and  the  bishops 
were  loth  to  yield  them,  as  we  see  when,  in  1066,  Alexander 
II.  sharply  rebuked  Gervase,  Archbishop  of  Rheims,  for  de 
laying  two  years  in  restoring  to  their  functions  two  clerks  who 
had  made  a  successful  appeal  to  him  after  condemnation  at 

1  Concil.  Tribur.  ann.  895  can.  30. 

2  Concil.  Salegunstat.  ann.  1018  can.  16. 

3  Concih  Lemovicens.  II.  ann.  10S1  (Harduin.  T.  VI.  P.  I.  pp.  890-2). 

14 


158        THE     RISE    OF    THE     TEMPORAL    POWER. 

home  ;  and  the  invitation  held  out  by  promising  immunity  in 
such  cases  is  well  indicated  in  his  declaration  that  u  Rome  is 
the  only  refuge  for  the  oppressed,  who  are  accustomed  always 
to  find  there  redress  for  their  wrongs."1 

The  Normans  in  Italy  were  stubborn  on  this  point,  and  re 
fused  to  admit  the  right  of  appeal,  until  the  treaty  of  peace  in 
1156  between  William  of  Sicily  and  Adrian  IV.  granted  it 
for  Naples  and  Calabria,  but  still  withheld  it  for  Sicily.2  The 
aggressive  energy  of  Innocent  III.,  however,  and  the  distrac 
tions  of  the  Germanic  empire,  finally  caused  the  principle  to 
be  recognized  in  the  law  of  nations.  The  charter  of  Otho  IV. 
in  1209  admitted  it  in  the  fullest  manner,  and  forbade  any 
interference  with  those  who  desired  to  appeal  to  Rome  from 
sentences  in  the  local  ecclesiastical  courts  ;3  and  when  the  un 
fortunate  Otho  was  to  be  overthrown,  and  his  rival,  Frederic 
II.,  substituted  in  his  place,  the  price  exacted  of  the  latter  for 
the  papal  recognition,  in  1213,  was  the  Golden  Bull,  or  Con 
stitution  of  Egra,  in  which  the  same  formal  recognition  of  the 
appellate  power  was  inserted.4  Frederic  in  1219  repeated 
this  for  the  benefit  of  Honorius  III.  ;  and  in  1275  its  confirma 
tion  formed  part  of  the  concessions  whereby  Rodolph  of  Haps- 
burg  purchased  the  papal  confirmation  of  the  election  which 
transformed  him  from  a  needy  soldier  of  fortune  to  the  head  of 
the  Holy  Roman  Empire.5 

The  appellate  power  thus  finally  became  a  jurisdiction, 
civil  as  well  as  criminal,  over  all  cases  to  which  ecclesiastics 
were  parties,  constituting  Rome  a  court  of  last  resort  for  all 
Christendom.  It  was  not  within  the  ability  of  finite  intelli 
gence  to  conduct  so  vast  and  complex  a  business,  under  its 
inevitable  disadvantages,  without  causing  infinite  wrong;  but, 
abuses  were  profitable,  and  the  Roman  court  was  always 
needy.  Occasionally  a  pontiff  would  admit  the  evils  of  the 
system,  but  it  was  never  abandoned.  Few  confessions  more 

1  Alex.  PP.  II.  Epist.  39.  2  LUnig-  Cod.  Ital.  Diplom.  II.  854-5. 

3  Ibid.  II.  707.  *  Goldast.  I.  289. 

5  Lunig  op.  cit.  II.  715,  723,  727. 


THE  PAPACY  AND  THE  CHURCH.       159 

humiliating  can  be  conceived  than  that  made  by  Alexander 
IV.  in  1256,  when  he  issued  a  bull  deploring  the  impunity 
afforded  to  concubinary  priests  by  the  facility  with  which  let 
ters  were  obtained  from  him  reversing  the  judgments  rendered 
against  them  at  home;  but  the  remedy  devised  for  this  was 
artfully  contrived  to  preserve  the  fees  of  his  court.  He  di 
rected  that  no  respect  should  be  paid  to  any  letters  which  he 
might  grant,  unless  they  set  forth  the  circumstances  of  the 
case  so  fully  as  to  show  that  they  had  not  been  issued  in  utter 
ignorance  of  the  verdicts  which  they  undertook  to  set  aside1 — 
thus  admitting  his  own  abuse  of  the  powers  assumed,  while 
persisting  in  committing  the  wrong,  and  cheating  those  who 
bribed  him  for  a  pardon  by  neutralizing  it  after  it  had  been 
paid  for.  He  was  willing  that  his  court  should  attempt  to  do 
all  the  mischief  that  might  be  profitable,  and  threw  upon  the 
local  prelates  the  responsibility  of  limiting  that  mischief,  by 
discrediting  the  power  of  the  keys  which  he  professed  to  in 
herit  from  St.  Peter  and  the  Saviour.  It  would  seem  incredi 
ble  that  so  shameless  a  confession  could  be  made  by  the  head 
of  an  infallible  church,  and  yet  within  fifteen  years  the  com 
mand  was  repeated  in  the  same  terms  by  Gregory  IX.2  In 
the  fifteenth  century,  Cardinal  Peter  d'Ailly  describes  the 
prelates  of  his  day  as  perpetrators  of  evil  who  were  relieved 
from  all  salutary  fear  of  the  penalties  imposed  on  their  offences 
by  the  canons,  and  in  the  same  way  the  inferior  clergy  were 
tempted  into  audacity  of  crime.3 

Not  only  was  the  appellate  power  thus  fatal  in  its  influence 
on  the  discipline  and  morals  of  the  church,  but  it  was  neces 
sarily  the  source  of  illimitable  injustice,  enabling,  as  it  did,  a 
wealthy  pleader  to  dictate  terms  of  settlement  to  a  poorer 
antagonist,  who  might  not  be  able  to  endure  the  expense  of 
carrying  on  a  suit  procrastinated  amid  the  perpetually  increas- 


1  Dalham  Concil.  Salisburgens.  p.  104. 

2  Baluz.  et  Mansi  III.  117. 

3  P.  de  Alliaeo  Canon.  Reformationis  cap.  in.  v.   (Von  der  Plardt. 
T.  I.  P.  viii.  pp.  420,  429). 


160         THE     RISE     OF     THE     TEMPORAL     POWER. 

ing  business  of  distant  Rome.  All  these  evils  were  keenly 
felt  for  ages,  and  at  length,  when  the  church  marshalled  itself 
at  Bale  against  the  papacy,  they  formed  one  of  tlie  numerous 
subjects  of  reform  unsuccessfully  attempted.  The  council 
stigmatized  the  system  as  one  of  intolerable  abuses  and  vex 
ations,  and  descanted  earnestly  on  the  wrongs  and  endless 
litigation  which  it  fostered.  The  remedy  adopted  was  the 
conferring  of  final  jurisdiction  on  all  courts  situated  at  more 
than  four  days'  journey  from  Rome,  except  in  cases  specially 
reserved  by  the  canon  law  for  papal  decision  j1  but  it  is  easier 
to  condemn  a  profitable  abuse  than  to  abolish  it.  Rome  paid 
little  heed  to  a  regulation  which  would  have  limited  her  har 
vest  of  fees  to  Italian  territory,  although,  after  considerable 
delay,  she  was  forced,  in  1446,  to  give  an  unwilling  consent 
that  the  Basilian  canons  should  be  enforced  throughout  the 
empire.2  The  abuse  continued  unchecked,  and  bore  with 
almost  equal  severity  on  the  laity  and  the  church.  As  spokes 
man  for  the  former,  the  Diet  of  Niirnberg,  in  1522,  complained 
of  it  with  little  ceremony  in  the  list  of  grievances  presented  to 
Adrian  VI.  ;3  while  the  views  of  those  churchmen  who  sin 
cerely  wished  the  purification  of  the  establishment  found  a 
voice  in  the  project  of  reformation  drawn  up  by  order  of  Paul 
III.,  which  denounced  in  the  strongest  terms  the  innumerable 
scandals  caused  throughout  Christendom  by  the  facility  afforded 
to  ecclesiastics  of  escaping  from  the  jurisdiction  of  their  supe 
riors,  and  of  purchasing  free  pardons  at  the  papal  court.4  The 
council  of  Trent  made  some  effort  to  check  the  evil,5  but  the 
system  was  too  profitable  to  be  lightly  abandoned,  and  it  is 
scarce  a  hundred  years  since  an  honest  German  ecclesiastic, 
looking  back  with  fond  regret  to  the  reforms  attempted  at 

1  Concil.  Basil.  Sess.  xxxi. 

2  Hartzheim  Concil.  German.  V.  301. 

3  Gravamina,  art.  60  (Goldast.  I.  474). 

4  Concil.de  Emend.  Eccles.  (Le  Plat  Monument.  Concil.  Trident.  II. 
601). 

5  Concil.  Trident.   Sess.  xm.  Decret.  de  Reform,  cap.  1,  2,  .'}. — Sess. 
xxrv.  Decret.  de  Reform,  cap.  20. 


PAPAL    OMNIPOTENCE.  161 

Bale,  laments  their  failure — "Read,  I  pray  you,  these  most 
admirable  statutes,  and  compare  with  them  the  daily  abuses 
arising  from  appeals  I"1  About  the  same  time,  indeed,  the 
State  Council  of  Castile,  in  opposing  the  pretensions  of  Rome, 
alludes  to  a  case  occurring  not  long  before,  in  which  the  whole 
estate  of  a  charitable  foundation  in  the  bishopric  of  Cuenca 
was  sold  by  order  of  the  Rota  in  order  to  pay  the  expenses 
incurred  in  Rome  by  a  claimant  to  the  benefice  whose  nomi 
nation  was  disputed,  and  who  had  carried  the  matter  to  the 
Holy  See  for  settlement.2  What  the  Roman  court,  however, 
has  never  been  willing  to  abandon,  was  practically  abolished  by 
the  reconstruction  of  society  which  followed  the  French  Revo 
lution. 

It  can  readily  be  perceived  how,  during  the  Middle  Ages,  a 
jurisdiction  so  universal  and  so  absolute  as  this  gave  to  the 
papacy  the  unlimited  and  irresponsible  control  over  the  church 
and  all  its  members,  from  the  highest  to  the  lowest. 


PAPAL  OMNIPOTENCE. 

Closely  connected  with  the  recognition  of  this  supreme  jur 
isdiction,  springing  from  the  same  principles,  strengthening  it 
and  being  strengthened  by  various  mutual  reactions,  and  ex 
tending  the  papal  prerogative  over  every  class  of  society,  was 
the  privilege  of  granting  dispensation  and  absolution,  which 
about  the  period  of  Carlovingian  decadence  commenced  to 
elevate  itself  into  importance.  The  power  to  bind  and  to  loose 
was  one  capable  of  indefinite  application,  and  more  than  human 
self-control  would  have  been  requisite  to  abstain  from  assuming 

1  Wurdtweiu  Concil.  Mogunt.  p.  18. 

2  Consulta  del  Consejo,  Oct.  30,  1761.     (MS.  Bib.  Reg.  Hafniens.  No. 
216  fol.) 

14* 


162         THE     RISE     OF     THE     TEMPORAL    POWER. 

a  prerogative  so  eagerly  ascribed  to  the  papacy  by  those  who 
saw  their  own  advantage  in  procuring  its  recognition.  At  the 
commencement  of  the  ninth  century  we  see  but  little  of  it,  and 
the  swift  justice  of  Charlemagne  would  hardly  have  stayed  her 
pace,  because  her  victim  had  sought  refuge  and  impunity  at  the 
feet  of  Adrian  or  of  Leo.  As  the  secular  power  declined, 
however,  and  men  saw  how  it  shunned  a  conflict  with  the  risino- 

t? 

influence  of  St.  Peter,  they  naturally  turned  to  the  latter  as  an 
a?gis  ever  ready  to  confer  protection  on  those  whose  intelligent 
reverence  counter-balanced  their  misdeeds ;  while  every  in 
stance  of  successful  interference  of  course  attracted  numerous 
additional  suppliants  for  similar  favors.  In  861,  Nicholas  I. 
on  the  authority  of  an  Isidorian  decretal  (Psendo-  Alexandra 
Epist.  1),  released  Thietgaud  of  Treves  and  his  clergy  from  a 
disagreeable  oath  by  which  they  had  bound  themselves,  and  lie 
assumed  the  power  of  declaring  them  discharged  from  any 
civil  or  criminal  liability  for  the  consequences.1  When  John 
VIII.  could  write  to  Charles  le  Chauve  and  the  Bishop  of 
Chartres  in  favor  of  a  murderer,  and  declare  that  the  length  of 
his  journey  and  the  depth  of  his  repentance  entitled  him  to  a 
free  pardon,  to  restitution  to  all  his  benefices,  and  to  protection 
against  the  family  of  the  slain,2  it  is  no  wonder  that  Nicholas 
I.  was  able  to  exclaim  with  pride  that  criminals  from  all  parts 
of  the  world  flocked  to  Rome  to  obtain  pardon  and  escape  re 
tribution  for  their  deeds.3  That  this  does  not  allude  merely  to 
spiritual  absolution  is  evident  from  the  occasion  on  which  it 
was  written,  being  a  demand  for  the  pardon  of  Baldwin  of 
Flanders?  who,  after  carrying  off  Charles's  daughter  Judith, 
had  fled  to  Rome  to  escape  the  penalties,  civil  and  ecclesias- 

1  Nicolai  PP.  I.  Epist.  10. 

'2  Joann.  PP.  VIII.  Epist.  39,  40.  Cf.  ejusd.  Epist.  92  ;  Xicolai  PP  I 
Epist.  130. 

3  Nicolai  PP.  I.  Epist  22.  "  Et  quoniam  ad  hanc  sanctum  Romanam 

....  Ecclesiam,  quae  ob  sui  privilegii  principatura de  diversis 

muiidi  partibus  quotidie  multi  sceleris  mole  oppressi  confugiunt,  remis- 
sionem  scilicet  et  venialem  sibi  gratiam  tribui  supplici  et  ingenti  cordis 
moerore  poscentes." 


PAPAL     OMNIPOTENCE.  163 

tical,  denounced  against  him  by  the  justly  exasperated  father. 
The  immense  number  of  these  pilgrimages,  as  described  by 
Nicholas,  proves  that  they  were  not  fruitless,  for  the  experi 
ence  alone  of  success  would  induce  multitudes  to  undergo  the 
perils,  privations,  and  expense  of  so  long  and  dangerous  a 
journey  ;  and  it  is  easy  to  imagine  the  effect  of  the  return  of  a 
rehabilitated  criminal  among  his  friends,  conveying  to  the 
remotest  corner  of  Christendom  the  influence  of  Rome  as 
overriding  the  laws  and  justice  of  the  secular  courts ;  nor 
would  the  inference  be  uncharitable  that  the  popes  had  already 
discovered  in  this  prerogative  the  source  of  a  notable  augmen 
tation  of  their  revenues.  It  seems  almost  incredible  that  a 
power  like  this  should  be  formally  recognized  and  admitted 
by  the  secular  lawgivers,  and  yet  in  the  Welsh  laws  of  the 
ninth  century  there  is  a  provision  that  in  some  classes  of 
crimes,  such  as  waylaying  and  treason,  which  involved  the 
punishment  of  death  and  confiscation,  if  the  criminal  could 
manage  to  escape  to  Rome,  and  return  with  a  papal  letter  of 
absolution,  his  life  should  be  spared  and  his  property  be  re 
stored  to  him  on  payment  of  a  fine.1 

The  final  result  of  this  is  seen  in  the  "  Taxes  of  the  Peni 
tentiary" — the  official  scale  of  prices  at  which  absolutions  could 
be  purchased  at  the  papal  court,  first  drawn  up  by  John 
XXII.,  and  perfected  by  Leo  X.  Repeated  editions  of  these 
lists  were  printed  and  circulated  throughout  Europe  during 
the  fifteenth  and  sixteenth  centuries,  until  the  controversial 
use  made  of  them  by  Protestant  writers  caused  them  to  be 
suppressed.  According  to  this  tariff,  a  layman  who  had  com 
mitted  simony  was  absolved  on  payment  of  six  grossi  (the 
grosso  was  one-tenth  of  the  ducat),  while  it  cost  a  priest 
seven  ;  the  priest  who  falsified  papal  letters  had  to  pay  eighteen, 
while  a  bastard  could  procure  for  twelve  a  dispensation  enabling 
him  to  take  orders  and  hold  preferment.  Nor  was  this  reali- 

1  Dimetian  Code,  Bk.  n.  chap,  xxiii.  §  25.  (Owen's  Ancient  Laws, 
etc.,  of  Wales,  T.  551.) 


164         THE     RISE    OP    THE     TEMPORAL    POWER. 

zation  of  the  treasure  of  salvation  confided  to  the  church  con 
fined  to  ecclesiastical  offences,  for  all  the  crimes  of  the  Deca 
logue  were  reckoned  at  their  appropriate  figures,  which  were 
by  no  means  extravagant.  Thus  a  man  who  had  killed  his 
father,  his  mother,  his  brother,  or  his  sister,  could  obtain  abso 
lution  at  from  five  to  seven  grossi  per  parricide,  with  the  pro 
vision  that,  if  one  of  the  victims  chanced  to  be  a  clerk,  he  was 
obliged  to  visit  Rome  in  person  to  purchase  the  absolution.1 
It  is  safe  to  say  that  a  more  scandalous  exhibition  of  cynical 
venality  may  vainly  be  sought  for  in  the  annals  of  human  mis- 
government. 

It  is  hardly  to  be  wondered  at  that  the  Emperor  Ferdinand 
complained  in  15G2  to  the  Council  of  Trent  that  many  of  the 
papal  dispensations  issued  from  Home  were  a  public  scandal, 
which  diminished  and  dishonored  the  papal  authority  and 
brought  all  dispensations,  even  those  which  were  legitimate, 
into  contempt.2 

While  thus  acquiring  unlimited  control  over  the  popula 
tions,  the  papacy  was  likewise  rapidly  extending  its  supremacy 
over  the  secular  rulers.  The  most  efficient  instrument  in  this 
was  perhaps  the  forged  donation  of  Constantine  to  Sylvester  I. 
In  examining  this  remarkable  document  one  scarcely  knows 
which  most  to  admire — the  consummate  boldness  that  could 
anticipate  belief  in  it,  or  the  credulity  that  was  ready  to  admit 

1  The  "Taxne  Sacra?  Poenitentiarise"  have  been  frequently  reprinted  in 
modern  times.     The  earliest  of  these  reprints  I  believe  to  be  that  at  the 
end  of  the  "  Statuta  Synodalia  a  Wenceslao  Episc.  Wratislaviensi  a. 
1410  publicata,"  printed  by  Joh.  Christ.  Friedrich,  Hanover,  1827.     Dr. 
Gibbings'  edition  (Dublin,  1872)  has  a  learned  introduction  ;  and  that 
of  A.  Dupin  de  Saint-Andre   (Paris,  1879),  a   French   translation.     In 
1820,  M.  Julien  de  Samt-Acheul  printed  what  purports  to  be  the  same, 
under  the  title  of  "  Taxes  des  Parties  Casuelles  de  la  Boutique  du  Pape," 
which  went  to  a  second  edition  in  1821,  being  a  reprint  of  the  edition  of 
Lyons  of  1564.     The  text  in  these  (as  well  as  in  the  editions  of  1607  and 
1744)   is  taken  from  that  of  Wolfgang  Musculus  of  1560,  which  differs 
somewhat  from  the  ancient  versions. 

2  Le  Plat  Monument  Concil.  Trident.  V.  239. 


PAPAL     OMNIPOTENCE.  165 

that  the  first  Christian  Emperor  transferred  the  seat  of  empire 
and  founded  his  new  Rome  for  the  single  purpose  of  relinquish 
ing  to  the  popes  the  sole  and  undisputed  possession  of  the  West, 
and  of  rendering  the  successors  of  St.  Peter  the  legitimate  ' 
heirs  and  successors  of  Augustus.  We  read,  in  the  style  of 
an  eighth-century  notary,  a  formal  donation-entre-vifs  of  the 
Western  Empire  and  its  appurtenances,  to  be  held  and  enjoyed 
with  all  the  imperial  rights  in  independent  sovereignty,  as 
superior  to  that  of  the  emperors  as  spiritual  things  were  supe 
rior  to  temporal — and  all  this  mingled  with  puerile  directions 
as  to  the  trappings  and  stage-properties  of  the  pope  and  his 
spiritual  court,  crowns,  white  horses,  linen  garments,  and  felt 
shoes.  Armed  with  sucli  title-deeds,  and  the  Leonine  consti 
tution,  which  barred  all  alienation  of  church  property,  the 
Roman  Pontiff  became  the  rightful  owner  of  Western  Europe, 
and  kings  held  their  territories  only  by  his  sufferance.  The 
gratitude  of  Adrian  I.  for  the  comparatively  insignificant 
beneficence  of  Charlemagne  was  too  openly  manifested  for  us 
to  suppose  that  ideas  of  such  magnificent  acquisitiveness  could 
then  have  been  entertained.  Appetite  grows  by  what  it  feeds 
on,  however,  and  when,  a  few  years  later,  in  776,  this  extra 
ordinary  document  was  produced  from  the  pupal  manufactory, 
it  was  quoted  timidly  by  Adrian  to  the  Frank  as  a  hint  that 
he  might  not  improperly  imitate  a  munificence  alongside  of 
which  his  generosity  was  absolute  niggardness.1  To  this  the 
stern  founder  of  the  new  empire  turned  a  deaf  ear,  nor  does 
his  disregard  of  the  claims  thus  advanced  appear  to  have 
interfered  with  the  good  understanding  between  the  respective 
heads  of  church  and  state,  whose  mutual  support  was  mutually 
necessary.  His  successor,  Louis,  with  all  his  reverence  for 
ecclesiastical  authority,  paid  as  little  respect  to  the  extrava 
gant  pretensions  of  the  grant ;  and  when  he,  too,  in  817,  made 
a  donation  to  the  Holy  See,  confirming  the  gifts  of  Charle 
magne  and  of  Pepin,  he  took  care  to  reserve  to  himself  the 

1  Cod.  Carolin.  No.  LX. 


166          THE     RISE     OF     THE     TEMPORAL     POWER. 

sovereignty  of  the  territories  whose  usufruct  he  bestowed  on 
St.  Peter.1  That  this  sovereignty  was  not  merely  nominal, 
but  active,  is  sufficiently  established  by  facts  already  alluded 
to;  but  if  more  be  needed,  it  maybe  found  in  the  edict  of 
Lothair,  in  824,  wherein,  while  enjoining  on  the  inhabitants 
of  the  Roman  territory  the  utmost  respect  and  obedience  to  the 
pope,  his  instructions  to  the  dukes,  counts,  and  judges,  with 
regard  to  the  exercise  of  their  functions,  and  his  appointment 
of  Missi  to  supervise  their  dispensing  of  justice,  prove  the 
complete  jurisdiction  which  he  exercised  without  protest  or 
objection  on  the  part  of  Eugenius.2  If  the  strong  government 
of  the  united  Franks,  however,  repressed  the  aspirations  of 
ambitious  but  prudent  pontiffs,  the  dissensions  which  ensued, 

"  Salva  super  eosdem  ducatus  nostra  in  omnibus  dominatione,  et  illo- 
rum  ad  nostram  partein  subjectione"  (Deeret.  Confirmat.  Ludov.  Pii). 
This  clause,  and  a  succeeding  one  by  which  the  emperor  reserves  the 
right  of  interference  in  cases  of  tyranny  and  oppression,  dispose  me 
strongly  to  regard  the  document  as  genuine.  Had  it  been  fabricated  in 
the  eleventh  century,  as  has  been  suggested  by  critics,  Catholic  as  well 
as  Protestant,  these  expressions  would  certainly  not  have  been  inserted, 
as  they  are  directly  in  conflict  with  the  efforts  then  making  to  free  Italy 
from  Teutonic  domination,  and  to  release  the  Holy  See  from  the  tradi 
tional  supervision  of  the  emperors.  The  abnegation  of  the  right  to  con 
firm  the  papal  elections  is  probably  an  interpolation  of  the  latter  period, 
as  also  the  extensive  donations  of  territory  in  central  and  southern  Italy, 
which  either  was  retained  by  the  Carlovingian  emperors,  or  else  ne^ver 
belonged  to  them.  These  concessions  suited  exactly  the  politics  of  the 
successors  of  Gregory  VII.,  and  their  insertion  has  doubtless  swelled 
what  was  a  very  simple  confirmation  of  the  benefactions  of  Charlemagne 
into  the  formidable  dimensions  which  have  caused  its  rejection  by  candid 
historians  of  all  parties.  Muratori's  apologies  for  his  incredulity  (Aimali 
d'ltalia,  ann.  817)  may  excite  a  smile ;  but  an  opposite  emotion  is  aroused 
by  the  confident  assertion  of  Baronius  (anu.  817,  No.  14)  that  four  au 
thentic  copies  exist  in  the  Vatican  MSS.  The  attempted  extension  of 
territorial  acquisition  may  be  classed  with  the  similar  fictitious  donation 
of  Charlemagne,  which  Anastasius  had  before  him  (Anastas.  Biblioth. 
No.  97),  but  which  has  since  been  seen  by  no  one.  "Janus,"  indeed 
(Pope  and  Council,  p.  137),  considers  this  latter  genuine,  but  that  it  was 
obtained  from  Charlemagne  by  fraud  and  subsequently  disregarded  by 
him. 

2  Baluze,  II.  317-20. 


PAPAL    OMNIPOTENCE.  16T 

and  the  final  disruption  of  the  empire,  afforded  the  opportunity 
which  was  needed.  This  forgery,  lying  latent  with  those  of 
Ingilram  and  Isidor,  was  roused  from  its  slumbers ;  and, 
though  the  Saxon  emperors  might  venture  to  call  it  in  ques 
tion,  for  more  than  half  a  thousand  years  the  imperial  liberality 
of  Constantine  was  received  as  an  undisputed  fact,  which  it 
was  rank  heresy  to  call  in  question.1  It  did  not  require  much 
ingenuity  to  assume  that  the  imperial  dignity  was  enjoyed  by 
the  popes  from  the  time  of  Constantine  until  Leo  conferred  it 
upon  Charlemagne,  and,  when  the  ideas  of  feudalism  were 
paramount,  the  corollary  naturally  followed  that  the  emperors 
held  it  in  some  sort  as  a  fief  of  the  church,  and  were  thereby 

1  About  the  year  1000,  Otho  III.,  in  a  grant  to  Sylvester  II.,  takes 
occasion  to  stigmatize  the  donation  of  Constantine  as  a  fiction  :  "  Hyec 
sunt  enim  comtnenta  ab  illis  ipsis  inventa,  quibus  Joannes  diaconus,  cog- 
nomento  digitorura  mutius  (mutilus)  prsoceptura  aureis  litteris  scripsit, 
sub  titulo  magni  Constantini  longa  mendacii  tempora  finxit.  .  .  .  Spretis 
ergo  commenticiis  prseceptis  et  imaginariis  scriptis,  ex  nostra  liberalitate 
sancto  Petro  donamus  qnse  nostra  sunt,  non  sibi  quas  sua  sunt  veluti 
nostra  conferimus."  (Baronius,  aim.  1191,  No.  57.)  And  not  long 
after,  in  a  donation  of  St.  Henry  II.,  confirming  the  previous  liberalities 
of  the  emperors,  no  mention  is  made  in  the  recital  of  Constantine's  gift, 
showing  that  it  was  still  regarded  as  supposititious  (Liinig  Cod.  Ital. 
Diplom.  II.  698). 

This  soon  passed  away,  however,  and  any  doubt  as  to  the  authenticity 
of  the  donation  was  assumed  to  spring  from  unworthy  enmity  to  the  just 
claims  of  St.  Peter.  About  the  year  1150  Geroch  of  Reichersperg  writes  : 
"  Memini  enim  cum  in  urbe  Romana  fuissem,  fuisse  mihi  objectum  a 
quodam  causidico  ecclesise  Dei  adversario,  non  esse  rata  privilegia  im- 
peratoris  Constantini  ecclesiasticse  libertati  faventia,  eo  quod  ipse  vel 
baptizatus  vel  rebaptizatus  fuisset  in  hseresi  Ariana,  ut  insinuare  videtur 
historia  tripartita."  (Geroch.  Expos,  in  Psalm.  LXIV.)  The  reviving 
study  of  the  imperial  jurisprudence  might  well  cause  a  shrewd  lawyer  to 
doubt  the  obsequiousness  of  a  Roman  emperor,  but  he  found  it  prudent 
to  justify  his  incredulity  by  the  Arianism  of  Eusebius  of  Nicomedia,  from 
whom  the  emperor  on  his  death-bed  received  the  rite  of  baptism. 

The  stubborn  vitality  infused  into  these  forgeries  by  their  success  in 
establishing  the  papal  power  is  shown  by  the  learned  Christian  Wolff,  as 
late  as  the  close  of  the  seventieth  century,  alluding  to  the  donation  of 
Constantine  with  as  nmch  confidence  as  though  its  authenticity  had 
never  been  questioned  (Chr.  Lupi  Opp.  II.  261). 


168         THE     RISE     OF     THE     TEMPORAL    POWER. 

bound  to  the  popes  as  to  their  suzerains.1     To  the  mediaeval 
mind  an  argument  such  as  this  was  well  nigh  irresistible. 

The  man  was  not  wanting  to  the  opportunity.  The  circum 
stances  which  I  have  briefly  sketched  had  placed  in  the  hands 
of  the  church  weapons  of  vast  and  indefinite  power.  The 
times  were  ripe  for  their  employment,  for  the  necessities  of 
the  age  demanded  an  intellectual  tyranny  to  coerce  and  coun 
terbalance  the  countless  blind  and  aimless  despotisms  of  indi 
vidual  chieftains,  who  were  rapidly  crushing  out  what  little 
mental  life  was  left  in  Europe.  The  arm  to  wield  these 
weapons  was  found  when  Nicholas  I.  ascended  the  pontifical 
throne.  To  the  service  of  the  cause  he  brought  a  dauntless 
spirit,  an  unconquerable  will,  an  unbending  energy,  a  prudent 
daring,  and  a  knowledge  of  the  men  and  the  tendencies  with 
which  he  had  to  deal,  that  enabled  him  to  establish  as  abso 
lute  rights  the  principles  which  had  previously  been  more  or 
less  speculative.2  The  history  of  the  Divorce  of  Teutberga, 
which  marks  an  era  in  ecclesiastical  annals,  is  a  fair  illustra 
tion  of  the  manner  in  which  he  reduced  to  practice  the  theories 
of  the  False  Decretals,  and  laid  the  foundation  of  that  papal 
omnipotence  which  was  to  overshadow  Christendom. 

On  the  retirement  of  the  emperor  Lothair,  his  son  of  the 
same  name  succeeded  to  that  portion  of  his  dominions  which 
took  from  him  the  appellation  of  Lotharingia.  modernized  into 
Lorraine,  and  extending  from  Switzerland  to  the  mouths  of  the 
Rhine.  Married  in  856  to  Teutberga,  the  uncontrolled  licen 
tiousness  of  the  young  king  led  him  within  the  next  year  to 
abandon  her  for  a  succession  of  concubines,  one  of  whom,  Wal- 
drada,  with  whom  he  had  had  relations  previous  to  his  marriage, 

1  See  the  Bull  of  Clement  VI.  accepting  Charles  IV.  as  emperor. — Cod. 
Epist.  Rudolph!  I.  Auct.  II.  p.  369.     (Lipsise,  1806.) 

2  The  churchmen  of  his  own  period,  when  not  themselves  outraged  by 
his  imperious  authority,  recount  his  exploits  with  honest  professional 
pride.     "  Regibus  ac  tyrannis  imperavit,  eis'que  acsi  dominus  orbis  ter- 
rarum  authoritate  praefuit." — Regino  aim.  868. 


PAPAL     OMNIPOTE  NfE.  169 

succeeded  in  permanently  captivating  his  fickle  passions  and 
weak  understanding.  The  favorite  resolved  to  share  her  para 
mour's  crown,  and  Lothair,  ready  to  secure  her  smiles  at  any 
cost,  entered  eagerly  into  a  disgusting  conspiracy.  A  charge 
of  the  foulest  incest  was  brought  against  the  unhappy  queen, 
who,  by  means  which  can  readily  be  guessed,  was  forc.ed  to  a 
confession.  Condemned  to  perpetual  penance  in  a  convent  by 
the  Lotharingian  prelates  at  the  synod  of  Metz,  she  succeeded 
in  escaping  to  France,  where  she  was  duly  protected  by  Charles 
le  Cliauve,  with  the  true  Carlovingian  desire  of  nursing  trouble 
for  his  nephew.  Meanwhile  Lothair  caused  another  synod  to 
be  assembled  at  Aix-la-Chapelle,  where,  on  stating  his  piteous 
case,  deprived  of  his  wife  and  unable  to  restrain  his  passions, 
the  charitable  bishops,  after  due  deliberation,  declared  that  a 
woman  stained  with  the  crimes  confessed  by  Teutberga  was 
not  canonically  a  wife,  and  that  he  was  at  liberty  to  marry. 
His  nuptials  with  Waldrada  were  immediately  celebrated,  a:xl 
Gunthair,  Archbishop  of  Cologne,  the  instigator  and  manager 
of  the  plot,  received  his  appropriate  reward  in  the  dishonor  of 
a  niece,  whose  promised  elevation  to  the  throne  had  been  the 
prize  held  out  for  his  co-operation.  Lothair,  in  his  pollution, 
might  forget  the  world,  but  the  world  did  not  forget  him.  His 
uncle,  Charles  le  Chauve,  hankering  after  the  fertile  plains  of 
Austrasia,  began  to  hint  that  his  nephew  had  forfeited  all  claim 
to  human  society,  and  Teutberga's  powerful  family  urged  her  to 
appeal  to  the  central  arbiter  at  Rome.  The  occasion  was  one 
in  which  the  common  feelings  of  mankind  would  excuse  any 
stretch  of  avenging  prerogative,  and  Nicholas  seized  it  with 
vigorous  joy.  The  comparison  is  instructive  between  his 
alacrity  and  the  prudent  reticence  of  Adrian  in  the  previous 
century.  A  moralist  would  find  it  difficult  to  draw  the  line 
between  the  connubial  irregularities  of  Charlemagne  and  those 
of  Lothair ;  but  Hermengarda  found  no  puissant  pope  to  force 
her  inconstant  husband  into  the  paths  of  dissimulation,  or  to 
justify  wrong  by  cruelty.  When  Charlemagne  grew  tired  of  a 
wife,  he  simply  put  her  aside,  nor  would  Adrian  or  Leo  have 
15 


170          THE    RISE     OF     THE     TEMPORAL    POWER. 

thanked  the  meddling  fool  whc  counselled  interference.  But 
times  had  changed  since  then,  and  other  principles  had  gained 
supremacy.  According  to  Isidor,  the  holy  Calixtus  I.  had 
decreed  that  an  unjust  decision,  rendered  under  the  pressure  of 
kings  or  potentates,  was  void1— an  axiom  which,  however  mor 
ally  true,  caried  with  it  the  dangerous  corollary  that,  if  it  meant 
anything,  there  must  be  some  one  to  decide  upon  the  injustice 
of  the  sentence.  If  a  king  had  procured  it,  the  only  arbiter  to 
revise  it  was  the  pope,  to  whom  a  canon  of  Ingilram's  had 
specially  attributed  the  power  of  abrogating  at  will  the  proceed 
ings  of  any  local  synod.2 

As   supreme  judge    of  all  questions,  Nicholas    accordingly 
addressed  himself  to  the  work.     To  his  first  legates   Lothair 
simply  responded  that  he  had  only  complied  with   the  decrees 
of  the  national   synod  ;   and   the   legates,  heavily  bribed,  ad 
vised  him  to  dispatch  to  Rome  Gunthair,  witli   his  tool  Thiet- 
gaud,  Archbishop  of  Treves,  who  could  readily  make  all  things 
right  with  the  Holy  Father.     The  legates,  on  their  return,  Imd 
to  seek  safety  in  flight  from  the  indignation  of  Nicholas  ;  but 
the  two  archbishops,  in    the  self-confidence  of  craft  and   stu 
pidity,  appeared   before  a  synod  called  for  the  purpose,  and 
presented  the  acts  of  the  synods  of  Metz  and  Aix,  in  the  full 
expectation  of  their  authoritative  confirmation.     The  delibera 
tion  was  short  ;  the  two  archbishops  were  recalled  to  hear  sen 
tence  of  deposition  from  their  sees,  and  degradation  from  the 
priesthood  ;  the  synod  of  Metz  was  stigmatized  as  "  tanquam 
adulteris  faventem,  prostibulum  ;"  and  a  sentence  of  excom 
munication  was  suspended  over  the  heads  of  all  the  Lotharin- 
giiin  prelates,  to  be  removed  only  by  prompt  retraction  of  their 
acts,  and  individual  application  to  the  pope.     The  proceeding 

1  Injustum  ergo  judicium  et  definitio  injusta,  regio  metu  et  jussu,  aut 
cujusdam  episcopi  aut  potentis,  a  judicibus  ordinata  vel  acta,  non  valeat.— 
Pseudo-Calixti  Epist.  1  (Ivon.  Decret.  P.  v.  cap.  235).    Benedict  the  Levite 
gives  it  in  a  somewhat  abbreviated  form  (Capitul.  Lib.  v.  cap.  405)  from 
Ingilram  can.  78. 

2  Ingilram.  can.  42. 


PAPAL     OMNIPOTENCE.  IT  I 

•was  somewhat  violent,  as  it  amounted  to  condemnation  in  the 
absence  of  the  accused,  with  no  array  of  witnesses  and  evidence 
such  as  the  canons  required,  even  the  acts  of  the  Lotharingian 
synods  not  having  been  acknowledged  by  the  archbishops 
without  equivocation.  Gunthair,  breathing  furious  revenge, 
and  Thietgaud,  stupefied  by  the  blow,  betook  themselves  at 
once  to  the  Emperor  Louis,  Lothair's  brother.  Pie  listened  to 
their  story,  and  eager  to  avenge  his  brother,  and  to  suppress 
the  rising  insubordination  of  the  pontiff,  he  marched  directly 
on  Rome.  The  fasts  and  prayers  of  Nicholas  availed  little 
against  the  reckless  soldiery  of  Louis  ;  a  massacre  ensued,  and 
the  pope,  escaping  in  a  boat  across  the  Tiber,  lay  hidden  for 
two  days,  without  meat  or  drink,  in  the  cathedral  of  St.  Peter. 
A  sudden  fever,  however,  opportunely  laid  hold  of  the  emperor, 
and  there  were  not  wanting  counsellors  who  attributed  it  to 
the  sacrilege  which  he  had  committed.  Louis,  therefore,  sent 
for  Nicholas,  made  his  peace,  and  withdrew,  commanding  the 
archbishops  to  return  home  and  consider  themselves  degraded. 
Thietgaud,  a  fool  rather  than  a  knave,  submitted  without 
further  resistance  ;  but  Gunthair  addressed  an  epistle  to  his 
brother  bishops,  exhorting  them  to  repel  the  encroachments  of 
the  papacy,  which  was  aspiring  to  the  domination  of  the  world, 
and  retorting  on  the  pope  his  sentence  of  excommunication. 
This  document  his  brother  Hilduin,  an  ecclesiastic,  laid  on  the 
tomb  of  St.  Peter,  after  forcing  an  entrance  with  arms,  and 
killing  one  of  the  guards.  On  their  return  home,  Thietgaud 
abstained  from  officiating,  but  Gunthair,  still  threatening  ven 
geance,  took  possession  of  his  diocese,  until  the  frightened 
Lotharingian  bishops  induced  Lothair  to  depose  him,  while 
they  individually  and  humbly  made  their  peace  with  Rome, 
by  submitting  to  all  the  requisitions  of  the  pontiff.1  Another 

1  It  is  interesting1  to  mark  the  contrast  between  the  independence  of 
the  first  half  of  the  century  and  the  submission  of  the  second  half.  When, 
thirty  years  before,  Gregory  IV.  came  to  the  Field  of  Falsehood  in  the 
train  of  Louis  le  Debonnaire's  rebellious  sons,  the  bishops  of  Louis's 
party  stoutly  declared  that  if  he  came  to  excommunicate,  he  should  re- 


172         THE     RISE     OF     THE     TEMPORAL     POWER. 

legate,  Arsenius,  was  sent  with  instructions  to  enforce  the 
threatened  excommunication  of  Lothair,  if  he  persisted  in  ini 
quity,  and  with  letters  to  Charles  le  Chauve  and  Louis  le 
Gerinanique,  denouncing  the  conduct  of  their  nephew  with  an 
acerbity  till  then  unknown  in  the  intercourse  between  popes 
and  kings.1  Lothair  felt  himself  unable  to  face  the  storm  which 
he  had  aroused.  He  professed  himself  in  all  things  an  obe 
dient  son  of  the  church,  he  put  away  Waldrada,  who  promised 
to  seek  absolution  in  Rome,  and  he  took  back  the  unfortunate 
Teutberga,  under  menaces  of  eternal  punishment  in  the  name 
of  God  and  St.  Peter.  Then  suddenly  all  was  again  confusion, 
as  untamed  human  passions  struggled  against  the  unaccus 
tomed  bonds.  Waldrada  escaped  from  the  custody  of  Arsenius 
and  returned  to  her  infatuated  lover,  while  the  queen  was  sub 
jected  to  every  kind  of  humiliation  and  oppression.  But  Nicho 
las  was  equal  to  the  strife  which  he  had  provoked,  and  on 
which  he  had  staked  the  future  of  the  papacy,  and,  indeed,  of 
Christian  civilization.  Waldrada  he  excommunicated.  Charles 
le  Chauve,  with  whom  Teutberga  had  again  taken  refuge,  he 
encouraged  with  a  laudatory  epistle,  mingled  with  threats  con 
cerning  a  rumored  arrangement  by  which  an  abandonment  of 
her  cause  was  to  be  purchased  by  a  cession  of  territory  ;  and, 

turn  excommunicated,  as  he  had  no  such  authority  under  the  ancient 
canons  of  the  church — "  nullo  modo  se  velle  ejus  voluntate  succumbere, 
sed  si  excommunicaturus  adveniret,  excommunicatus  abiret,  cum  aliter 
habeat  antiquorum  auctoritas  canonum"  (Astron.  Vit.  Ludov.  Pii  cap. 
xiv.)  .  The  fact  that  in  the  two  cases  the  respective  positions  of  right  and 
wrong  were  reversed  between  the  two  parties,  makes  no  difference  as  re 
gards  the  question  of  obedience  and  subordination. 

1  Hincmar,  notwithstanding  his  zeal  for  the  church,  and  his  active 
sympathy  for  Teutberga,  calls  attention  to  the  altered  tone  of  the  pontiff 
towards  crowned  heads,  and  evidently  disapproves  the  bullying  invective 
inaugurated  by  Nicholas,  which  subsequently  proved  so  potential  — 
"Non  cum  apostolica  mansuetudine  et  solita  honorabilitate,  sicut  epis- 
copi  Romani  consueverant  in  suis  epistolis  honorare,  sed  cum  malitiosa 
interminatione  ....  epistolam  Nicolai  Papae  plenam  terribilibus  et  a 
modestia  sedis  apostolicae  antea  inauditis  inaledictionibus."  —  Annal. 
Bertin.  aim.  805. 


PAPAL    OMNIPOTENCE.  173 

in  spite  of  the  interference  of  the  Emperor  Louis,  he  caused 
another  synod  to  confirm  the  degradation  of  the  delinquent 
archbishops.  Teutberga  herself,  worn  out  by  seven  years  of 
persecution,  petitioned  the  pontiff'  for  peace,  and  begged  to  be 
separated  from  Lothair,  that  she  might  end  her  days  in  quiet ; 
but  the  victory  was  not  yet  gained,  and  Nicholas  scornfully 
refused  her  request.  An  endeavor  of  Lothair  to  settle  the 
question  by  appeal  to  the  wager  of  battle  was  rejected  with  in 
dignation,  and  for  the  third  time  he  ordered  the  timid  prelates 
of  Lotharingia  to  enforce  the  sentence  of  excommunication 
pronounced  against  the  aspiring  concubine.  Commands  were 
addressed  to  Louis  le  Germanique  to  join  in  the  pressure  on 
Lothair,  and  to  desist  from  his  intercession  in  behalf  of  the 
deposed  archbishops,  while  the  prelates  of  Germany  received 
a  sharp  reproof  for  joining  in  the  appeal. 

The  opposition  of  monarch  and  prelate  was  at  last  broken 
down,  and  Waldrada  was  forced  to  Rome  ;  but  before  his  tri 
umph  was  complete  Nicholas  died,  leaving  to  his  successor 
Adrian  II.  the  legacy  of  this  quarrel,  and  the  widening  schism 
of  the  Greek  church,  which  he  had  rashly  provoked.  Lothair, 
hoping  to  find  the  new  pope  more  considerate  of  the  regal  dig 
nity,  intimated  a  desire  to  visit  Rome  in  person,  to  justify  his 
course,  and  to  be  reconciled  to  the  church.  Less  imperious 
than  his  predecessor,  Adrian  welcomed  the  apparently  repent 
ant  sinner.  The  excommunication  of  Waldrada  was  removed 
on  condition  of  absolute  separation  from  her  lover  ;  and,  that 
Lothair's  journey  might  be  impeded  by  no  pretext,  epistles 
were  addressed  to  Charles  and  Louis,  commanding  them  not  to 
trouble  Lotharingia  during  the  pious  absence  of  its  king.  An 
honorable  reception  awaited  Lothair.  He  was  admitted  to 
communion  on  the  oath,  which  no  one  believed,  that  he  had 
obeyed  the  commands  of  Nicholas  as  though  they  had  been 
those  of  Heaven,  and  had  abstained  from  all  intercourse  with 
Waldrada.  The  victory  of  the  pope  was  as  complete  as  the 
abasement  of  the  king.  The  sacrament  was  administered  as 
an  ordeal,  in  which  the  courtiers  of  Lothair  were  associated  as 

15* 


174          THE     RISE     OF     THE     TEMPORAL    POWER. 

accomplices  in  his  guilt,  and  both  parties  separated,  equally 
satisfied  with  the  result.  A  still  further  triumph,  however, 
was  reserved  for  the  church  by  one  of  those  mysterious  occur 
rences  which  account  for  the  belief,  then  universally  prevalent, 
of  special  interpositions  of  Providence.  Lot-hair  was  scarce 
fairly  started  on  his  return  home,  when  his  progress  was  ar 
rested  at  Piacenza  by  an  epidemic  which  broke  out  among  his 
followers  ;  and  there,  after  a  short  illness,  died  the  miserable 
young  king  and  his  partners  in  guilt.  Of  course,  the  effect 
was  prodigious.  Divine  justice  had  completely  vindicated  the 
acts  of  Nicholas  and  Adrian  ;  and  God  himself  had  conde 
scended  to  execute  the  sentence  of  the  church  on  the  hardened 
adulterer,  who  had  sought  to  shield  himself  by  sacrilegious  per 
jury  from  the  punishment  due  to  his  offences.1 

The  papacy  had  thus  triumphed  over  both  church  and  state, 
and  Heaven  had  sanctioned  the  immense  extension  of  prero 
gative.  The  principle  was  asserted  and  maintained,  that  an 
appeal  to  the  ecclesiastical  jurisdiction  barred  all  subsequent 
reclamation  to  the  ordinary  tribunals2 — a  doctrine  capable  of 
infinite  application  and  illimitable  results.  By  deposing  and 
degrading  Gunthairand  Thietgaud,  without  a  preliminary  trial 
at  home,  without  an  accuser,  and  without  the  ordinary  judicial 
formalities,  Nicholas  erected  himself  into  a  judge  of  first  and 
last  resort,  without  responsibility  and  without  appeal — the  sole 
arbiter  of  destiny  for  the  highest  dignitaries  of  the  hierarchy. 
By  annulling  the  acts  of  the  Lotharingian  synods,  and  forcing 
their  members  not  only  to  submit  to  this,  but  humbly  to  apolo 
gize  for  the  iniquity  of  their  decrees,  he  established  a  complete 
ascendency  over  the  provincial  prelacy,  and  vindicated  the 

1  The  Annal.Bertin..  Regino,  the  Epistles  of  Nicholas  I.,  and  the  works 
of  Hincmar,  furnish  abundant  materials  for  this  history,  of  which  I  have 
only  sketched  the  salient  points. 

-  "  Quia  ecclesiye  refugium  quaerens,  et  ecclesiasticum  judicium  semper 
expetens,  soeculari  non  debet  submitti  judicio"  — Nicolai  PP.  I.  Epist. 
148. — We  here  see  the  practical  application  of  the  interpolation  of  the 
Theodosian  Code,  Lib.  xvi.  Tit.  12. 


PAPAL    OMNIPOTENCE.  175 

supremacy  of  the  Holy  See  as  the  only  irrefragable  authority 
in  the  church.  Nor  was  the  victory  over  the  secular  power 
less  complete.  When  Lothair  appeared  before  the  papal  legates 
to  answer  the  appeal  of  Teutberga,  he  acknowledged  the  juris 
diction  of  popes  over  monarchs  ;  and  however  he  might  subse 
quently  dissemble,  he  never  afterwards  dared  to  deny  it,  each 
step  only  serving  to  confirm  that  jurisdiction  in  its  most  abso 
lute  sense.  And  when  Adrian  threatened  the  kings  of  France 
and  Germany,  and  ordered  them  not  to  interfere  with  Lothar- 
ingia  during  the  absence  of  their  nephew,  he  placed  himself  at 
the  head  of  Christendom,  as  the  self-constituted  sovereign  of 
sovereigns.  The  moral  effect  was  not  less  decisive.  An  un 
armed  priest,  unable  to  protect  his  palace  or  his  person  from 
the  brute  force  of  his  enemy,  Nicholas,  under  the  guardianship, 
of  Heaven,  walked  without  swerving  along  the  path  which  he 
had  marked  out,  over  the  prostrate  necks  of  kings  and  pre 
lates,  clothed  only  in  the  mysterious  attributes  of  his  station, 
and  invoking  the  Most  High  in  the  name  of  truth  and  justice. 
What  wonder  that  the  populations  should  revere  him  as  the 
Vicegerent  of  Christ,  as  the  incarnate  representative  of  God, 
and  that  the  most  extravagant  pretensions  ascribed  to  him  by 
Ingilram  or  Isidor  were  regarded  as  his  legitimate  and  impre 
scriptible  prerogatives  ? 

It  will  be  observed  throughout  this  affair,  that  the  weapon 
relied  upon  to  enforce  obedience  was  the  deprivation  of  com 
munion,  involving,  in  the  case  of  ecclesiastics,  degradation 
from  their  benefices,  and  in  that  of  laymen,  exclusion  from  the 
Christian  church.  It  was  in  this  that  the  power  to  bind  and 
to  loose  found  its  readiest  practical  expression,  and  the  control 
which  the  church  thus  acquired  over  the  life  of  man  in  this 
world  and  his  salvation  in  the  next,  opened  out  before  it  a 
career  of  boundless  supremacy  which  will  be  considered  in  a 
subsequent  essay. 

Yet  it  must  not  be  supposed  that  the  vast  powers  thus  suc 
cessfully  asserted  by  Nicholas  and  Adrian  descended  in  an 
unbroken  line  from  them  to  Innocent  III.  Society  was  still 


1*76    THE  RISE  OF  THE  TEMPORAL  POWER. 

too  rude,  and  its  anarchic  elements  too  tumultuous,  to  submit 
without  many  struggles  to  the  absolute  despotism  of  influences 
purely  spiritual  and  moral.  Its  protest  against  subjection  took 
many  and  various  forms,  and  the  vices  and  weaknesses  of  the 
clergy  seemed  at  times  to  postpone  indefinitely  the  ultimate 
triumph.  The  tenth  century  was  yet  to  see  the  darkest  period 
in  papal  annals,  infamously  illustrated  by  Marozia  and  John 
XII.,  when  the  Holy  Father  was  the  puppet  of  any  savage 
noble  who  could  control  the  miserable  population  of  Rome. 
Whatever  wrongs  Italy  may  have  suffered  from  the  Tedeschi, 
the  world  yet  owes  to  them  that  Teutonic  power  rescued  the 
papacy  from  this  degradation,  and  placed  it  in  hands  less  in 
competent  to  discharge  the  weighty  trust.  Blindly  working 
for  the  present,  the  Saxon  and  Franconian  Emperors  little 
thought  that  they  were  elevating  an  influence  destined  to 
undermine  their  own,  or  that  the  doctrines  of  Isidor,  in  the 
mouth  of  a  priest,  would  break  the  power  of  an  iron  Kaiser, 
the  warrior  of  sixty  battles. 


BENEFIT  OP  CLERGY. 


AMONG  the  most  important  and  dearly-prized  privileges  of 
the  church  was  that  which  conferred  on  its  members 
immunity  from  the  operation  of  secular  law,  and  relieved  them 
from  the  jurisdiction  of  secular  tribunals.  Not  only  did  they 
thus  acquire  a  peculiar  sanctity,  which  separated  them  from 
the  people  and  secured  for  them  veneration,  but  the  personal 
inviolability  thence  surrounding  them  gave  them  enormous 
advantage  in  all  contests  with  the  civil  power.  Secure  in  this 
panoply  of  privilege,  they  could  dare  all  things.  Amenable 
only  to  divine  law,  the  s-tatutes  of  emperors  and  kings  were  to 
them  but  the  idle  breath  of  men  ;  the  church  was  independent 
of  the  civil  power,  and  in  its  aggressive  enterprises  it  occupied 
a  vantage-ground  of  incalculable  value. 

So  priceless  a  prerogative  was  not  obtained  without  a  long 
and  resolute  struggle.  That  dispute  arising  between  eccle 
siastics  should  be  settled  by  the  arbitration  of  their  bishops 
seemed  not  unreasonable,  and  from  an  early  period  it  was  the 
established  rule  of  the  church  that  all  such  questions  should  be 
so  settled  ;l  but  to  ask  that  a  monk  or  priest  guilty  of  crime 
should  not  be  subject  to  the  ordinary  tribunals,  and  that  civil 
suits  between  laymen  and  ecclesiastics  should  be  referred  ex 
clusively  to  courts  composed  of  the  latter,  was  a  claim  too 
repugnant  to  the  common  sense  of  mankind  to  be  lightly  ac 
corded. 

1  See,  for  instance,  the  elaborate  provisions  of  Concil.  Chalced.  can.  9. 


ITS  BENEFIT     OF     CLERGY. 

The  respect  due  to  the  sanctity  of  the  episcopal  functions 
was  the  entering  wedge,  and  for  this  antiquity  was  claimed, 
coeval  with  the  revolution  by  which  Christianity  and  the  church 
became  recognized  by  law.  If  the  account  given  by  Rufinus 
be  correct,  when  the  Nicene  council  was  assembled  for  the 
condemnation  of  Arius,  and  the  holy  fathers,  neglecting  that 
duty,  busied  themselves  only  with  mutual  criminations  and 
accusations,  Constantine  ordered  them  to  hand  him  all  their 
libelli  of  complaint,  and  then  addressed  them  :  u  God  has  con 
stituted  you  His  priests,  and  has  given  you  authority  to  judge 
us,  but  you  are  not  to  be  judged  of  men.  Wherefore  await  the 
decision  of  God  between  you,  and  keep  your  quarrels,  what 
soever  they  be,  for  His  decision  alone.  t  For  you  are  gods, 
given  to  us  by  God,  and  it  is  not  fitting  that  man  should  pro 
nounce  judgment  on  gods."  Whereupon  lie  ordered  the  ac 
cusations  to  be  burned  without  examination,  and  commanded 
the  bishops  to  proceed  with  the  business  of  the  council.1  It 
may  well  be  assumed,  however,  that  Rufinus  has  exaggerated 
what  probably  was  only  a  polite  form  in  which  the  shrewd  and 
politic  emperor  veiled  the  reproof  which  he  administered,  and 
the  sarcasm  which  lurked  in  his  deferential  assumption  that 
they  were  worthy  of  the  tribute  which  he  rendered  to  their 
office.  Sozomen,  in  fact,  gives  what  is  doubtless  a  truer 
account,  in  stating  that  Constantine  merely  remarked  that  it 
did  not  become  him  as  a  man  to  decide  between  them.2  What 
ever  may  have  been  his  precise  form  of  speech,  he  merely  de 
sired  to  expedite  the  business  of  the  council  and  to  elude  the 
annoyance  of  arbitrating  in  so  many  obscure  quarrels.  That 

1  Rufini  Hist.  Ecclcs.  Lib.  I.  cap.  2.     This  blasphemous  expression  was 
embodied  textually  in  the  Capitularies  of  Benedict  (Lib.  v.  cap.  315), 
and  was  made  the  basis  of  extravagant  pretensions,  without  apparently 
observing  that  it  destroyed  ecclesiastical  as  fully  as  secular  jurisdiction 
over  prelates.     It  continued  to  be  quoted,  till  after  even  the  Council  of 
Trent,  as  the  foundation-stone  of  clerical  immunity.     See  Concil.  Salis- 
burgens.  aim.  1569  Const,  xxxix.  cap.  1. 

2  Hist.  Eccles.  Lib.  i.  cap.  16. 


IMPERIAL    LEGISLATION.  H9 

he  waived  the  right  to  treat  his  bishops  as  his  subjects  is  im 
possible,  when  we  find  him  not  long  afterwards  threatening  to 
punish  St.  Athanasius  for  disobedience  by  removing  him  from 
the  see  of  Alexandria,  without  even  the  form  of  a  trial,  and 
warning  him  that  he  would  be  replaced  with  a  more  pliable 
successor.1 

It  is  true  that,  in  355,  Constantius  embodied  in  a  law  the 
principle  that  bishops  could  only  be  tried  by  bishops.2  This, 
however,  shows  that  no  such  legal  custom  pre-existed,  and 
even  this  was  for  a  temporary  purpose,  arising,  like  the  Sar- 
dican  canons,  from  the  Arian  schism,  and  it  was  only  of  tem 
porary  authority.  It  cannot  have  been  more,  for  in  376  a 
constitution  of  Gratian  expressly  reserves  to  the  secular  tribu 
nals  all  cases  concerning  ecclesiastics,  except  in  matters  re 
lating  to  religion  and  those  of  trifling  importance.3  A  law  of 
Honorius  in  412,  and  one  of  Valentinian  III.  in  425,4  are  more 
favorable  to  ecclesiastical  pretensions,  and  were  strenuously 
urged  in  the  ninth  century  to  support  the  claims  of  the  church 
to  immunity;  but  the  former  may  safely  be  assumed  to  refer 
only  to  ecclesiastical  matters,  while  the  latter  was  doubtless 
extorted  by  the  powerful  church  party  from  the  youthful  em 
peror  and  his  mother  Placidia  immediately  after  the  overthrow 
of  the  usurper  John.  That  it  was  opposed  to  the  received 
jurisprudence  of  the  age  and  was  not  long  allowed  to  remain 
in  force  is  shown  by  an  edict  of  the  same  emperor  in  452, 
which  expressly  declares  that  the  imperial  laws  subject  to  secu- 

1  Socrat.  Hist.  Eccles.  Lib.  i.  cap.  20.     Marsiglio  of  Padua,  in  the 
fourteenth  century,  does  not  fail  to  perceive  that  the  jurisdiction  over 
the  clergy  granted  to  the  pope  in  the  Donation  of  Constantine,  implies 
that  such  jurisdiction  had  belonged  previously  to  the  Emperor,  and  was 
not  of  divine  origin.     The  forgery  proved  too  much. — Marsilii   Patav. 
Defens.  Pacis.  P.  n.  cap.  xi. 

2  Lib.  xvi.  Cod.  Theod.  Tit.  ii.  1.  12. 

3  Ibid.  1.  23.     This  shows  that  the  law  attributed  to  Constantine  by 
Sozomen  (Lib.  I.  cap.  9),  granting  to  clerical  defendants  the  right  to 
elect  episcopal  judges,  either  never  existed  or  else  was  only  of  temporary 
authority. 

4  Ibid.  11.  41,  43. 


180  BENEFIT     OF     CLERGY. 

lar  jurisdiction  all  classes  of  the  clergy,  from  bishops  down,  the 
only  exception  being  that  a  prosecutor,  if  himself  a  layman, 
was  allowed  to  select  an  ecclesiastical  tribunal  in  which  to 
bring  his  action  ;!  and  in  468  a  law  of  the  Emperor  Leo  shows 
that  churchmen  were  by  no  means  exempt  from  the  ordinary 
jurisdiction.2 

Meanwhile  the  church  had  not  been  lacking  in  efforts  to 
maintain  exclusive  jurisdiction  over  the  affairs  of  its  members, 
and  severe  penalties  were  denounced,  in  397,  by  the  third 
council  of  Carthage,  against  all  clerks  who  should  voluntarily 
appeal  to  the  secular  tribunals  in  either  civil  or  criminal  cases, 
on  account  of  the  disrespect  thus  manifested  towards  their  own 
officials.  At  the  same  time  the  council  could  not  control  cases 
in  which  they  were  prosecuted  by  laymen,  and  as  it  enumerates 
bishops  among  those  who  might  justify  themselves  before  lay 
judges  the  canon  shows  that  the  exemption  attributed  to  Con- 
stantine  probably  never  existed,  while  the  privilege  granted  by 
Constantius  had  fallen  into  desuetude,  presumably  on  account 
of  its  heretical  intent.3  Even  in  strictly  ecclesiastical  concerns 
the  church  could  not  maintain  an  independent  jurisdiction,  lor 
at  Chalcedon,  where  its  totality  was  represented  in  the  most 
potent  form,  under  the  boasted  presidency  of  papal  legates,  the 
absolution  of  the  five  bishops  who  abandoned  their  Eutychian 
tendencies  was  conducted  by  the  imperial  commissioners  act 
ing  under  direct  instructions  from  the  emperor ;  and  the  con 
demnation  of  Dioscorus  of  Alexandria  required  the  imperial 
assent  before  it  could  take  effect.4  Towards  the  close  of  the 
century  Gelasius  might  gratify  himself  by  asserting  that  church 
men  could  be  tried  only  in  ecclesiastical  courts  ;5  but  the  empti- 

1  Novell.  Valent.  III.  Tit.  xxxv.  §  1.     A  law  in  the  Theodosian  Code 
(Lib.  xvi.  Tit.  xii.  1.  3)  might  likewise  be  cited,  but  its  authenticity  is 
doubtful. 

2  Const.  33  Cod.  i.  3. 

3  Concil.  Carthag.  III.  ann.  397  can.  9. 

4  Concil.  Chalced.  Act.  iv.  (Harduin   II.  414). 

5  Gratian.  caus.  xi.  q.  1  can.  12. 


GRANTED    BY    JUSTINIAN.  181 

ness  of  this  boast  was  shown  when  Theodoric  formally  pro 
claimed  that  the  Bishop  of  Rome  himself  was  not  exempt  from 
trial  and  condemnation  at  the  command  of  his  sovereign,1  a 
principle  which  the  Ostrogoth  did  not  hesitate  to  put  in  force 
against  both  Symmachus  and  John  I.  It  is  to  this  period  that 
critics  attribute  'the  fabrication  of  the  account  of  the  trial  of 
Sixtus  III.  by  an  assembly  of  bishops;2  and  of  the  elaborate 
forgeries  of  Sylvester's  epistles,  which  enunciate  distinctly  the 
principle  of  clerical  immunity,3  especially  that  of  the  popes,4 
and  it  was  probably  done  as  a  protest  against  the  proceedings 
of  Theodoric.  If  so,  they  failed  of  their  purpose,  for  not  long 
afterwards  under  the  Catholic  Justinian  there  was  quite  as  little 
scruple  shown  when  Belisarius  convicted  Pope  Silverius  on  a 
fabricated  charge  of  treason.5  A  step,  indeed,  had  been  gained 
when  another  Arian  sovereign,  Athalaric  the  Ostrogoth,  granted 
that  any  suit  or  prosecution  against  a  Roman  ecclesiastic  should 
be  brought  before  the  pope  ;  but  it  was  rendered  virtually  nu 
gatory  by  the  freedom  allowed  to  the  plaintiff  to  appeal  from 
the  decision  to  the  secular  magistrates.6 

The  privilege  attributed  to  Constantine  and  attempted  by 
Constantius  was  finally  established  by  Justinian,  who  conceded 
to  the  episcopal  dignity  the  right  to  have  episcopal  judges  ; 
but  as  he  carefully  reserved  the  imperial  prerogative  to  disre 
gard  the  exemption,  the  principle  of  ecclesiastical  subordina- 

1  Goldast.  Const.  Imp.  TTT.  613.     At  the  same  time  Theodoric  does  not 
seem  disinclined  to  favor  ccclesistical  jurisdiction,  for  we  find  him  send 
ing  for  trial  to  Eustorgius,  Bishop  of  Milan — :'  cujus  est  et  gequitatem 
moribus  talibus  imponere"— some  priests  charged  with  perjury  and  false 
witness  of  an  aggravated  character  (Goldast.  III.  32)  —  offences  which, 
in  the  legislation  of  Justinian,  were  specially  reserved  for  the  secular 
courts. 

2  Expurgat.  Sixti  PP.  (Harduin.  II.  1742). 

3  Migne's  Patrol.  T.  VIII.  p.  826. 

4  Concil.  Roman,  sub  Silvest.  can.  xx.  (Ibid.  p.  840). 

5  Anastas.  Biblioth.  No.  60. 

6  Athalar.  Const,  xvi.  (Goldast,  III.  98). 

IB 


182  BENEFIT     OF    OLE  ROY. 

tion  was  preserved  intact,1  and  the  deposition  and  banishment 
of  numerous  bishops  for  their  contumacy  respecting  the  Three 
Chapters,  in  the  exciting  Monophysite  controversy,  show  how 
freely  he  exercised  his  power,  even  in  matters  of  faith.2  While 
thus  jealously  guarding  the  supremacy  of  the  crown,  however, 
he  was  disposed  to  favor  the  autonomy  of  the  church,  and  in 
539  he  placed  the  monasteries  under  the  sole  control  of  the 
bishops,  in  order  that  their  hallowed  precincts  should  not  be 
profaned  by  the  sacrilegious  intrusion  of  secular  officials.8  A 
few  months  later,  at  the  solicitation  of  Mennas,  Patriarch  of 
Constantinople,  he  ordered  that  all  civil  suits  against  ecclesias 
tics  should  be  brought  before  their  bishops,  with  recourse  to 
the  state  tribunals  only  when  the  prelate  was  unable  to  arrive 
at  a  decision.  Criminal  prosecutions,  however,  were  reserved 
for  the  civil  magistrates,  except  in  minor  offences  ;4  and  there 
is  nothing  to  warrant  the  belief  that  a  clerical  plaintiff  could 
select  a  judge  of  his  own  order.5  The  result  of  these  favors 
was  apparently  not  satisfactory,  for  a  few  years  later  the 
privilege  was  practically  nullified  by  allowing  the  largest 
liberty  of  appeal  to  the  secular  tribunals  from  such  episcopal 
decisions.6 

In  Italy,  the  popes  took  care  to  enunciate  with  sufficient 
frequency  the  principle  that  an  ecclesiastical  defendant  was 
entitled  to  be  tried  in  his  own  court  ;7  and  that  they  succeeded 
is  shown  by  an  order  of  Gregory  the  Great,  directing  that  hos 
pitals  shall  be  placed  under  the  charge  of  ecclesiastics  only,  to 
exempt  them  from  the  jurisdiction  of  the  secular  tribunals 
which  otherwise  might  trouble  and  pillage  them.8 

The  regions  subjected   to  the  Burgundians  and  AVisigoths, 

1  Novell.  133  cap.  8.     "  Nisi  princeps  jubeat." 

2  Victor.  Tunenens.  Chron.  ann.  551. 

3  Novell.  79.  *  Novell.  123  cap.  20. 
5  Novell.  83.                                                       6  Novell.  123  cap.  21. 

7  Grcgor.  PP.  I.  Regist.  Lib.  vi.  Epist.  11;  Lib.  xi.  Epist.  77.    Gratian. 
Cans.  xi.  q.  1  can.  11,  12,  38,  30,  40. 

8  Gregor.  PP.  I.  Regist.  Lib.  iv.  Epist.  27.     "  Religiosi  dumtaxnt,  quos 
vexandi  judices  non  habeant  potestatem." 


DENIED    BY    THE    WISIGOTHS.  183 

however,  adhered  more  closely  to  the  traditions  of  the  Roman 
jurisprudence,  and  maintained  to  a  great  extent  the  supremacy 
of  the  civil  law.  This  was  the  natural  result  of  their  Arian- 
ism  ;  but  even  when  the  Goths  were  converted  to  orthodoxy, 
in  589,  they  adhered  to  their  ancestral  principles.  The  coun 
cil  of  Agde  in  506,  and  that  of  Epaone  in  517,  while  ordering 
the  clergy  not  to  seek  the  secular  tribunals  as  plaintiffs,  directs 
them  to  make  no  resistance  when  summoned  as  defendants, 
showing  that  an  effort  had  been  made  to  secure  the  exemption, 
and  that  it  had  failed.1  Even  this  measure  of  separation  from 
the  civil  jurisdiction  was  not  easily  maintained,  for  at  the  third 
council  of  Toledo,  held  in  589  to  celebrate  the  abandonment  of 
Arianism,  the  bishops  complained  bitterly  of  the  clergy  who 
were  constantly  infringing  the  rules  of  discipline  by  carrying 
their  suits  before  the  lay  courts.2  With  the  conversion  to 
Catholicism  came  an  effort  to  secure  complete  immunity  from 
secular  jurisdiction,  which  was  asserted  with  so  much  vigor 
that  about  the  middle  of  the  seventh  century  Chindaswind  was 
obliged  to  put  a  stop  to  it  by  a  law  which  imposed  a  heavy 
fine  on  bishops  refusing  to  acknowledge  the  jurisdiction  of  the 
ordinary  tribunals,  and  inflicted  on  the  lower  orders  of  the 
clergy  the  same  penalty  as  that  incurred  by  the  laity  for  such 
contempt  of  court.1'  Even  this  was  not  sufficient,  and  the 
bishops  endeavored  to  secure,  at  least  for  themselves,  some  im 
munity  from  the  law.  for  the  eleventh  council  of  Toledo,  in 
(375,  was  obliged  to  declare  that  for  aggravated  offences  they 
should  be  punished  according  to  the  secular  code.4 

Singularly  enough,  the  ancient  British  church  presents  one 
of  the  earliest  instances  of  the  formal  recognition  of  clerical 
immunity,  and  this  nearly  in  the  form  which  was  preserved  in 

1  Concil.  As'athens.  can.  3:2.     Concil.  Epaonens.  can.  11. 

2  Concil.  Toletan.  III.  can.  13. 

3  LI.  Wisigoth.  Lib.  n.  Tit.  1  1.  IS.    This  subjection  of  the  clergy  is  the 
more  remarkable  as  the  bishops  at  that  time  enjoyed  great  power  and 
influence. 

4  Concil.  Toletan.  XI.  awn.  075  can.  5. 


184  BENEFIT     OF    CLERGY. 

England  until  the  Reformation.  A  collection  of  Welsh  canons, 
attributed  to  the  seventh  century,  provides  that  a  clerk  prose 
cuting  a  layman  shall  bring  his  complaint  before  the  secular 
judge,  but  that  if  the  clerk  is  the  defendant  the  case  shall  be 
heard  by  the  bishop,  provided  that  the  ecclesiastic  has  not  been 
previously  tried  and  convicted,  in  which  case  he  must  be  con 
tent  with  secular  law.1 

The  careless  barbarism  or  the  zealous  fervor  of  the  newly 
converted  Franks  took  little  pains  to  maintain  the  equality  of 
the  laity  and  the  priesthood.  It  is  easy  to  understand  this 
when  we  consider  that  under  the  Prankish  domination  all  laws 
were  personal  and  not  territorial.  The  Frank,  the  Roman,  the 
Goth,  and  the  Burgundian,  however  intermingled,  had  each  a 
right  to  be  tried  by  his  own  code,  and  it  therefore  might  seem 
natural  that  the  ecclesiastic  should  have  the  benefit  of  his 
canon  law,  which  moreover  could  only  be  expounded  by  the 
courts-Christian  familiar  with  its  peculiarities.  As  early  as 
o38,  even  before  the  carefully  guarded  grants  of  Justinian,  the 
third  council  of  Orleans  was  thus  able  to  enact  a  canon  ren 
dering  episcopal  assent  necessary  before  a  clerk  could  appear 
in  a  secular  court,  either  as  plaintiff'  or  defendant.'2  This  vir 
tually  placed  in  the  hands  of  the  bishops  complete  control  over 
all  cases  in  which  ecclesiastics  were  concerned  ;  and  the  prin 
ciple  was  more  fully  developed  three  years  later  at  the  fourth 
council  of  Orleans.3  Possibly  in  this  there  was  an  undue 
assumption  of  power  ;  certainly  more  was  assumed  than  could 
be  maintained  in  times  so  tumultuous,  for  subsequent  legisla 
tion  and  canons  prove  that  there  was  no  definite  system  of 
procedure.  The  history  of  the  period  also  affords  ample  evi 
dence  that  practically  there  was  no  limit  to  the  exercise  of  the 
royal  power  over  ecclesiastics,  as  confessed  by  Gregory  of 
Tours,  when  he  reproved  Chilperic  I — "If  any  one  of  us,  O 

1  Canones  Wallici  c.  40,  41,  44,  45.     (Haddan  and  Stubbs's  Councils 
of  Great  Britain  I.  133-4. ) 

2  Conoil.  Aurelian.  III.  can.  32. 

3  Concil.  Aurelian.  IV.  ami.  541  can.  20. 


LEGISLATION     OF    THE     FRANKS.  185 

King,  exceeds  the  limits  of  justice,  you  can  punish  him,  but  it' 
you  transcend  the  right,  who  shall  restrain  you  P"1  and  not 
long  afterwards  he  attributes  to  divine  interposition  a  serious 
illness  of  King  Gontran,  who  was  thus  prevented  from  execut 
ing  an  intention  of  banishing  a  number  of  his  bishops.2 

It  was  not  only  the  royal  authority,  however,  that  thus  in- 
f ringed  on  the  immunities  claimed  by  the  church.     Sometimes 

D  » 

powerless  to  enforce  her  own  laws,  she  was  forced  to  invoke 
secular  assistance,  as  when  in  5G7  the  second 'council  of  Tours 
appealed  to  the  lay  tribunals  for  aid  in  separating  from  their  wives 
monks  who  should  commit  the  indiscretion  of  marrying.3  The 
futility  of  tiie  endeavor  to  enforce  the  claim  of  exemption  is 
shown  in  an  ingenious  expedient,  devised  by  the  council  of 
Auxerre  in  578,  by  which  a  suit  against  a  clerk  should  be 
brought  against  a  brother  of  the  defendant,  or  some  other  lay 
man.*  Even  this  attempt  to  save  appearances  was  abandoned 
by  the  council  of  Macon  in  581,  which  conceded,  what  it  pro 
bably  could  not  refuse,  to  secular  judges  criminal  jurisdiction 
over  clerical  offenders.5  The  council  of  Paris,  in  615,  sought 
to  withdraw  this  concession  by  repeating  the  injunctions  of  the 
councils  of  Orleans,  requiring  the  assent  of  the  bishops  in  all 
cases  ;6  but  the  secular  power  was  not  willing  thus  to  abandon 
its  jurisdiction,  arid  the  edict  of  Clotair,  which  gave  legal  force 
to  the  canons  of  the  council,  limited  with  seme  strictness  this 
provision,  and  ordered  a  mixed  tribunal  for  the  trial  of  all 
cases  betwreen  the  clergy  and  the  laity.7  Even  this  was  pro 
bably  a  greater  favor  than  the  church  could  secure  in  practice, 
for  the  council  of  Chalons,  in  G41),  complains  of  the  civil 
magistrates  as  extending  their  jurisdiction  over  monasteries 
and  parishes  ;8  and  about  the  same  period  the  Bavarian  la/ws, 
while  exempting  the  episcopal  order  from  liability  to  private 

1  Greg.  Turon.  Hist.  Franc.  Lib.  v.  cap,  19, 

2  Ibid.  Lib.  vm.  cap.  30.  3  Concil.  Turon.  II.  can.  15. 
*  Concil.  Autissiodor.  can.  41.       5  Concil.  Matiscon.  I,  can.  7. 

6  Concil.  Paris.  V.  can.  4.  7  Edict,  Chlotar.  II.  aim.  61")  c.  4,  5. 

8  Concil.  Cabillonens,  can,  11. 

16* 


186  BENEFIT    OF     CLERGY. 

vengeance,  treat  it  as  in  every  respect  amenable  to  the  royal 
and  popular  tribunals.1 

Whatever  was  doubtful  in  the  prevailing  custom,  however, 
was  eventually  construed  in  favor  of  sacerdotal  immunity.  In 
755  the  acts  of  the  synod  of  Verneuil,  issued  under  the  authority 
of  Pepin  le  Bref,  contain  the  important  privilege  more  dis 
tinctly  enunciated  ;2  while  a  capitulary  of  Charlemagne,  in 
709,  threatens  excommunication  for  any  secular  judge  who 
shall  try  and  condemn  an  ecclesiastic  without  the  knowledge 
of  his  bishop  ;3  and  another,  in  789,  denounces  heavy  penalties 
against  any  clerk  who  should  so  far  disregard  the  rights  of  his 
order  as  to  obey  a  summons  to  a  secular  court  as  defendant  in 
either  a  civil  or  criminal  action.4  Another,  in  794,  provides  a 
mixed  tribunal  for  mixed  cases  ;5  and  another,  of  uncertain 
date,  prohibits  the  summoning  of  ecclesiastics  before  secular 
courts,  but  shows  the  undefined  condition  of  the  question  by 
providing  that  in  disputes  concerning  property,  the  lay  judge 
shall  send  the  claimant  to  the  bishop  to  obtain  justice,  but  that 
if  the  matter  cannot  be  then  decided  it  shall  come  before  the 
secular  magistrate.6  A  law  of  Pepin,  King  of  Italy,  in  793, 
admits  the  same  principle  by  authorizing  the  courts  to  judge  as 
laymen  all  clerks  whom  the  negligence  of  their  bishop  permits 
to  assume  the  secular  habit.7 


1  LI.  Baioar.  Tit.  i.  cap.  11  §  2.  The  clergy,  however,  were  under  the 
jurisdiction  of  their  bishops,  except  for  incontinence.  (Tit.  i.  cap.  13 
§3.) 

*  Capit.  Pippini  ami.  755  cap.  18.  About  the  same  time  a  similar  rule 
was  proclaimed  in  England — Ecgberti  Excerpt,  cap.  16. 

3  Capit.  Carol.  Mag.  aun.  769  cap.  17.. 

4  Ejusd.  Capit.  aim.  789  cap.  37.— Cf.  Capit.  aim.  794  cap.  37. 

5  Ejusd.   Capit.  Frankfort,  ami.  794  cap.  28.     Such  regulations  were 
evidently  of  no  practical  importance,  and  are  only  interesting  as  a  mani 
festation  of  the  expedients  resorted  to  with  the  hope  of  reconciling  the 
irreconcilable. 

6  Capit.  Car.  Mag.  c.  xxv.  (Martene  Ampl.  Coll.  VII.  9).      This  capi 
tulary  probably  refers  to  Italy.     Cf.  Capit.  incerti  anni  cap.  17  (Baluz. 
I.  352). 

7  Pippini  Capit.  ex  LI.  Longobard.  cap.  17  (Baluz.  II.  371). 


WITHHELD     BY     CHARLEMAGNE.  187 

In  principle,  the  point  was  thus  gained,  but  its  practical  en 
forcement  was  reserved  for  a  later  period  ;  and  we  may  safely 
assume  that  little  respect  was  paid  to  such  prerogatives  by 
warrior-judges,  who  thought  that  the  safety  of  ecclesiastics  was 
amply  guarded  by  investing  them  with  a  double  or  triple  wer- 
qlld  for  life  or  limb.1  This,  indeed,  is  not  a  mere  matter  of 
conjecture.  We  have  already  seen  that  Charlemagne  and 
Louis  le  Debonnaire  held  the  pope  himself  as  subject  to  their 
jurisdiction,  and  the  latter  even  sent  a  layman  as  commissioner 
for  the  trial  of  Pascal  I.  When,  in  815,  Leo  III.  dared  to 
trespass  on  the  imperial  prerogative  by  executing  some  con 
spirators,  and  Louis  resented  this  infringement  of  his  rights, 
Leo,  in  his  apology,  professed  the  most  profound  obedience, 
admitted  his  subjection  to  the  imperial  jurisdiction,  and  eagerly 
requested  the  emperor  to  come  or  send  a  commissioner  to  sit 
in  judgment  on  him.2  In  805  a  capitulary  of  Charlemagne 
orders  the  public  judges  to  expedite  with  diligence  the  suits  of 
churches,  widows,  and  orphans,3  showing  that  the  secular  courts 
were  open  to  ecclesiastical  cases,  and  were  habitually  applied 
to  for  them,  which  is  confirmed  by  an  allusion  in  Flodoard  to 
the  custom  of  Wulfarius,  Archbishop  of  Rheims,  and  of  his 
successor  Ebbo,  in  conducting  personally  the  causes  of  their 
church  before  the  civil  judges.4  A  law  of  704  shows  that  the 
monarch  exercised  the  right  of  sitting  in  ultimate  appeal  in 
criminal  cases  involving  churchmen  as  freely  as  in  those 
involving  the  laity.5  In  803  we  find  him  summoning  to  his 

1  The  second  council  of  Macon,  in  585,  complains  bitterly  that  the 
inviolability  of  episcopal  dignity  received  little  respect  at  the  hands  of 
irreligious  judges  (Concil.  Matiscon.  IT.  can.  9).     This  is  not  to  be  won 
dered  at  when  these  privileges  were  disregarded  by  those  who  were  most 
interested  in  maintaining  them.     The  fifth  council  of  Paris,  in  015,  found 
it  necessary  to  forbid  bishops  from  attacking  each  other  in  the  secular 
courts  (Concil.  Paris.  V.  can.  11). 

2  Gratian.  caus.  n.  q.  7  can.  41. 

3  Capit.  Carol.  Mag.  n.  aim.  805  cap.  2. 

4  Flodoard   Hist.  Rernens.  Lib.  n.  cap.  18,  19. 
3  Capit.  Carol.  Mag.  arm.  794  cap.  4. 


188  BENEFIT     OF     CLERGY. 

tribunal  the  monks  of  St.  Martin  of  Tours,  to  be  tried  for  con 
tumacy  in  refusing  to  surrender  a  fugitive  clerk  condemned  by 
Theodulf,  Bishop  of  Orleans  j1  and  an  edict  of  805  directs  the 
loftiest  prelates  to  be  brought  before  him  for  judgment.2  His 
power,  indeed,  did  not  require  the  intervention  of  legal  forms. 
The  Monk  of  St.  Gall  relates  that,  when  the  ambassadors  from 
the  East  came  to  his  court,  they  met  with  scant  attention  and 
hospitality  from  the  dignitaries  and  bishops  on  their  route — a 
fact  which  they  ingeniously  conveyed  to  him  on  their  de 
parture.  Whereupon  the  incensed  emperor  degraded  all  the 
counts  and  abbots  on  the  line  of  their  journey,  but  let  the 
bishops  off  with  ruinous  fines,  for  the  want  of  respect  which 
they  had  shown  towards  the  imperial  majesty  in  the  persons  of 
those  deputed  to  him  as  envoys.3  Even  for  certain  violations  of 
ecclesiastical  discipline,  Louis  le  Debonnaire,  in  81(5,  directed 
that  clerical  offenders  should  be  sent  to  him  for  punishment.-* 

Under  this  conflicting  and  uncertain  legislation  attempts 
were  naturally  made  to  escape  subjection  to  the  secular  tri 
bunals,  and  Charlemagne,  in  811,  ridicules  the  idea  that  men 
who  sometimes  bore  arms,  and  possessed  private  property, 
should  refuse  to  answer  the  appeals  of  laymen  under  such  a 
plea.5  His  disapprobation  of  the  pretension  is  manifest,  and 
how  little  it  was  regarded  is  evident  from  a  law  of  819,  for 
bidding  the  duel  when  both  parties  to  an  action  were  eccle 
siastics,  but  allowing  it  when  one  was  a  layman,  and,  in  the 
former  case,  referring  the  matter  to  the  count  of  the  province, 
thus  showing  how  complete  was  the  jurisdiction  of  the  secular 
tribunals  over  the  clergy.6  The  practical  exercise  of  the  power 

1  Carol.  Mag.  Epist.  ap.  Baluz.  I.  292. 

2  Capit.  Carol.  Mag.  in.  aim.  805  cap.  14. 

3  Mouach.  S.  Gall,  do  Vit.  Carol.  Mag.  Lib.  n.  cap.  vii. 

4  Ludov.  Pii  Epist.  ad  Archiep.  Salisburg.  (Mirssei  Cod.  Donat.  Piar. 
cap. 13). 

5  Capit.  Carol.  Mag.  n.  ami.  811  cap.  8. 

6  Capit.  Ludov.  Pii  aim.  819  cap.  10.     That  the  church  accepted  this 
is  shown  by  its  being  included  by  Regiuo  in  his  collection  of  canons— De 
Discip.  Eccles.  Lib.  ir.  cap.  334. 


OBSOLETE     UNDER     THE     CARLOVINGTANS.       189 

thus  assumed  and  conceded  is  further  manifested  in  a  suppli 
cation  to  Louis,  about  the  year  820,  from  a  priest  asking  for 
justice  against  another  priest  in  a  quarrel  about  tithes.  The 
suitor  alleges  that  his  antagonist's  friends  had  cudgelled  him, 
and  then  made  him  swear  on  the  altar  that  he  would  not  ap 
peal  either  to  the  emperor  or  to  his  missus.  No  question  could 
well  be  more  strictly  appropriate  to  the  action  of  the  eccle 
siastical  courts,  and  yet  there  is  no  allusion  to  any  canonical 
trial,  nor  did  either  party  seem  to  think  of  recourse  to  any 
source  of  justice  save  the  throne.1  The  same  principle  is 
developed  in  a  minute  account  of  a  trial  when  the  Abbot  of 
Anisola  was  endeavoring  to  escape  from  the  jurisdiction  of  the 
Bishop  of  Le  Mans.  It  would  seem  to  be  a  matter  especially 
pertinent  to  a  local  synod,  and  yet  the  case  was  heard,  in  838, 
by  Louis  le  Debonnaire  in  general  assembly ;  he  conducted  the 
examination  and  rendered  judgment,  which  was  confirmed  by 
the  assent  of  all  present,  both  prelates  and  nobles.  The  details 
are  all  preserved,  and  prove  that  no  immunity  from  secular 
jurisdiction  was  enjoyed  by  the  church.2 

Nor  was  the  supremacy  of  the  sovereign  immediately  de 
stroyed  by  the  abasement  consequent  upon  the  civil  wars,  nor 
did  the  throne  cease  to  be  the  source  of  all  justice.  In  844 
the  synod  of  Thionville  besought  the  assembled  Carlovirigian 
princes  to  employ  their  authority  vigorously  in  bringing  the 
church  back  to  its  former  purity,3  and  a  few  months  later  the 
synod  of  Verneuil  made  a  special  request  to  Charles  le  Cliauve 
that  he  would  delegate  full  powers  to  commissioners  to  examine 
into  and  punish  the  violations  of  ecclesiastical  discipline  every 
where  rampant.4  About  the  same  time  we  find  Modoin,  Bishop 
of  Autun,  employing  the  secular  courts  in  various  quarrels 
with  the  clergy  of  his  metropolis,  Lyons,  and  maintaining  the 
doctrine  that  only  bishops  and  abbesses  were  exempt  from 

1  Bonifac.  Epist.  107. 

2  Gest.  Aldrici  Cenoman.  Episc.  cap.  51. 

3  Capit.  Carol.  Calv.  Tit.  n.  cap.  4. 
*  Ejusd.  Tit.  in.  cap.  2. 


190  BENEFIT     OF     CLERGY. 

secular  jurisdiction,  much  to  the  disgust  of  the  Lyonese,  who 
were  deprived  of  their  leader  by  the  degradation  of  St.  Ago- 
bard.1  That  Modoin  was  correct  would  seem  evident,  for  we 
see  in  the  canons  of  St.  Rudolph,  Archbishop  of  Bourges,  a 
passsage  permitting  the  presence  of  priests  in  civil  courts, 
with  the  assent  of  their  bishops,  when  their  own  cases  were 
on  trial.2 

It  would  be  useless  further  to  multiply  evidence  to  prove 
that  ecclesiastics  were  amenable  to  secular  jurisdiction  in  both 
civil  and  criminal  cases,  and  that  the  king  was  recognized  as 
the  fountain  of  justice,  from  whom  emanated  the  power  of 
punishment  and  of  vindicating  the  majesty  of  the  law,  even 
when  the  wrong-doer,  was  a  churchman.  How  great  a  change 
was  wrought  in  a  few  years  we  may  learn  from  a  trifling  inci 
dent  at  the  synod  of  Soissons  in  8,13,  where  Charles  le  Chauve 
is  described  as  entering  humbly — "sirnpliciter  cum  episcopis 
resedebat" — and  he,  the  King  of  the  Franks,  and  the  grand 
son  of  Charlemagne,  laid  a  complaint  before  the  assembled 
prelates  against  a  petty  clerk,  Deacon  Rainfroy  of  Rheims, 
whom  he  accused  of  forging  the  royal  signature ;  and  the 
bishops  condescended  to  order  the  accused  not  to  leave  Rheims 
without  justifying  himself.3  Unimportant  as  is  the  occurrence, 
it  registers  a  victory  gained  by  the  lowest  in  the  church  over 
the  highest  in  the  state,  and  it  marks  the  submission  of  the 
king  to  the  doctrines  of  the  False  Decretals. 

The  fabricators  of  the  forgeries,  indeed,  were  far  too  shrewd 
not  to  estimate  at  its  full  value  the  privilege  of  exemption  from 
human  law.  This  is  asserted  throughout  the  decretals  of  Isidor 

1  Florus  Diaconus  vented   his  indignation   at   this   in   a  long  elegy, 
soothing  in  its  monotonous  objurgation.     He  describes  the  doctrine  of 
Modoin — 

"Dicere  nullus  honos  debetur  (credite)  sacris 
Ordinibus  ;  cunctos  pulset  ubique  forum. 
Nam  nisi  coenobium  mater  muliebre  gubernans 
Et  sacer  antistes,  caetera  pulvis  eruut." 

2  Capit.  Rodolf.  Buturicens.  cap.  19. 

3  Capit.  Carol.  Calv.  Tit.  xi.  act.  0. 


ASSERTED     BY     THE     CHURCH.  191 

to  be  the  imprescriptible  right  of  the  church,  with  a  frequency 
which  renders  full  citation  impossible,  and  which  reveals  the 
earnest  effort  made  to  secure  the  immunity.1  The  Capitularies 
of  Benedict  afford  a  similar  manifestation  in  the  untiring  per 
sistence  with  which  they  enunciate  and  enforce  the  principle 
in  all  its  forms.2  Yet  though  it  might  be  admitted  in  theory, 
the  revolution  was  too  great  to  be  at  once  successful,  and  the 
royal  power  made  various  efforts  to  recover  its  old  supremacy. 
In  869  Charles  endeavored  fruitlessly  to  assert  for  himself  an 
appellate  jurisdiction  in  quarrels  between  bishops  and  laymen,3 
the  very  terms  of  his  edict  showing  how  completely  the  juris 
diction  had  slipped  through  his  hands.  Occasionally,  too, 
when  feeling  momentarily  strong,  he  indulged  in  a  violent 
exercise  of  arbitrary  authority,  as,  when  the  restless  Hincmar, 
Bishop  of  Laon,  became  involved  in  a  dispute  about  a  piece 
of  land,  Charles  evoked  the  case  to  a  secular  court.  Hincmar 
did  not  deny  the  jurisdiction,  but  sent  an  excuse  in  regular 
legal  form  for  non-appearance  on  the  day  assigned  for  the  first 
hearing,  when  the  angry  monarch  committed  the  high-handed 
act  of  seizing  all  the  temporalities  and  revenues  of  the  see  of 
Laon.  This  drew  upon  him  a  long  and  earnest  remonstrance 
from  the  sufferer's  uncle,  the  powerful  Hincmar  of  Rheims, 
who  stigmatized  the  royal  act  as  utterly  illegal  and  unexam 
pled  in  the  history  of  Christian  princes.4 

Spasmodic  efforts  such  as  this  were  utterly  insufficient  to 
restrain  the  progress  of  ecclesiastical  independence.  The 
church  had  become  thoroughly  persuaded  that  her  ministers 
were  exempt  from  all  subjection  to  secular  laws  and  judges, 


1  E.  g.  Pseudo-Clement.  Epist.  1 ;   Pseudo-Fabian.  Epist.  2 ;    Pseudo- 
Gail  Epist.  1  cap.  2;  Pseudo-Marcellin.  Epist.  2  cap.  3  ;  etc. 

2  Capitul.  Lib.  v.  cap.  70,  192,  378;   Lib.  vi.  cap.  Ill,  164,  434;    Lib. 
vii.  cap.  139,  210,  438,  469,  etc. 

3  Capit,  Carol.  Calv.  Tit.  XL.  cap.  7. 

4  "Quod  nee  in  legibus  nee  in  libris  ecclesiasticis  quemquam  Christia- 
noriini  prineipum  fecisse  legimus."     Hincmar.  pro  Eccles.  Libert.  De- 
lens.  Expos.  1.     The  Bishop  of  Laon  was  finally  reinstated,  and  subse 
quently  proved  a  thorn  in  his  uncle's  side. 


192  BENEFIT     OF     CLERGY. 

and  she  maintained  this  claim  with  her  customary  perseverance 
— in  fact,  as  it  had  been  asserted  to  be  of  divine  right  handed 
down  from  apostolic  times,  it  was  a  claim  which  could  not  be 
abandoned.  In  8GG,  Nicholas  I.,  when  replying  to  the  inqui 
ries  of  the  King  of  Bulgaria,  told  him  that  neither  he  nor  any 
other  layman  had  a  right  to  investigate  the  conduct  of  eccle 
siastics  or  to  judge  them,  for  all  such  matters  were  reserved 
exclusively  to  the  bishops,  the  sacerdotal  character  being  too 
sacred  for  discussion  by  those  whose  only  function  was  to 
revere  and  to  obey.1  In  the  same  spirit  the  synod  of  Ravenna, 
in  877,  forbids  clerks  and  nuns,  and  orphans  and  widows  under 
the  guardianship  of  bishops,  from  being  brought  before  secular 
courts,  and  threatens  with  the  dread  anathema  any  potentate 
who  may  dare  to  infringe  the  rule.2  Germany  was  not  behind 
hand  in  proclaiming  the  same  principle,  for  in  895  the  council 
of  Tribur  established  the  bishops  as  the  sole  judges  in  all  cases 
to  which  ecclesiastics  were  parties,  whether  as  plaintiffs  or 
defendants.3 

The  persistence  of  the  church,  backed  up  by  the  unfailing 
resource  of  excommunication,  finally  triumphed,  and  the  sacred 
immunity  of  the  priesthood  was  acknowledged,  sooner  or  later, 
in  the  lawrs  of  every  nation  of  Europe.4  This  of  course  was  a 

1  Nicolai  PP.  I.  Epist.  97  §  70. 

2  Synod.  Ravennat.  ami.  877  caw.  4.     (Harduin.  T.  VI.  P.  i.  p.  186.) 

3  Coucil.  Tribur.  ami.  895  can.  21. 

4  Bracton.  Lib.  in.  Tract,  ii.  cap.  9. — Laws  of  Howcll  Dda,  Dimetian 
Code  Bk.  n.  chap.  viii.   §§  124,  130    (Owen's   Ancient  Laws,  etc.,  of 
Wales  I.  475-9).— Beaumanoir,  chap.  xi.  §  40.— Las  Siete  Partidas,  Pt.  I. 
Tit.  vi.  1.  61.— Constit.  Sicular.  Lib.  i.  Tit.  42.— Assises  de  Jerusalem, 
Baisse   Court,  cap.  14,  .367.— Feudor.   Lib.  v.    Tit.   xvii.   §   4.— Specul. 
Suevic.  cap.  77. — Legg.   S.   Stephan.    Hungaror.   R.   cap.   3. — Raguald. 
Ingemund.  Legg.  Succor.  Lib.  i.  cap.  20. — Constit.  Christof.  II.  Uaniae 
ann.  1320  §§  2,  11.— Legg.  Opstalbom.  §  24.     It  is  true  that  in  the  four 
teenth  century,  during  the  quarrel  between  the  Emperor  Louis  IV.  and 
the  papacy,  while  the  church  was  rent  by  the  schism  of  the  Fraticelli,  the 
bold  imperialist  Marsiglio  of  Padua  did  not  hesitate  to  argue  not  only 
that  ecclesiastics  should  be  subjected  to  the  civil  jurisdiction,  but  that 


IMPUNITY     FOR    OKI  ME.  193 

source  of  injury  to  the  community  and  of  corruption  to  the 
church,  for  the  clerks,  in  emancipating  themselves  from  human 
law,  did  not  obtain  exemption  from  human  infirmities,  and  in 
the  ecclesiastical  courts  not  .only  were  the  facilities  of  escape 
through  the  system  of  canonical  compurgation  vastly  greater 
than  in  the  secular  tribunals,  but  the  theory  which  regarded 
degradation  from  the  priesthood  as  one  of  the  heaviest  penal 
ties  that  could  be  inflicted,  and  the  rule  which  forbade  the 
spiritual  judges  from  pronouncing  sentences  of  death  or  muti 
lation,  rendered  their  jurisdiction  virtually  an  asylum  for 
offenders  when  compared  with  the  atrociously  cruel  criminal 
jurisprudence  of  the  time.  In  addition  to  this,  there  was  the 
esprit  de  corps  which  tended  to  incline  the  episcopal  officials 
to  seek  the  acquittal  rather  than  the  conviction  of  those  of  the 
cloth,  and  it  is  therefore  not  surprising  that  the  laity  came  to 
regard  the  clergy  as  entitled  to  a  lenity  which  amounted  almost 
to  impunity  for  crime. 

Thus,  as  early  as  1085,  a  constitution  of  the  Emperor  Henry 
IV.,  enforcing  the  Truce  of  God  under  penalties  of  frightful 
severity,  draws  a  broad  line  of  distinction  between  the  church 
and  the  people.  At  that  time  Henry  was  emancipated  from  the 

they  should  be  punished  more  sharply  than  laymen  (Marsilii  Patav. 
Defens.  Pacis  P.  II.  cap.  viii.). 

The  Scots  appear  to  have  been  somewhat  chary  of  granting  the  privi 
lege,  for  though  it  is  expressed  in  the  ancient  canons  which  pass  under 
the  name  of  the  Ecclesiastical  Laws  of  Macbeth  (Spelman.  Concil.  I. 
571),  yet  the  statutes  of  a  Parliament  held  in  the  year  1400  (Stat.  Robert. 
III.  cap.  5,  ap.  Skene.)  would  seem  to  show  that  at,  that  period  the  secu 
lar  tribunals  had  cognizance  of  ecclesiastical  causes. 

The  early  Icelandic  church  likewise  was  in  this  respect  exceptional. 
The  primitive  code  of  ecclesiastical  law  in  force  there  from  1122  to  1275 
provides  no  exemption  for  the  clergy.  Even  for  ecclesiastical  offences 
they  were  tried  in  the  ordinary  manner  by  a  jury  of  the  vicinage,  and 
were  punishable  with  the  secular  penalties  of  fines,  etc.  (Kristinrettr 
Thorlaks  oc  Kettils,  cap.  n.  xin.  xv.  Ed.  Thorkeliu,  Havniie,  1776.) 
The  only  allusions  in  the  code  to  any  ecclesiastical  jurisdiction  are  that  a 
priest  disobeying  his  bishop  is  to  be  tried  by  a  synod  of  neighboring  priests  ; 
and  that  questions  arisingwith  respect  to  tithes  due  to  a  bishop  are  to  be 
decided  by  the  bishop  himself  (Ibid.  chap.  xv.  xxxix.). 

17 


194  BENEFIT     OF     CLERGY. 

papacy,  and  was  the  political  head  of  a  successful  schism,  so 
that  he  was  in  a  position  to  legislate  for  all  classes  of  his  sub 
jects.  The  manner  in  which  he  favored  the  clergy  therefore 
shows  how  profound  an  impression  had  already  been  produced 
in  the  popular  mind  as  to  the  superior  privileges  of  the  church. 
A  crime  so  unclerical  as  the  violation  of  the  temporary  truces 
which  were  placed  under  the  special  sanction  of  God,  would 
rather  seem  to  claim  additional  punishment  for  malefactors 
whose  peaceful  profession  ought  to  render  it  peculiarly  odious, 
particularly  when  we  reflect  that  simple  degradation  wrould 
prove  but  a  trifling  penalty  for  offenders  who  were  so  lost  to  all 
sense  of  veneration  for  their  sacred  functions  as  to  come  within 
the  provisions  of  the  edict.  Yet  deeds  for  which  laymen  were 
to  be  decapitated  brought  only  degradation  to  clerks  ;  while  for 
lighter  infractions  of  the  law  mutilation  was  inflicted  upon  lay 
men,  and  clerks  were  only  to  be  suspended  from  their  functions 
and  subjected  to  the  canonical  penance  of  fasting  and  the  disci 
pline.1  In  England,  in  the  thirteenth  century,  the  only  pun 
ishment  provided  for  clerks  was  degradation,  irrespective  of  the 
number  and  magnitude  of  their  crimes;2  and  in  the  Norman 
legislation  of  the  same  period  the  ecclesiastical  courts  visited 
only  with  degradation  and  exile  the  offences  which  in  laymen 
were  punished  with  mutilation  and  death3 — a  provision  retained 
throughout  the  revisions  of  the  Coutumier  until  1580.4  So  in 
AVales  a  first  offence  is  described  as  only  entailing  degradation 
to  laymanship,  though  it  is  true  that  one  collection  of  Welsh  laws 
adds  confiscation  of  property.5 

1  Henric.  IV.  Const,  iv.  (Migne's  Patrol.  T.  151  p.  1134). 

2  Bracton  Lib.  in.  Tract,  ii.  cap.  9  §  2. 

s  Cod.  Leg.  Norman.  P.  n.cap.  16.  (LudewigReliq.  Mssctor.  VII.  297.) 

4  Anc.  Cout.  de  Normandie  chap.  83  (Bourdot  de  Richebourg,  IV.  33). 
See  also  Etablissement  de  Philippe  le  Bel  ann.  1302  (Isambert,  Anc.  Lois 
Franf.  II.  748).     In  1540,  however,  Francis  I.   forbade  the  Norman  eccle 
siastical  judges  to  try  criminal  cases  without  previous  notice  to  a  royal 
official  appointed  to  be  present  and  to  guard  the  rights  of  the  sovereign. 
(Isambert,  XII.  714.) 

5  Owen's  Anc.  Laws,  etc.,  of  Wales  II.  341,^69. 


LEGISLATION    IN     ENGLAND.  195 

These  instances  will  suffice  to  show  the  general  tenor  of  the 
principle  established  in  mediaeval  legislation.  So  serious  an 
interference,  however,  with  the  administration  of  criminal  jus 
tice  could  not  but  be  the  cause  of  perpetual  strife  between  church 
and  state  ;  and  a  rapid  sketch  of  its  vicissitudes  in  some  of  the 
leading  nations  of  Christendom  may  not  be  uninteresting. 

In  England  the  prerogative  was  not  secured  without  a  strug 
gle,  though  it  was  fully  recognized  in  the  Anglo-Saxon  legis 
lation.1  Henry  II.  was  too  astute  a  ruler  not  to  perceive  the 
immense  evils  arising  from  it,  and  the  limitation  which  it 
imposed  upon  the  royal  power  by  emancipating  so  large  a  class 
of  his  subjects  from  obedience  to  the  laws  of  the  realm.  When 
in  1164  he  endeavored,  in  the  Constitutions  of  Clarendon,  to 
set  bounds  to  the  privileges  of  the  church,  he  therefore  espe 
cially  attacked  the  benefit  of  clergy,  and  declared  that  eccle 
siastics  were  amenable  to  the  royal  jurisdiction.2  Thomas  a 
Becket,  however,  speedily  vindicated  the  imperilled  preroga 
tives  of  the  church  by  excommunicating  the  sacrilegious  men 
who  dared  thus  to  invade  her  rights,  and  the  disastrous  result 
of  the  quarrel  between  the  king  and  the  archbishop  rendered 
it  necessary  to  abandon  all  such  schemes  of  reform.  Yet  even 
the  humiliation  of  John,  and  the  supremacy  gained  by  the 
papacy,  did  not  cause  this  perversion  of  justice  to  be  implicitly 
respected,  and,  a  century  later,  although  the  principle  was 
unreservedly  admitted  by  Bracton,  in  practice  the  courts  were 
perpetually  violating  it.  Thus  in  12G1  the  council  of  Lambeth 
complained  that  ecclesiastics,  when  accused,  were  frequently 
seized  and  imprisoned  by  the  secular  officials  ;  while,  if  they 
refused  to  obey  a  summons,  the  royal  judges  outlawed  them 
without  ceremony  for  contumacy.  To  punish  these  infractions 
of  the  canon  law,  the  council  proceeded  to  excommunicate  all 
concerned  in  such  cases,  and  to  place  under  interdict  their  resi 
dences  and  the  localities  where  clerks  were  imprisoned,  until 


1  Laws  of  Cnut,  Eccles.  cap.  4 ;  Secular,  cap.  41,  43. 

2  Constit.  Clarendon,  cap.  3, 16. 


196  BENEFIT     OF     CLERGY. 

the  sufferers  should  be  released.1  This  action  does  not  appear 
to  have  accomplished  its  purpose,  for  in  1275  Edward  I.  inter 
posed,  and  ordered  the  delivery  to  the  ecclesiastical  courts  of 
all  clerks  indicted  of  felony,  adding  that  the  episcopal  judges 
ought  not  to  discharge  them  without  due  purgation,  and  inti 
mating  that  if  they  neglected  to  do  their  duty,  he  might  feel 
obliged  to  interfere.2  This  threat  shows  that  Edward  was  not 
disposed  to  admit  that  he  had  no  control  in  the  matter  ;  but  it 
was  an  empty  boast.  A  legal  writer  of  the  time  of  Edward  II. 
lays  down  the  rule  that  the  judge  must  remand  to  the  epis 
copal  court  a  clerk  accused  of  a  capital  crime,  after  he  shall 
have  proved  his  clergy  (even  if  he  had  made  a  confession, 
under  9  Edw.  II.  c.  15,  10),  and  instructs  the  prosecutor  to 
pursue  his  action  before  the  spiritual  tribunal,  quietly  adding  : 
"  Et  le  clerke,  apres  due  purgation,  recit  toutes  ses  biens 
mouvables  et  fiefs  sans  difficulty."3  In  1350  the  prelates 
complained  that  their  privileges  had  been  disregarded  by  the 
drawing  and  quartering  of  several  clerks  convicted  of  treason 
in  the  secular  courts,  and  a  statute  of  Edward  III.  consequently 
promised  that  the  rights  of  the  church  should  be  duly  respected 
in  future,  while  the  archbishop  of  Canterbury  pledged  himself 
that  all  offenders  delivered  to  the  ordinaries  should  undergo 
due  punishment.4 

The  immunity  thus  afforded  to  offenders  bore  its  natural  re 
sults  in  fostering  crime,  and  in  1402  there  was  a  disposition 
shown  in  Parliament  to  curtail  the  benefit  of  clergy  in  the 
interest  of  justice,  since  the  tenderness  or  connivance  of  the 
ecclesiastical  officials  allowed  offenders,  as  a  general  rule,  to 
escape.  The  church,  thus  threatened,  promised  better  behavior 
for  the  future,  pledged  itself  that  criminals  should  not  be 
allowed  to  go  unpunished,  and  obtained  a  continuance  of  the 

1  Concil.  Lambethens.  ann.  1261  (Harduin.  VII.  539). 

2  3  Edward  I.  cap.  2. 

3  Home's  Myrror  of  Justice,  cap.  in.  sect.  4. 

4  Statutes  at  Large  I.  256. 


LEGISLATION     IN     ENGLAND.  197 

privilege,  which  continued  to  be  abused  as  before.1  That  the 
laity  were  illiterate  and  the  clergy  educated  was  taken  for 
granted,  and  by  the  middle  of  the  fourteenth  century  the  test 
of  churchmanship  came  to  be  the  ability  to  read,  so  that  as 
time  passed  on  the  benefit  of  clergy  gradually  extended  itself, 
and  the  privilege  became  in  fact  a  free  pardon  on  a  first  offence 
for  all  who  knew  their  letters,  a  test  which  speedily  led  to  the 
ingenious  device  of  gaolers  teaching  their  prisoners  to  read  as  a 
preparation  for  their  trial.2  So  liberally,  indeed,  was  the  rule 
expounded,  that  aliens  were  provided  with  books  in  their  own 
tongues  out  of  which  to  prove  their  clergy,  and  blind  men 
escaped  the  halter  by  being  able  to  speak  Latin  "congruously." 
Henry  VII.  recognized  the  difference  between  these  putative 
clerks  and  men  who  really  were  in  orders  when  he  sought  to 
check  the  prevalence  of  crime  attributable  to  this  anomalous 
privilege.  By  a  law  of  1487  he  directs  that  lettered  persons 
not  in  orders  shall  enjoy  the  benefit  of  clergy  but  once,  and 
that  after  conviction,  before  release,  murderers  shall  be  branded 
on  the  thumb  with  the  letter  M,  and  other  felons  with  the 
letter  T,  so  that  on  a  second  conviction  they  may  be  known 
and  treated  as  laymen.  Men  in  orders,  however,  were  not  ex 
posed  to  this,  and  were  only  required  on  a  subsequent  trial  to 
produce  their  letters  of  ordination,  on  the  strength  of  which 
they  again  escaped.3  It  is  true  that  in  such  cases  the  episcopal 
officials  were  bound  to  degrade  these  unworthy  members  of  the 
church,  but  practically  this  was  rarely  done,  and  the  offender 
generally  was  enabled  to  continue  without  limit  his  evil  courses. 
The  ceremony  of  degradation  required  for  its  due  execution  a 
certain  number  of  bishops,  and  had  to  be  performed  at  the 
place  where  the  crime  had  been  committed.  Owing  to  the 
difficulty  of  assembling  the  requisite  number  of  prelates,  the 
offenders  in  most  instances  escaped  the  penalty  of  degradation, 
and  were  discharged  unpunished  and  still  clothed  with  the 

1  4:  Henr.  IV.  cap.  3.       2  Pike,  History  of  Crime  in  England  I.  301, 483. 
3  4  Ileiir.  VII.  cap.  13. 

17* 


198  BENEFIT     OF    CLERGY. 

mysterious  attributes  which  shielded  them  from  human  justice. 
That  the  church  should  continue  to  protect  indefinitely  the 
lawless  careers  of  men  who  disgraced  their  order  grew  at  length 
to  be  a  scandal  past  endurance  when  the  Reformation  came  to 
open  the  eyes  and  loosen  the  tongues  of  scoffers  ;  and  when 
Cardinal  Wolsey  undertook  to  reform  the  worst  abuses  of  the 
Anglican  establishment,  he  sought  to  check  this  source  of  evil 
by  obtaining  from  Clement  VII.  a  bull  which  authorized  a 
single  bishop,  with  two  abbots  or  other  dignitaries,  to  perform 
the  ceremonial  requisite  to  degradation.1 

Henry  VIII.  followed  this  up  with  various  laws  imposing 
restrictions  on  the  privilege  in  atrocious  crimes.  Before  his 
rupture  with  Rome  he  thus  excepted  from  the  benefit  of  clergy 
those  who  wen;  not  actually  in  orders,  and  who  were  convicted 
of  various  felonies  ;  including  treason,  murder,  burglary,  high 
way  robbery,  etc.,  and,  after  he  had  assumed  the  supremacy  of 
his  church,  he  extended  the  same  rules  to  include  those  who 
were  actually  ordained.2  In  his  violent  efforts  to  substitute 
his  supremacy  for  that  of  the  pope,  he  executed  priests  and 
monks  as  freely  as  laymen,  and  spared  them  none  of  the  fearful 
incidents  of  the  punishment  for  high  treason.  The  disaffected 
clergy  of  the  North,  in  the  convocation  of  153G,  ventured  a 
remonstrance,  saying  that  no  clerk  ought  to  be  put  to  death, 
without  degradation  by  the  laws  of  the  church.3  This  disaffec 
tion  speedily  ripened  into  the  rebellion  known  as  the  "  Pil 
grimage  of  Grace,"  and  its  repression  left  the  king  master  of 
the  situation.  His  laws,  however,  were  repealed  by  indirec 
tion  under  Queen  Mary.4  Edward  VI.  extended  the  benefit  of 
clergy  to  married  men;3  and  during  his  reign,  and  that  of 
Elizabeth,  various  acts  were  passed  excepting  certain  crimes 
from  this  privilege,  thus  producing  great  confusion  in  criminal 


1  Rymer,  Fcedera,  XIV.  239. 

2  23  Henr.  VIII.  cap.  1.— 25  H.  VIII.  cap.  3.— 28  II.  VIII.  cap.  1.— 32 
II .  VIII.  cap.  3. 

3  Strype's  Eccles.  Memorials,  Vol.  I.  Append.  No.  LXXIV. 

4  1  Mary  Sess.  1  cap.  1  §  5.  5  1  Edw.  VI.  c.  12  §  10.. 


LEGISLATION    IN     ENGLAND.  199 

jurisprudence.  Moreover,  under  Elizabeth,  the  rule  was  adopted 
that,  in  all  cases  where  clergy  was  allowed,  the  convict  should 
be  branded  as  required  by  the  law  of  Henry  VII.,  and  should 
be  deprived  of  clergy  on  trial  for  a  subsequent  offence.  The 
farce  of  delivering  the  released  convict  to  the  ordinary,  or 
episcopal  official,  was  disused,  and  he  was  imprisoned  at  the 
discretion  of  the  judge  for  a  period  not  exceeding  a  year.1  In 
the  "  Description  of  Britaine,"  which  serves  as  an  introduction 
to  Holinshed's  Chronicles,  the  existing  custom  under  Elizabeth 
is  tersely  described.  "  Theeves  that  are  saued  by  their  bookes 
and  cleargie  are  burned  in  the  left  hande,  vppon  the  brawne  ot 
the  thombe  with  an  hote  Iron,  so  that,  yf  they  be  apprehended 
agayne,  that  marke  bewrayeth  them  to  have  beene  arrayned 
of  fellonie  before,  whereby  they  are  sure  that  time  to  have  no 
mercy.  I  do  not  read  that  this  custome  of  sailing  by  the  booke 
is  used  anywhere  else  then  in  Englande,  neyther  doe  I  finde, 
after  much  diligent  inquiry,  what  Saxon  Prince  ordayned  that 
lawe.  Howbeit,  this  I  generally  gather  thereof,  that  it  was 
devised  at  the  first  to  traine  the  inhabiters  of  this  lande  to 
the  loue  of  learning,  which  before  contempned  letters  and  all 
good  knowledge."2  Shortly  after  this  period,  much  legislation 
ensued  from  time  to  time  affecting  the  limitation  of  the  privi 
lege  in  various  offences  ;  and  when  it  had  thus  lost  all  special 
reference  to  the  church  the  ingenuity  of  lawyers  was  taxed 
to  the  utmost,  in  distinguishing  between  the  shades  of  crime 
entitled  to  the  privilege  and  those  for  which  the  convict  was 
ousted  of  his  plea,  rendering  this,  according  to  Sir  Matthew 
Hale,  "  one  of  the  most  involved  and  troublesome  titles  of  the 
law."3  Early  in  the  reign  of  Anne  the  benefit  of  clergy  was 
extended  to  all  malefactors,  by  abrogating  the  reading  test, 
thus  placing  the  unlettered  felon  on  a  par  with  his  better  edu 
cated  fellows,  and  it  was  not  until  the  present  century  was  well 

1  18  Eliz.  cap.  7. 

2  Book  III.  cap.  (!  p.  108  (Ed.  of  1577). 

3  Placit.  Corouse,  chap.  XLIV-LIV. 


200  BENEFITOF    CLERGY. 

advanced  that  this  remnant  of  mediaeval  ecclesiastical  prero 
gative  was  abolished  by  7  and  8  Geo.  IV.  c.  28. l 

In  Germany,  before  the  imperial  power  was  broken  in  the 
contest  with  the  papacy,  there  was  a  decided  disposition  to 
resuscitate  the  temporal  supremacy  enjoyed  by  Charlemagne 
and  lost  by  his  descendants.  We  have  seen  Henry  IV., 
towards  the  close  of  his  strife  with  Rome,  legislating  for  the 
clergy  of  his  dominions  ;  while  his  grandfather,  Conrad  the 
Salic,  had  the  audacity,  in  1037,  to  depose  and  banish,  without 
form  of  trial,  the  bishops  of  Vercelli,  Cremona,  and  Piacenza; 
and  though  the  chronicler  appears  somewhat  scandalized  at 
this  summary  proceeding,  it  is  rather  at  its  want  of  formality 
than  at  its  invasion  of  ecclesiastical  privilege.2  All  sucli  pre 
tensions  vanished,  however,  when  the  triumph  of  the  popes  in 
the  long  contest  rendered  the  clerical  power  supreme  ;  and  in 
1220  Frederic  II.  decreed  that  no  one  should  dare  to  drag  a 
clerk  before  the  secular  tribunals,  either  in  civil  or  criminal 
actions,  under  pain  of  forfeiture  of  his  claim,  while  judgments 
rendered  under  such  circumstances  were  declared  null  and 
void,  and  the  presiding  judge  was  punished  by  deprivation  of 
his  judicial  functions.3  Yet  the  Schwabenspiegel  which  not 
long  afterwards  embodied  the  jurisprudence  of  Southern  Ger 
many,  in  regulating  civil  cases  between  clerks  and  laymen, 
while  empowering  the  clerk  to  summon  an  adversary  before 
the  secular  court,  diminished  somewhat  the  exemption  which 
he  enjoyed  of  refusing  to  appear  as  a  defendant,  by  excepting 
cases  of  debt  from  its  operation.4 

The  long  struggle  between  LouivS  of  Bavaria  and  the  popes 

1  Massachusetts,  however,  has  the  credit  of  abrogating  it,  almost  im 
mediately  after  the  Revolution,  in  1784  (Quincy's  Mass.  Reps.  p.  53  n.) 
possibly  in  consequence  of  the  escape,  in  this  manner,  of  the  soldiers  im 
plicated  in  the  "Boston  massacre,"  from  the  penalty  of  manslaughter,  of 
which  they  had  been  found  guilty. 

2  Wippo  de  Vit.  Chunrad.  ann.  1037. 

a  Constit,  Frideric.  II.  §  7  (Post  Lib.  Feudor.). 
*  Jur.  Provin.  Alaman.  cap.  77. 


LEGISLATION    IN     GERMANY.  201 

for  a  time  shook  the  foundation  of  ecclesiastical  prerogative, 
but  when  Louis  passed  away,  his  successor  Charles  IV.,  the 
creature  of  the  papacy,  was  eager  to  preserve  the  favor  of  his 
patrons  by  maintaining  the  threatened  prerogatives.  When, 
in  1377,  the  German  clergy  complained  of  the  aggressions  of 
the  secular  tribunals,  he  promptly  issued  a  constitution  which 
punished  the  imprisonment  of  a  clerk  with  outlawry  and  for 
feiture  of  all  possessions,  in  addition  to  the  penalties  provided 
by  the  civil  and  canon  law  ;x  and  this  edict  was  resuscitated 
and  confirmed  by  Boniface  IX.  in  1391,  by  Martin  V.  in 
1418,  and  by  the  Councils  of  Constance  and  Bale  in  1415  and 
1434.2  So  completely  was  the  church  thus  emancipated  from 
all  subjection  to  the  secular  power  that  in  1491  we  find  a 
synod  of  Bamberg  threatening  with  excommunication  and 
deprivation  of  the  fruits  of  his  benefice  any  ecclesiastic  who 
should  obey  in  any  way  a  summons  from  the  secular  courts  in 
either  civil  or  criminal  cases.3 

There  was  one  tribunal  in  Germany,  however,  which  dared 
to  assert  and  maintain  its  jurisdiction  over  churchmen — that 
of  the  terrible  Free  Judges  of  Westphalia,  whose  wide-spread 
ing  power,  based  upon  the  terrorism  of  secrecy,  enabled  them 
to  claim  and  exercise  the  right.  That  it  was  generally  sub 
mitted  to  is  shown  by  the  exemptions  occasionally  granted  by 
the  Vehmgericht  as  a  special  favor  to  particular  churches  ;4 
but  it  was  sometimes  resisted,  for  when  the  Holy  Vehme,  in 
1448,  at  the  complaint  of  two  knights,  summoned  the  Primate 
of  Germany,  Theodoric,  Archbishop  of  Mainz,  that  powerful 
prince  appealed  for  protection  to  the  papal  legate  at  the  im 
perial  court,  and  the  Cardinal  of  San  Angelo  accordingly  lost 

1  Carol!    IV.   Constit.  de  Imrnunit.   Cleric,  ami.   1377  §  5   (Goldast. 
II.  93) .     Goldast  erroneously  attributes  the  date  of  1359  to  this. 

2  Mag.  Bull.  Roman.  I.  296.— Dalham  Concil.  Salisburgens.  p.  267.— 
Von  der  Hardt  T.  IV.  pp.  524-8.— Harduin.  VIII.  1483-88. 

3  Synod.  Bamberg.  ann.  1491  Tit.  xiii.  (Ludewig  Script.  Rer.  German. 
I.  1206). 

*  Senckenberg  de  Judic.  Westphal.  cap.  xix.  §  7. 


202  BENEFIT     OF    CLERGY. 

no  time  in  denouncing  the  heaviest  spiritual  penalties  against 
those  who  dared  to  disregard  the  imprescriptible  rights  which 
protected  every  ecclesiastic  from  the  jurisdiction  of  the  laity.1 
Yet  the  audacity  of  the  attempt  shows  the  height  to  which  the 
power  of  the  Free  Judges  had  risen. 

We  have  seen  Frederic  II.  granting  all  that  the  church 
could  ask  in  the  Empire  which  it  virtually  controlled,  but  in 
his  hereditary  dominions  of  Naples  and  Sicily  he  was  not  quite 
so  obedient.  The  traditions  of  independence  handed  down 
from  the  Norman  kings  were  by  no  means  extinct,  and  he 
preserved  and  extended  the  old  laws  which  held  ecclesiastics 
liable  in  the  secular  courts  on  charges  of  high  treason  and  other 
serious  crimes  against  the  sovereign;  which  retained  to  the 
feudal  superior  the  cognizance  of  cases  involving  property  in 
herited  by  clerks  and  not  belonging  to  the  church,  and  those 
which  punished  contempt  of  the  royal  court,  whether  committed 
by  laymen  or  churchmen.2 

The  same  disposition  to  limit  clerical  privilege  existed  at 
the  other  extremity  of  Italy.  The  municipal  code  of  Verona 
in  1128  shows  that  no  immunity  was  allowed  to  ecclesiastics. 
The  only  favor  conceded  to  them  was  that  the  bishop  was  ex 
empted  from  the  necessity  of  personally  taking  judicial  oaths, 
being  allowed  to  put  forward  an  attorney  for  this  purpose  ;  but 
even  this  was  specifically  refused  to  priests  and  the  lower 
orders  ;  and  in  cases  between  laymen  and  clerks  an  appeal  lay 
from  the  ecclesiastical  to  the  municipal  tribunals.3  In  1347, 
a  citizen  complained  to  Lucchino  Visconti,  Signer  of  Milan, 
that  a  clerical  adversary,  while  alleging  the  secular  law  in 
his  favor,  refused  to  be  bound  by  those  statutes  which  were 

1  Gudeni  Cod.  Diplom.  IV.  300. 

2  Coustit.  Sicular.  Lib.  i.  Tit.  43,  65,  66,  72. 

3  Lib.  Juris  civilis  Verona?  cap.  xiii.  xx.   (Verona  1728,  pp.  15,  19). 
So  jealous  was  the  limitation  of  ecclesiastical  jurisdiction  that  even  suits 
for  tithes  had  to  be  brought  before  the  lay  tribunals.— Ibid.  cap.  Ixxiv. 
(p.  60). 


LEGISLATION     IN     ITALY.  203 

adverse  to  him,  whereupon  Lucchino  proclaimed  that  the  laws 
of  the  state  were  binding  on  priest  and  layman  alike.1  liis 
son  Bernabo  inherited  his  contempt  for  the  claims  of  the 
clergy,  and  exercised  his  cruelty  upon  them  without  restraint. 
In  1369  he  seized  the  provost  of  the  Augustinian  convent  of 
St.  Barnabas  of  Milan,  tortured  him  to  death  upon  the  rack, 
dragged  the  body  through  the  streets,  and  hung  it  on  the  public 
gallows.  Another  ecclesiastic  of  high  rank,  Sirnone  di  Cas- 
tiglione,  after  being  racked,  was  crowned  in  derision  with  a 
paper  mitre,  dragged  through  the  streets  at  a  horse's  heels,  and 
then  burnt  to  death  at  the  stake.  He  ejected  Agnes,  abbess 
of  the  principal  convent  of  the  Milanese  Benedictines,  and  re 
placed  her  with  Andriola,  a  girl  of  twenty,  the  natural  daugh 
ter  of  his  brother  Matthew  ;  and  he  kept  in  prison  for  many 
years  Bernardino,  Bishop  of  Parma.2  In  the  perennial  quar 
rels  between  the  popes  and  the  Lombards,  Gregory  XI.  suc 
ceeded  in  forming  a  powerful  league  against  Bernabo,  to 
which  he  contributed  by  personally  sending  a  contingent  from 
Avignon.  Bernabo  was  defeated,  sued  for  peace,  and  promised 
to  amend  his  ways,  and  Gregory,  under  the  pressure  of  his 
allies,  was  reluctantly  obliged  to  admit  the  sinner  to  reconcilia 
tion.  The  independent  spirit  of  the  Lombards,  however,  was 
not  subdued,  and  it  was  probably  to  conquer  it  that  Urban  VI. 
in  1383  issued  a  bull,  which  inflicted  on  all  potentates  and 
communities,  daring  to  exercise  secular  jurisdiction  over  eccle 
siastics,  excommunication  and  interdict,  removable  only  by  the 
Holy  See.3  The  Lombards  were  stubborn,  however,  for  in 
1388  we  find  Bernabo's  nephew,  Gian  Galeazzo  Visconti,  de 
creeing  that  all  cases  should  be  decided  in  the  court  to  which 
the  defendant  belonged,  thus  depriving  ecclesiastical  plaintiffs 
of  the  benefit  of  their  own  jurisprudence.4  This  gave  some 
sort  of  equality  between  the  classes,  as  regarded  civil  cases, 

1  Antiqua  Ducum  Mediol.  Decreta  p.  3  (Mediolani  1651). 

2  See  the  Brief  of  Gregory  XI.  in  Raynald.  Aunal.  arm.  1373,  No.  10. 
15  Bull.  Quia  Sicut  (Mag.  Bull.  Roman.  I.  292). 

4  Antiqua  Ducum  Mediol.  Decret.  pp.  136-7. 


204  BENEFIT     OF    CLERGY. 

while  preserving  to  the  church  its  prerogative  in  criminal  mat 
ters.  In  accordance  with  the  canon  law,  the  Archbishop  of 
Milan,  in  1352,  issued  a  pastoral  reminding  his  clergy  that  the 
spiritual  courts  were  not  to  protect  them  when  detected  in 
crime,  unless  they  wore  the  clerical  habit  and  abstained  from 
secular  callings,  but  he  added  that  these  questions  were  not  to 
be  decided  by  the  secular  judges  under  pain  of  excommunica 
tion.1  This,  as  might  be  anticipated,  did  not  diminish  the  evil, 
and  in  1381  we  find  Gian  Galeazzo  complaining  of  the  numer 
ous  crimes  of  those  who  wore  the  tonsure  without  having  taken 
orders,  and  were  constantly  claimed  of  the  temporal  courts  by 
the  Archbishop.  "\Vith  his  ancestral  spirit  strengthened  by 
power  and  prosperity,  he  orders  his  judges  to  disregard  such 
reclamations  and  to  enforce  the  laws  against  all  who  were  not 
actually  in  holy  orders.2  Again,  in  1419,  the  same  trouble 
rises  into  view,  and  Philippe  Maria  Visconti  was  obliged  to 
order  that  simple  tonsured  clerks,  not  wearing  the  habit,  should 
be  held  and  reputed  as  laymen,  subject  to  secular  jurisdiction.3 
Yet  when  Milan  lost  her  independence,  under  Spanish  rule, 
she  was  reduced  to  implicit  obedience,  for,  in  IGlo,  one  of  her 
jurisconsults  declares  that  a  clerk  wearing  secular  garments 
does  not  forfeit  his  benefit  of  clergy  in  case  of  crime  until  after 
he  has  had  three  warnings.4 

Spain  was  perhaps  the  latest  country  in  Europe  to  succumb 
to  the  centralizing  sacerdotalism  of  Koine,  and  its  long-pre 
served  independence  was  reflected  in  its  legislation  on  the  sub 
ject  of  clerical  immunity.  We  have  already  seen  that  in  the 
seventh  century  the  Gothic  laws  of  Chindaswind  subjected 
both  prelates  and  clergy  to  the  jurisdiction  of  the  secular 
courts.  In  the  Fuero  Juzgo,  or  Romance  version  of  the  Wisi- 
gothic  code,  in  force  until  the  thirteenth  century,  the  bishops 

1  Antiqua  Due  urn  Mediol.  Decret.  pp.  5-6.  2  Ibid.  p.  52. 

3  Ibid.  p.  246. 

4  Carpani   Leges  Ducat.  Mediolan.  P.  i.  cap.  44,  No.  25  (Mediolan. 
1616). 


LEGISLATION    IN     SPAIN.  205 

appear  to  have  emancipated  themselves  from  this  liability,  but 
the  provision  remains  as  to  the  other  orders  of  the  clergy,  who 
are  required  to  obey  the  summons  of  the  civil  judges,  under  the 
ordinary  penalties  for  contempt  of  court.1  Yet  it  is  question 
able  whether,  towards  the  end  of  this  period,  the  church  had 
not  secured  the  immunity  of  its  ministers  in  ordinary  cases, 
for  a  Spanish  council  of  the  thirteenth  century  orders  that  an 
ecclesiastic  taken  in  the  act  of  committing  forgery,  robbery, 
coining,  homicide,  rape,  or  other  capital  crime,  shall  be  pub 
licly  degraded  by  his  bishop  ;2  and  about  the  same  period  Al- 
phonso  the  Wise,  in  the  Siete  Fartidas,  describes  the  existing 
law  to  be  that  for  such  crimes  the  clerk  is  to  be  tried  by  the 
spiritual  court,  with  the  penalty  of  degradation  if  convicted, 
when  for  a  subsequent  offence  he  is  liable  to  secular  law.3 
Those,  however,  who  fall  into  heresy,  or  propagate  heretical 
opinions,  or  remain  under  excommunication  for  a  year,  or  dis 
obey  their  bishops,  or  forge  papal  signatures  or  seals,  come  at 
once  under  secular  jurisdiction  :  and  forging  royal  letters  is 
punishable  with  degradation  and  branding.4  In  civil  suits, 
moreover,  the  episcopal  courts  have  cognizance  only  when 
both  parties  are  ecclesiastics — actions  between  clerks  and  lay 
men  coming  before  the  lay  judges  ;3  and  this  provision,  so  ad 
verse  to  sacerdotal  claims,  was  preserved  in  the  Recopilacion. 
Nearly  a  century  later,  in  1335,  the  Portuguese  bishop,  Alvarez 
Pelayo,  distinctly  asserts  that  no  ecclesiastic,  however  mean, 
can  be  subjected  to  the  secular  power  in  any  case.6  He  admits 
that  of  old  this  right  had  not  been  enjoyed,  even  as  in  his  own 
time  tyrants  sometimes  infringed  on  the  rights  of  the  church, 
but  that  the  popes  had  won  the  privilege  from  the  emperors  ;7 

1  Fuero  Juzgo,  Lib.  n.  Tit.  I.  Icy  17. 

2  Martene  et  Durand.  Thesaur.  IV.  171. 

3  Las  Siete  Partidas  P.  i.  Tit.  vi.  ley  61. 

4  Ibid,  leyes  59,  60.  5  Ibid,  ley  57. 

6  Alvari  Pelagii  de  Planctu   Eecles.  Lib.  i.  art.  37   No.  5  (Lugduni 
1517).  ^ 

7  Ejusd.  Lib.  i.  art.  44  §  F. 

18 


206  BENEFIT     OF     CLERGY. 

and  having  thus  conceded  that  the  prerogative  was  not  of 
divine  law,  he  proceeds  to  establish  it  by  scholastic  dialectics, 
proving  that  the  emperor  holds  his  empire  as  a  fief  in  vassalage 
of  the  church,  and  that  since  no  vassal  can  judge  his  suzerain 
so  he  cannot  judge  the  church,  whence  the  conclusion  is  plain 
that  no  inferior  potentate  can  have  any  jurisdiction  over  eccle 
siastics,  especially  as  the  laity  are  inferior  to  the  clergy.1 

In  France  the  question  of  clerical  immunity  was  the  source 
of  endless  debate.  As  early  as  1090  we  find  Urban  II.  at  the 
council  of  Nemours  forbidding  the  secular  authorities  to  sum 
mon  clerks  and  monks  before  their  courts,  and  denouncing 
such  actions  as  equivalent  to  rapine  and  sacrilege.2  This  pre 
tension  at  length  was  submitted  to,  but  the  lay  justiciars  argued 
that  ecclesiastical  jurisdiction  should  not  confer  immunity. 
Thus  in  1204  the  crown  and  the  nobles  endeavored  to  estab 
lish  the  principle  that  a  clerk  convicted  of  a  capital  offence  in 
the  spiritual  court  was  to  be  degraded  and  abandoned  to  the 
temporal  power  for  the  punishment  due  to  his  crime,3  but  the 
attempt  was  of  no  avail.  In  Normandy  under  the  English 
rule  clerical  privileges  were  more  restricted  than  elsewhere,  for 
in  1205  it  is  stated  that  while  a  clerk  arrested  must  be  de 
livered  to  the  church  if  it  claims  him,  still,  if  he  is  convicted 
of  theft  or  homicide,  he  must  be  degraded  and  banished  ;  if  he 
returns  without  royal  permission,  he  is  to  be  punished  by  the 
secular  courts  ;  and  on  a  second  offence  he  is  liable  to  trial  as 
a  layman.4 

In  1259,  St.  Louis  procured  from  Alexander  IV.  a  special 
rescript  forbidding  the  excommunication  of  royal  officials  ar 
resting  any  clerk  guilty  of  an  enormous  crime,  if  it  were 
necessary  to  do  so  in  order  to  prevent  the  flight  of  the  offender  ; 
but  the  prisoner  was  to  be  at  once  handed  over  to  the  eccle- 

1  De  Planctu  Eceles.  Lib.  i.  art.  67  §  J. 

2  Decret.  Urbani  PP.  II.  cap.  xvi.  (IVAchery  Spicileg.  I.  629). 

3  Etabliesement  de  1264,  §§  2,  6  (Teambert,  Anc.  Lois  Frany.  I.  197). 

4  Inquisitio  de  Juribus  Regis  (Martcne  Collect.  Ampliss.  I.  1061). 


FRANCE ABUSES     OF     IMMUNITY.  '207 

siastical  courts,  and  no  jurisdiction  was  to  be  exercised  over 
him  in  the  secular  tribunals;  and  the  same  pontiff,  moreover, 
ordered  the  French  prelates  not  to  interfere  with  the  royal 
jurisdiction  over  married  and  bigamous  clerks,  who  were  not 
to  enjoy  immunity.1  At  the  same  time  clerical  privileges  were 
strictly  maintained,  for  towards  the  close  of  the  century  we  find 
Beaumanoir  warning  the  secular  judge  that  any  disregard  of 
the  benefit  of  clergy  involved  an  excommunication  removable 
only  by  the  pope  himself;  yet,  in  theory  at  least,  the  immunity 
of  the  clergy  was  not  complete,  for  the  ecclesiastical  courts 
were  directed  to  inflict  on  their  convicts  not  only  degradation 
but  imprisonment  for  life2 — a  provision,  as  we  shall  see  here 
after,  but  rarely  carried  into  effect. 

The  revival  of  the  study  of  the  Roman  law  was  creating  a 
race  of  jurists  who  were  not  disposed  to  regard  the  church  with 
reverence  or  to  submit  to  the  interference  which  her  preten 
sions  were  constantly  provoking.  Every  effort,  therefore,  was 
made  to  take  full  advantage  of  the  distinction  admitted  by 
canonists  between  ecclesiastics  in  orders  devoted  to  the  minis 
try  of  the  altar  and  tlie  hordes  of  those  who  sought  the  lower 
grades  without  abandoning  their  worldly  pursuits.  St.  Louis 
thus  declared  that  clerks  who  did  not  wear  the  tonsure  were 
subject  to  secular  jurisdiction,  while  their  tonsured  brethren 
were  exempt,  and  so  complete  was  this  immunity  that  even 
confession  before  a  lay  judge  was  of  no  legal  value  as  not  being 
lawfully  made.3  He  also  obtained  from  Alexander  IV.  in  1259 
an  order  putting  an  end  to  the  abuse  whereby  ecclesiastics 
engaged  in  business  refused  to  be  bound  by  the  laws  of  the 
land  in  matters  relating  to  their  trade.*  Philippe  le  Bel,  in 
1291,  was  obliged  to  admit  that  even  letters  under  the  royal 
seal  could  not  compel  an  ecclesiastic  to  appear  in  a  secular 
court  to  answer  personal  charges  ;5  but  in  1300  he  ventured  to 

1  D'Achery  Spicileg.  III.  034.      The  latter  of  these  regulations  was 
proclaimed  as  in  force  by  Philippe  le  Hardi  in  1274  (Isambert,  II.  655)  . 

2  Gout,  du  Beauvoisis,  cap.  xi.  §§  44,  45. 

3  Etablissements,  Liv.  I.  chap.  84.  4  D'Achery,  loc.  cit. 
3  Isambert,  op.  cit.  II.  p.  686 


208  BENEFIT     OF     CLERGY. 

trespass  on  clerical  privileges  by  an  edict  declaring  that  ac 
quittal  in  the  courts-Christian  should'  not  protect  the  pos 
sessions  of  a  clerk  from  confiscation  by  the  royal  tribunal  when 
his  crime  was  notorious.1  Louis  Hutin,  in  the  disturbances 
which  threatened  the  opening  of  his  reign,  endeavored  to  pro 
pitiate  the  clergy,  in  1315,  by  enacting  and  confirming  the 
constitution  of  1220  of  Frederic  II.,  which  guaranteed  com 
plete  immunity  to  ecclesiastics  ;2  but  the  tendency  of  the  age 
was  opposed  to  such  reaction,  and  the  contest  between  the 
crown  and  the  church  became  constantly  more  bitter.  The 
power  of  the  feudal  lords  was  rapidly  declining,  and  the  royal 
jurisdiction  was  everywhere  usurping  that  of  the  seignorial 
courts.  In  place  of  dealing  with  the  spasmodic  violence  of  the 
petty  seigneurs,  destitute  of  cohesion  or  unity,  the  church 
found  herself  confronted  with  a  system  of  royal  courts,  all 
animated  with  an  aggressive  spirit,  co-operating  with  each 
other  to  produce  not  anarchy  but  civilization,  and  under  the 
general  guidance  of  the  able  lawyers  who  composed  the  royal 
Parlement.  These  men  knew  what  they  fought  for,  and  were 
rarely  mistaken  in  the  means  adopted  ;  nor  wras  a  class  from 
which  sprang  Guillaume  de  Nogaret,  the  audacious  captor  of 
Boniface  VIII.,  likely  to  be  troubled  with  scruples  concerning 
the  sanctity  of  privileges  which  in  the  study  of  the  Pandects 
and  the  Code  were  seen  to  be  without  foundation. 

The  systematic  abuses  of  clerical  privilege  were,  in  fact, 
becoming  unbearable.  They  grievously  oppressed  the  laity, 
they  greatly  interfered  with  the  administration  of  criminal 
justice,  and  they  threatened  to  bring  the  church  itself  rapidly 
into  disrepute.  Perplexing  questions  constantly  arose,  and 
rogues  eagerly  availed  themselves  of  the  conflict  between  the 
secular  and  ecclesiastical  courts  to  escape  altogether  the  pen 
alty  of  their  crimes.  Beaumanoir  tells  us  that  murderers  and 
robbers  administered  the  tonsure  to  each  other  and  assumed 
the  clerical  habit  in  order  to  evade  the  secular  jurisdiction, 

1  Isambei-t,  II.  p.  725.  2  ibid.  III.  123. 


PRANCE  —  ABUSES    OP     IMMUNITY.  209 

and  in  all  such  cases  the  question  of  clericature  had  to  be 
decided  by  the  clerical  courts,1  giving  to  the  criminal  an  im 
mense  advantage — one  long  appreciated,  as  we  shall  presently 
see,  for,  a  century  later,  tricks  such  as  these  were  still  habitu 
ally  used  to  defeat  the  justice  of  the  Chatelet  of  Paris.  It  was 
not  that  the  ecclesiastical  tribunals  were  more  tender  of  human 
blood,  for  when  they  were  exercising  their  seignorial  jurisdic 
tion  over  laymen  they  inflicted  the  death-penalty  with  all  its 
terrible  aggravations  as  mercilessly  as  the  lay  courts  ;'2  it  was 
that  the  ecclesiastic  himself  was  to  be  more  tenderly  treated 
and  to  enjoy  a  special  privilege  of  comparative  immunity  for 
wrong- do  ing. 

Some  reform  was  necessary,  but  the  church  applied  it  with 
a  sparing  hand,  so  as  not  to  abandon  the  immunity  which  alone 
rendered  these  abuses  possible,  while  endeavoring  to  evade  the 
odium  of  the  criminals  who  everywhere  claimed  and  enjoyed 
her  protection.  For  the  purpose  of  obtaining  this  substantial 
benefit,  crowds  of  worthless  wretches  entered  the  church  and 
took  tiie  lower  grades,  which  at  that  time  did  not  entail  sepa 
ration  from  their  wives  or  abandonment  of  worldly  pursuits, 
and  she  was  rendered  responsible  for  their  misdeeds,  and  was 
called  upon  to  protect  them.  To  meet  this  flagrant  abuse, 
Innocent  III.,  as  early  as  1212,  had  decreed  that  a  married 
acolyte  could  not  be  compelled  to  wear  the  tonsure  and  was 
not  entitled  to  benefit  of  clergy.3  In  1298,  Boniface  VIII. 
also  endeavored  to  adjudicate  on  the  vexed  questions  which 
constantly  arose  by  declaring  that  no  lay  court  was  competent 
to  try  any  one  who  was  commonly  reputed  to  be  a  clerk  ;  that 
even  when  there  was  a  reasonable  doubt  of  layrnanship,  and 
the  criminal  had  always  conducted  himself  as  a  layman,  and 
had  only  recently  assumed  the  tonsure  and  sacerdotal  dress, 
then  all  proceedings  against  him  should  cease  until  the  spirit- 

1  Coutumes  du  Beauvoisis,  cli.  xi.  §  45. 

2  See  the  Registre   Criminel   de  St.  Martin-les-Champs,  Paris,  1877, 
passim. 

3  Can.  7  Extra  Lib.  TIT.  Tit.  iii. 

18* 


210  BENEFIT     OF     CLERGY. 

ual  court  could  investigate  the  case  and  decide  as  to  which 
jurisdiction  could  claim  him.1 

These  concessions,  if  they  can  be  so  called,  amounted  in 
reality  to  nothing.  They  pretended  to  touch  a  few  of  the 
more  palpable  scandals,  but  left  unreformed  the  intolerable 
abuses  which  the  increasing  enlightenment  of  the  age  was  not 
inclined  to  brook.  In  1328,  Philip  of  Valois  complained  with 
exceeding  bitterness  that  murderers  and  malefactors  of  all 
kinds  were  released  from  the  secular  courts  on  merely  asserting 
their  clergy,  and  he  did  not  hesitate  to  accuse  the  bishops  of 
admitting  to  the  tonsure  married  men  of  full  age,  who  applied 
for  it  merely  to  escape  the  punishment  due  to  their  crimes.2 
Kot  long  afterwards,  Raymond,  Bishop  of  Nismes,  found  him 
self  obliged  to  condemn  the  prevalent  practice  of  ecclesiastics 
buying  up  doubtful  claims,  and  then  wearying  out  their  adver 
saries  with  the  endless  proceedings  of  the  courts-Christian,  to 
which  they  were  entitled  to  carry  their  cases.3  In  1344  the 
council  of  Noyon  pronounced  an  ipso  facto  excommunication 
against  the  graceless  laymen  who  pretended  to  be  clerks,  and 
who  gave  themselves  the  tonsure4 — an  empty  fulmination,  for 
the  classes  which  adopted  the  expedient  were  for  the  most 
part  far  beyond  the  reach  or  influence  of  spiritual  censures. 
About  the  middle  of  the  century,  Ernest,  Archbishop  of 
Prague,  issued  a  general  order  instructing  parish  priests  to 
lay  under  interdict  on  their  own  authority  any  place  where 
a  violation  of  clerical  immunity  might  occur;  but  in  1361  he 
was  obliged  to  withdraw  this  regulation  in  consequence  of  the 
advantage  taken  of  it  to  afflict  the  faithful  in  protecting  those 
who  either  had  never  belonged  to  the  church  or  who  through 
misconduct  had  forfeited  their  rights  ;  and  he  ordered  all  such 
questions  to  be  referred  to  the  bishops  for  settlement.  lie 
further  describes  the  crowds  of  men  who  were  laymen  in 

1  Can.  12  in  Sexto  Lib.  v.  Tit.  xi. 

2  Bib.  Mag.  Patruni  T.  XIV.  pp.  79-80  (Ed.  Colon.  1018). 

3  Statut.  Eccles.  Neman*.  Tit.  xv.  cap.  14  (Martene  Thesaur.). 

4  Concil.  Noviomens.  ann.  1P>44  can.  14   (Harduin.  VII.  KV74). 


FRANCE  —  ABUSES     OF    IMMUNITY.  211 

everything  except  the  right  to  appeal  to  the  church  for  pro 
tection  when  overtaken  by  the  consequences  of  their  crimes, 
disgracing  the  establishment,  and  giving  rise  to  intricate  and 
ceaseless  quarrels  between  the  two  jurisdictions.  The  only 
remedy  which -he  could  suggest  was  that  of  rejecting  the  claims 
of  all  who  could  not  show  the  tonsure  and  clerical  habit1 — a 
palliation  of  the  evil  not  likely  to  be  very  effective.  It  proved, 
indeed,  as  vain  as  might  have  been  expected,  for  a  few  years 
later,  in  1365,  the  next  archbishop,  John,  is  seen  ordering  his 
archdeacons  to  employ  excommunication  and  even  imprison 
ment  to  repress  the  untonsured  and  secular  habited  clerks  in 
their  customary  pursuits  of  concubinage,  drunkenness,  gam 
bling,  thieving,  robbery,  and  bearing  of  prohibited  weapons.2 
It  is  no  wonder,  indeed,  that  the  knaves  preferred  the  eccle 
siastical  courts,  for  the  crime  of  theft,  which  in  a  layman  was 
punished  with  the  halter,  in  a  clerk  was  only  visited  with  a 
fine  of  five  deniers.3  In  fact,  the  councils  of  the  period  pre 
sent  an  abundant  store  of  canons  directed  against  the  multitudes 
of  vagabonds  who  were  amenable  to  no  discipline,  and  who 
made  no  pretence  of  abandoning  their  secular  lives,  while  they 
confidently  claimed  protection  of  the  body  which  they  dis 
graced.  The  church  could  find  no  cure  for  the  evil,  however, 
without  abandoning  some  of  her  most  cherished  prerogatives, 
and  she  preferred  to  endure  the  scandal  rather  than  to  suffer 
the  loss.  So  far,  indeed,  did  she  carry  her  pretensions  that  in 
the  fourteenth  century  we  find  the  Bishop  of  Paris  endowed 
with  jurisdiction  over  all  painters,  imagers,  embroiderers,  em- 
broideresses,  and  enamellers,  because,  apparently,  those  trades 
were  mostly  concerned  with  ecclesiastical  decoration,  and  his 
claims  were  vigorously  enforced,  though  sometimes  success 
fully  contested  by  other  ecclesiastical  jurisdictions/ 

1  Statuta  Arnesti  Archiep.  Pragens.  ap.  Hofler,  Concil.  Pragens.  p.  7-8 
(Frag,  1862). 

2  Statuta  Syuodalia  aim.  1365  (Ibid.  p.  9). 

3  Statuta  Synod.  Frag.  ami.  1371  (Ibid.  p.  16). 

4  Cartulaire  de  1'Eglise  de  Notre  Dame  de  Paris,  III.  276.— Registre 
Criminel  de  St.  Martin-les-Champs,  p.  162. 


212  BENEFIT    OP    CLERGY. 

Commingled  with  the  fruitless  canons  of  reformation  are 
others  equally  numerous,  directed  against  the  daily  increasing 
efforts  of  the  laity  to  free  themselves  from  these  evils  by  en 
croaching  upon  the  privileges  and  jurisdiction  of  the  church. 
In  1329,  Philip  of  Yalois,  disregarding  the  fate  of  Belshazzar, 
which  was  held  up  to  him  as  a  warning,  made  a  vigorous  effort 
to  reform  the  system.1  The  church  for  awhile  maintained  her 
ground,  however,  and  refused  to  abandon  a  tittle  of  her  preroga 
tive.  The  council  of  Noyon,  in  1344,  denounced  the  severest 
punishment  on  clerks  who  tamely  submitted  to  verdicts  taken 
in  the  civil  courts  ;2  and  those  of  Paris,  in  1346  and  13f>0,  laid 
an  interdict  on  all  places  where  a  clerk  was  imprisoned  and 
was  not  surrendered  on  demand.3  The  struggle  was  hard,  but 
the  church  gradually  had  to  yield,  and  in  1375  an  agreement 
was  made  between  Charles  le  Sage  and  Aimery  de  Maignac, 
Bishop  of  Paris,  by  which  the  latter  abandoned  his  claim  to 
jurisdiction  over  all  married  and  unbeneficed  clerks,  while  the 
royal  supremacy  was  declared  in  a  clause  leaving  to  the  bishop 
his  remaining  jurisdiction  over  unmarried  clerks  only  during 
the  king's  pleasure4 — an  empty  assertion,  however,  which  could 
not  have  been  made  good.  Somewhat  similar  was  the  agree 
ment  made  in  137G  between  the  Bishop  of  Liege  and  his 
rebellious  burghers,  by  which  the  secular  authorities  were 
granted  jurisdiction  over  bigamous  clerks  and  those  engaged 
in  worldly  pursuits.5 

The  records  of  the  Chatelet,  or  criminal  court  of  Paris,  for 
the  years  1389  and  1390  have  been  preserved,  arid  their  recent 
publication  affords  us  an  instructive  insight  into  the  difficulties 
which  beset  the  administration  of  justice,  and  the  manner  in 
which  the  church  protected  the  vilest  criminals  in  her  zeal  to 
preserve  her  prerogatives.  Thus,  in  one  series  of  cases  occur- 

1  Bcrtrandi  contra  P.  de  Cugneriis  Liber. 

2  Concil.  Noviomens.  aim.  1344  can.  G,  8. 

3  Concil.  Parisiens.  ann.  1346  can.  1 ;  ann.  1350  can.  1. 

4  Cartulaire  de  I'Eglise  de  Paris,  I.  4. 

5  Chron.  Cornel.  Zanfliet  ann.  1376  (Martene  Ampl.  Coll.  V.  305-6). 


FRANCE ILLUSTRATIVE     CASES.  213 

ring  in  1389,  a  band  of  wretches,  whose  lives  were  an  endless 
series  of  fearful  crimes,  were  arrested  and  brought  before  the 
prevot.  They  claimed  the  benefit  of  clergy,  and  showed  the 
tonsure  to  substantiate  the  claim.  Though  wholly  illiterate, 
and  unable,  under  the  closest  cross-questioning,  to  give  intelli 
gible  accounts  of  the  times  and  circumstances  of  their  admission 
to  the  church,  or  to  adduce  any  evidence  in  support  of  their 
assertions,  yet  the  swift  and  relentless  justice  of  the  Chatelet 
dared  not  to  subject  them  to  the  customary  procedure  of  the 
torture,  but  gave  them  various  terms  of  delay  in  which  to 
produce  their  letters  of  tonsure  or  other  proof,  and  in  one  or 
two  of  the  cases  these  delays  were  repeated.  Had  such  proof 
been  attainable,  they  would  at  once  have  been  remanded  to  the 
bishop's  court,  as  had  happened  to  some  of  them  before,  when 
they  had  subsequently  been  set  free.  At  length  one  of  them 
admitted  that  he  was  not  a  clerk,  and  made  a  full  confession 
of  his  guilty  career.  In  the  course  of  this  he  stated  that  after 
being  concerned  in  a  most  brutal  murder,  his  accomplices  ad 
vised  him  to  assume  the  tonsure,  in  order  to  secure  exemption 
from  secular  jurisdiction,  and  they  counselled  him,  moreover, 
how  to  tell  the  story  of  his  admission  to  the  church,  in  case 
he  should  be  apprehended.  He  further  asserted  that  some  of 
the  other  prisoners,  whose  cases  were  then  under  advisement, 
were  no  more  clerks  than  himself.  On  obtaining  this  revela 
tion,  the  Prevot  of  Paris  consulted  with  the  chancellor  and 
royal  council,  and  was  authorized  to  torture  such  of  the  others 
as  could  not  prove  their  clergy.  Some  of  them  under  torture, 
and  others  without  it,  confessed  a  hideous  catalogue  of  crimes, 
and  stated  that  they  had  adopted  the  tonsure  at  the  recom 
mendation  of  their  fellows,  in  a  manner  which  shows  that 
among  the  dangerous  classes  it  was  a  recognized  measure  of 
precaution  against  the  hour  of  trouble.  One  of  them,  indeed, 
remarked  that  they  had  found,  when  condemned  by  the  eccle 
siastical  courts,  that  they  were  only  subjected  to  imprisonment, 
from  which  they  were  sure  to  be  let  loose  again  upon  society, 
sooner  or  later,  in  some  general  jail-delivery  on  the  accession 


214  BENEFIT    OP    CLERGY. 

of  a  prelate  or  other  dignitary.  This  certainly  would  seem  to 
be  a  case  in  which  the  church  would  willingly  wash  her  hands 
of  her  putative  children,  but  when  the  proceedings  reached  the 
ears  of  the  Bishop  of  Paris,  he  claimed  the  prisoners  and  pro 
tested  against  such  interference  with  the  liberties  of  the  church. 
After  angry  negotiation,  however,  his  demands  were  refused, 
and  a  formal  order  was  made  by  the  royal  council  that  ton 
sured  criminals,  who  were  wholly  illiterate,  and  who  \vere 
unable  to  offer  any  evidence  to  prove  their  clergy,  should  be 
allowed  reasonable  time  to  obtain  testimony,  and  that  if  they 
failed  in  this  no  heed  should  be  given  to  the  reclamations  and 
protests  of  the  bishop,  but  that  they  should  be  duly  tried  and 
convicted  or  acquitted  as  laymen.  Fortified  with  this  order, 
the  authorities  of  the  Chatelet  proceeded  with  renewed  vigor, 
and  speedily  brought  to  justice  the  whole  crew,  of  whom  seven 
were  convicted  and  executed.1 

A  case  which  occurred  in  March,  1390,  may  perhaps  be 
thought  to  throw  some  light  on  the  motives  impelling  the 
bishops  to  vindicate  so  energetically  their  jurisdiction  for  the 
protection  of  these  "  gaigneurs  d'aventage."  Girart  Doffinal, 
arrested  for  an  attempted  larceny,  denied  the  fact  and  claimed 
the  benefit  of  clergy.  He  \vore  the  tonsure  and  asserted  that 
he  had  received  it  ten  years  before  at  the  hands  of  the  Bishop 
of  Rodez.  His  letters  of  tonsure  he  declared  to  be  at  Barba- 
tenne,  near  Avignon,  and  he  was  given  six  weeks  in  which  to 
procure  them.  The  six  weeks  were  extended  to  three  months, 
but  when  again  brought  before  the  court  in  June,  he  had  no 
evidence  to  prove  his  claim,  and  he  was  accordingly  exposed 
to  the  torture  customary  in  the  trials  of  laymen.  This  extorted 
the  confession  that  he  had  given  himself  the  tonsure  three  years 
before  at  Avignon,  by  way  of  safeguard,  and  in  the  long  array 
of  robberies  which  he  detailed,  he  alluded  to  one  for  which  he 
had  been  convicted  in  the  court  of  the  Bishop  of  Rodez  and 
thrown  into  prison,  where  he  lay  for  thirteen  months  until  his 

1  Registre  Crirninel  du  Chatelet  de  Paris,  I.  47-114  (Paris,  1861). 


FRANCE — ILLUSTRATIVE     CASES.  215 

friends  procured  his  release  by  paying  five  hundred  francs  to 
the  good  bishop.  The  Chatelet  did  not  let  him  off  so  easily, 
and  in  a  few  days  he  was  duly  hanged.1 

The  tonsure  thus  was  the  oegis  on  which  these  wretched  men 
relied  for  impunity,  and  so  important  was  it  deemed  to  make  no 
mistake  in  the  perplexing  questions  which  daily  embroiled  the 
civil  and  spiritual  powers,  that  the  Chatelet  had  among  its  offi 
cials  a  sworn  barber  whose  duty  it  was  as  an  expert  to  guide  the 
court  in  its  decisions  on  the  obscure  cases  which  were  constantly 
presented.  Another  portion  of  his  functions  proves  the  careful 
respect  with  which  the  sacred  emblem  of  sacerdotalism  was 
regarded,  for  whenever  a  tonsured  man  failed  to  prove  his  clergy, 
the  court  immediately  ordered  him  to  be  shaved,  before  it  would 
venture  to  try  him,  torture  him,  or  execute  him.  The  symbol 
of  the  church  must  be  obliterated  ere  he  could  be  treated  as  an 
ordinary  criminal. 

How  useful  an  official  this  barber  sometimes  was,  and  how 
desperately  the  miserable  wretches  clung  to  the  protecting  in 
fluence  of  the  church,  is  shown  by  a  case  occurring  in  January 
1390,  when  Fleurent  de  Saint-Luc  was  brought  before  the 
Chatelet  on  a  charge  of  theft.  So  constant  was  the  claim  of 
clergy  that  the  first  proceeding  with  a  prisoner  was  to  examine 
him  minutely  for  the  tonsure  or  other  sign  of  clericature,  and 
none  were  found  on  Fleurent.  To  prevent  collusion  he  was 
shut  up  alone  for  the  night,  and  next  morning,  to  the  surprise 
of  the  court,  he  boldly  pleaded  clergy  and  exhibited  a  tonsured 
head.  The  barber  was  forthwith  summoned,  and  after  a  careful 
inspection  of  the  scalp  declared  that  the  tonsure  was  not  pro 
duced  by  shaving,  but  by  pulling  out  the  hairs  one  by  one— 
the  ingenious  expedient  of  the  prisoner  during  the  night,  in  his 
solitary  cell.  Unfortunately  for  the  success  of  this  device,  he 
had  admitted  to  the  jailer  that  he  was  betrothed  in  marriage 
to  a  certain  Marguerite  of  Compiegne.  The  court  therefore  had 
no  hesitation  in  pronouncing  him  a  "  pursbigames  ;"  as  a  mar- 

1  Registre  du  Chatelet,  1.  244-54. 


216  BENEFIT     OF     CLERGY. 

ried  man  he  had  no  right  to  benefit  of  clergy,  so  his  pretended 
tonsure  was  promptly  destroyed  by  shaving,  and  he  was  tried 
and  executed.1 

A  still  more  perplexing  case  for  the  tonsorial  expert  occurred 
in  October  of  the  same  year,  when  Jehan  Jourge,  a  jeweller, 
was  accused  by  an  accomplice  of  coining.  He  pleaded  clergy, 
though  he  confessed  to  have  been  married  for  twelve  years,  and 
the  condition  of  his  scalp  seems  to  have  puzzled  the  official  bar 
ber,  for  a  jury  of  thirteen  of  his  brethren  was  summoned  to 
examine  the  prisoner's  head.  Under  oath  they  reported  that 
after  full  investigation  they  found  him  not  to  be  tonsured, 
though  lie  had  several  bald  spots.  The  court  decided  that  as  a 
married  man  and  untonsured  he  had  no  right  to  plead  clergy. 
The  crime  was  a  heinous  one  and  speedy  justice  was  required, 
so  within  two  days  of  his  apprehension  he  was  convicted,  sen 
tenced,  and  duly  boiled  to  death.2 

The  rapidity  of  these  proceedings  is  perhaps  to  be  explained 
by  the  constant  efforts  of  the  Bishop  of  Paris  to  reclaim  these 
strayed  sheep.  Thus,  in  March  of  the  same  year,  Jehannin 
Menel  was  accused  of  theft.  He  confessed  it,  but  pleaded  clergy, 
stating  that  he  had  received  the  tonsure  twenty  years  before. 
Though  wholly  illiterate,  he  was  given  the  customary  six  weeks 
in  which  to  present  proof,  and  the  officers  of  the  episcopal  court 
undertook  to  obtain  it  if  possible.  The  time  was  extended 
until  June,  when,  all  efforts  failing,  he  was  again  brought  up. 
To  prolong  his  miserable  days,  he  averred  that  one  of  the  bishop's 
retainers  could  vouch  for  him,  whereupon  a  commission  was 
appointed  to  take  the  alleged  testimony.  Their  report  was  not 
made  until  August  30th,  when  it  appeared  that  the  person  in 
question  had  no  knowledge  of  the  prisoner.  Then  Menel  at 
length  was  tortured  and  confessed  that  he  had  given  himself  the 
tonsure  four  years  before,  in  order  to  escape  the  consequences 
of  a  heavy  robbery  in  which  he  had  been  engaged.3 

1  Registre  du  Chatelet,  I.  201-9.  2  ibid.  j.  480-94 

3  Ibid.  I.  398-406. 


CONFLICT    OF    JURISDICTION.  217 

While  this  was  in  progress,  another  case  occurred  in  which 
the  bishop  did  not  limit  himself  merely  to  friendly  aid  in 
seeking  for  testimony.  In  July,  Ernoul  de  Lates  was  accused 
of  a  petty  theft.  He  pleaded  clergy  and  showed  the  tonsure, 
but  on  a  searching  examination  was  forced  to  admit  that  he 
had  assumed  it  only  a  fortnight  previously,  under  fear  of  pro 
secution.  The  next  day  the  court  was  notified  that  the  bishop 
had  made  formal  application  for  the  prisoner  to  the  Parlement. 
Ernoul  was  recalled,  and  repeated  his  confession  before  a  royal 
notary,  who  reported  it  to  the  Parlement,  and  a  decision  was 
rendered  in  favor  of  the  jurisdiction  of  the  Chatelet.  Ernoul 
then  confessed  the  crime  laid  to  his  charge,  together  with 
others,  and  was  accordingly  condemned  to  death,  when  the 
persevering  bishop  again  appealed  to  the  Parlement,  and  that 
body,  after  a  second  hearing,  again  confirmed  the  proceedings 
of  the  Chatelet,1 

It  would  be  useless  to  multiply  these  trivial  details.  Enough 
have  been  given  to  show  the  endless  conflict  between  the  civil 
and  ecclesiastical  jurisdictions,  the  constant  interruption  of 
justice,  and  the  countless  evils  arising  to  society  from  the  prac 
tical  impunity  with  which  the  church  endeavored  to  shield  the 
vilest  criminals.  Few  judicial  bodies  could  venture  to  display 
the  boldness  of  the  Paris  Chatelet,  under  the  immediate  pro 
tection  of  the  king,  and  supported  by  the  Parlement,  yet  every 
where  the  royal  courts  were  seeking  to  enforce  their  juris 
diction,  and  the  prelates  w^ere  battling  desperately  for  the  pre 
servation  of  the  old  abuses."  At  this  very  time,  in  1389,  the 
council  of  St.  Tiberius,  at  Narbonne,  drew  up,  to  be  laid  before 
the  pope  and  the  king,  a  long  list  of  clerical  grievances,  pro 
minent  among  which  were  the  encroachments  of  the  royal 
courts  on  ecclesiastical  jurisdiction,  the  refusal  to  surrender 
untonsured  and  married  clerks  accused  of  crime,  and  the  dis 
regard  of  the  interdicts  laid  on  all  parishes  where  these  abuses 

i  Regietre  du  Chatelet,  I.  294-301. 
19 


218 


BENEFIT     OF     CLERGY. 


were  committed.1     So  in  1403,  a  synod  of  Soiesons  complains 
bitterly  of  the  secular  courts  which  were  accustomed  to  ar 
rest  ecclesiastical   delinquents  and  send   them  for  trial  out  of 
the   diocese.2      The  times   were   unpropitious  for  the  church, 
however,  and  these  complaints  availed  but  little.     The  Great 
Schism  had  vastly  weakened  ecclesiastical  influence,  especially 
in  France,  and  the  enormous  increase  in  the  royal  power  under 
Charles  le  Sage  gave  a  temporary  predominance  to  the  secular 
element  which  threatened  the  speedy  extinction  of  the  church's 
dearest  prerogatives.      Shortly  before  the  council  of  Constance 
we  find   Chancellor  Gerson  deploring  the  miserable  condition 
of  the   church,  and  prominent  among   his   complaints   is   the 
statement  that  secular  princes  no  longer  hesitated  to  imprison 
clerks  and  try  them  by  the  laws  of  the  land.3     This  did  not 
last,  however.     The  church   reunited   at  the  council  of  Con 
stance  renewed  its  vigor,  while  the  disasters  of  the  miserable 
reign  of  Charles   VI.,   the   wars  of  Henry   V..   and   the   civil 
broils  of  the  Armagnacs  and  Bourguignons  reduced  the  tem 
poral  authority  almost  to  a  nullity,  and  rendered  it  utterly  in 
capable  of  following  up   its   advantages.     It   is   significant  of 
reprisals  on  the  part  of  the  church   that,  during  the  English 
domination,  an  order  of  Henry  VI.  regulating  the  proceedings 
of  the   Chatelet  of  Paris  provides   that   the  first  thing   to  be 
done  on  the  entrance  of  a  prisoner  shall  be  to  examine  whether 
Le  is  clerk  or  layman  ;  and  that  to  prevent  encroachments  on 
secular  jurisdiction,  a  special  officer  is  detailed  to  be  present  at 
every   hearing  of  the   ecclesiastical  courts  of  the  bishop  and 
chapter,  to  see   that   the   royal   prerogatives  are  not  invaded.4 
As  the  royal  power  recovered  itself,  however,  it  resumed  its 
aggressions,  and  the  Estates  of  Languedoc  in  1456  complained 
bitterly  to  Charles  VII.  of  the  little  respect  paid  by  the  sov- 

1  Gravam.  Concil.  ap.  S.  Tiber,  ami.  1389  (Martene  Thesaur.  IV.  345-8). 

2  Statut.    Synodal.    Suession.    cap.   IV.     (Martene   Ampliss.    Collect. 

3  Gersoui  Tract,  de  Reform.  Ecclesise  cap.  xxvii. 

^*  Ordonnance  de  Poitiers,  aim.  1425,  §§  15,  H9  (leambert,  VIII.  701, 


STRUGGLE     TO     MAINTAIN     IT.  219 

ereign  courts  to  the  immunities  of  ecclesiastical  jurisdiction, 
whereupon  the  monarch  dryly  responded  by  asking  the  remon 
strants  to  specify  cases,  when  they  should  be  properly  pro 
vided  for.1 

Still  the  church  gallantly  held  her  ground.  In  14G8  we 
find  the  Cardinal-Bishop  of  Autun  asserting  his  sole  jurisdic 
tion  over  all  members  of  the  ecclesiastical  body,  and  threaten 
ing  interdicts  for  any  delay  in  surrendering  them  to  him,  with 
all  the  energy  and  conscious  strength  of  an  Innocent  or  a  Boni 
face  ;2  and  the  administration  of  justice  continued  to  be  im 
peded  as  of  old.  In  1510,  Francis  I.  complained  to  Leo  X.  of 
the  crimes  and  scandals  committed  with  impunity  by  those 
who  were  connected  with  the  church,  and  the  pontiff  granted, 
as  a  special  favor  to  France,  that  unless  the  tonsure  and  habit 
had  been  worn  within  four  months  of  the  date  of  the  offence 
for  which  a  criminal  was  arraigned,  he  might  be  subject  to 
secular  jurisdiction.3  This  was  a  very  imperfect  measure  of 
relief,  and  some  fifteen  years  later,  Chassanee,  one  of  the  most 
distinguished  jurists  of  the  day,  lays  it  down  as  an  absolute 
principle  of  law  that  a  clerk  is  exempt  from  secular  justice 
both  before  and  after  conviction  ;  but  he  couples  this  with 
numerous  exceptions,  rendering  the  application  of  the  rule 
almost  as  "  involved  and  troublesome"  as  Sir  Matthew  Hale 
described  the  English  law  to  be,  showing  how  eagerly  the 
courts  and  lawyers  were  laboring  to  find  some  relief  from  the 
difficulties  with  which  the  church  surrounded  the  administra 
tion  of  justice.4 

The  evils  arising  from  this  state  of  things  were  by  no  means 
confined  to  the  escape  of  malefactors  who  personated  the  eccle 
siastical  character.  The  impunity  conferred  by  the  benefit  of 

1  Doleances  des  Etats  de  Languedoc,  art.  25.     (Ibid.  IX.  298,  311.) 

2  Statut.  Synod.  Eccles.    ^Eduens.   arm.   1468  cap.   47   (Martene   IV. 
514-5). 

3  Bull.  Romanum   decet  Pontif.  ap.   Chassenaei  Comment.   Consuet. 
Burgund.  p.  184  (Ed.  1590). 

*  Chassensei  op.  cit.  pp.  182-91,  206. 


220  BENEFIT     OF     CLERGY. 

clergy  on  clerical  offenders  necessarily  exercised  the  most  un 
fortunate  influence  on  the  church  itself,  and  was  a  powerful 
element  in  bringing  about  the  corruption  of  the  ecclesiastical 
body  which  was  the  disgrace  of  the  middle  ages.  An  honest 
archdeacon  of  Salzburg,  writing  in  117o,  complains  that  the 
clergy  were  restrained  by  no  fear  of  punishment,  and  therefore 
abandoned  themselves  to  excesses  which  laymen  hardly  dared 
to  attempt.  However  vile  might  be  their  lives,  they  felt  no 
dread  of  the  ecclesiastical  authorities,  for  they  could  not  be  ac 
cused  by  the  laity,  and  would  not  accuse  each  other,  since  all 
were  guilty  of  the  same  practices,  and  each  endeavored  to  pro 
tect  his  companions  in  sin.  In  fact,  he  adds,  they  are  surely 
the  scales  of  Leviathan  which  cling  to  each  other  so  closely 
that  no  weapon  can  penetrate  into  its  pestiferous  body.1  The 
archdeacon  is  especially  concerned  at  the  immunity  which  was 
thus  conferred  on  the  concubinage  and  adultery  universal 
among  his  clergy,  and  a  practical  illustration  of  this  particular 
result  was  afforded  a  hundred  and  fifty  years  later  in  Naples, 
when,  in  1317,  under  Robert  the  Good,  an  effort  was  made  to 
enforce  a  statute  imposing  a  fine  on  the  concubines  of  priests 
who  refused,  for  a  year  after  excommunication,  to  abandon 
their  guilty  connection.  The  priests  vigorously  assumed  the 
cause  of  their  partners,  and  succeeded  in  extending  the  benefit 
of  clergy  to  their  concubines,  who,  as  part  of  the  clerical  family, 
they  asserted  were  liable  to  prosecution  only  in  the  ecclesiastical 
courts.2  Having  established  this  as  a  regular  rule  of  law,  they 
were  liberated  from  the  sterner  jurisdiction  of  the  laity,  and 
felt  reasonably  secure  that  their  illicit  relationships  would  not 
be  disturbed.  So  long  as  the  benefit  of  clergy  existed,  therefore, 
there  was  no  possibility  of  purifying  the  church  ;  and  when  the 
Hussites  negotiated  with  the  council  of  Bale  for  reconciliation, 
they  wisely  made  its  abrogation  one  of  the  four  conditions  on 
which  they  would  consent  to  return  to  the  fold.3 

1  Henric.  Salisbury.  Archidiac.  de  Calarait.  Eccles.  Salisb.  cap.  ix. 

2  Giannone,  Apologia,  cap.  14. 

3  Hartzheim.  Concil.  German.  V.  760-78. 


CORRUPTION     OF    THE     CHURCH.  221 

On  this  point  the  church  was  immovable  ;  the  evil  con 
tinued  unchecked,  and  it  afforded,  at  the  dawn  of  the  Reforma 
tion,^  a  fair  mark  for  the  indignant  eloquence  of  the  reformers. 
Thus,  in  1521,  Luther,  in  his  controversy  with  Ambrogio 
Caterino,  exclaims  :  "  Finally  criminals  can  neither  be  re 
proved,  nor  accused,  nor  punished,  except  by  the  pope,  who 
could  not  if  he  would,  and  now  does  not  wish  to.  From  this 
prolific  source  arises  their  iniquity;  hence  the  debaucheries, 
the  adulteries,  the  fornications,  the  uncleanness,  the  avarice, 
the  fraud,  the  swindling,  the  universal  chaos  of  crime,  which 
not  only  abounds  but  reigns  everywhere,  unpunished  and  un 
checked  by  fear  of  God  or  man.  If  any  one  reproves  them,  he 
is  guilty  of  sacrilege  and  of  treason  to  the  pope.  All  this  arises 
from  those  accursed  laws  which  exempt  the  clergy  and  all  be 
longing  to  them  from  secular  accusation,  trial,  and  punish 
ment."1  It  seems  to  be  the  echo  of  the  voice  of  Henry  of 
Salzburg,  sounding  through  the  interval  of  three  centuries  and 
a  half;  and  fierce  as  was  the  declamation  of  the  sturdy  reformer, 
he  was  not  guilty  of  exaggeration  if  we  may  believe  the  formal 
complaint  of  the  orthodox,  addressed  in  1522  by  the  repre 
sentatives  of  the  empire  assembled  in  the  Diet  of  Niirnberg  to 
Adrian  VI.,  praying  for  the  reform  which  was  confidently  ex 
pected  at  his  hands.  This  authoritative  document,  in  enume 
rating  the  disorders  existing  in  the  church,  asserts  that  the 
benefit  of  clergy  was  the  direct  source  of  countless  cases  of 
adultery,  robbery,  coining,  homicide,  arson,  and  false  witness 
committed  by  ecclesiastics,  and  significantly  adds  that  unless 
the  clergy  were  relegated  to  secular  jurisdiction,  there  was 
reason  to  fear  an  uprising  of  the  people,  for  no  justice  was  to 
be  had  in  the.  spiritual  courts  against  a  clerical  offender.2 

It  was  not  only  in  the  license  afforded  to  individual  crimi 
nals  that  the  immunity  of  the  clergy  made  the  church  odious 
to  the  people,  but  also  in  the  opportunity  which  it  afforded  of 

1  Lutheri  Opp.  T.  II.  fol.  374  a.  (Jense  1581). 

2  Gravam.  Nat.  German,  cap.  21  (Le  Plat  Monument,  Coucil.  Trident. 
II.  178-9). 

19* 


222  BENEFIT     OP     CLERGY. 

exercising  oppression  and  irresponsible  despotism,  for  which 
no  redress  could  be  obtained.  That  this  was  not  lost  sight  of 
by  the  reformers  in  their  efforts  to  arouse  the  populations  to 
overthrow  the  hoary  structure  of  sacerdotalism  is  shown  in  Sir 
David  Lyndsay's  "  Satyre  of  the  Thrie  Estaits,"  where  he  in 
troduces  a  mendicant  recounting  the  misadventures  which  had 
reduced  him  to  beggary.  He  had  had  a  mare  and  three  cows, 
wherewith  he  had  supported  wife  and  children,  besides  his 
aged  parents.  The  father  dying,  his  mare  had  been  seized  by 
the  laird  for  heriot,  while  the  vicar  carried  off  a  cow.  Then 
his  mother  died,  and  the  vicar  took  another  cow.  This  dimi 
nution  of  their  substance  so  preyed  upon  his  wife,  that  she  soon 
followed,  when  the  vicar  claimed  as  his  fee  the  last  remaining 
cow,  and  the  parish  clerk  seized  their  movables.  His  inter 
locutor  asks  whether  the  parson  had  not  stood  his  friend,  but 
is  told  that  the  latter  had  excommunicated  him  for  being  in 
arrears  with  his  tithes,  and  that  he  has  but  a  groat  remaining 
in  the  world,  with  which  he  is  begging  his  way  to  St.  Andrews 
to  fee  a  lawyer  to  see  whether  he  cannot  get  justice  of  those 
who  have  plundered  him  of  his  little  all.  He  is  laughed  at  for 
his  pains  : — 

"  Thou  art  the  daftcst  fuill  that  ever  I  saw. 
Trows  thou,  man,  be  the  law  to  get  remeid 
Of  men  of  kirk  ?     Xa,  nocht  till  thou  be  deid1' — 

and  presently  this  last  remaining  groat  is  filched  from  him  by 
a  pardoner,  under  promise  of  remitting  for  him  a  thousand 
years'  penance  in  purgatory.1  The  satire  is  broad,  and  yet  it 
has  sufficient  verisimilitude  to  explain  to  us  the  bitterness  with 
which  the  ancient  church  was  regarded  by  the  peoples  which 
threw  off  her  yoke. 

A  feeble  corrective  of  these  manifold  evils  was  proposed  by 

1  Sir  David  Lyndsay's  Works  P.  iv.  pp.  451-(>1  (Early  Engl.  Text  Soc. 
1869).  It  is  somewhat  remarkable  that  the  "  Satyre  of  the  Thrie  Estaits" 
was  repeatedly  represented  in  public  as  a  dramatic  performance  in  1539, 
prior  to  the  first  movements  of  the  Reformation  in  Scotland  (Rogers,  Scot 
land,  Social  and  Domestic,  p.  204;  Grampian  Club,  18(59). 


EFFORTS     OF    THE     CHURCH.  223 

Pius  III.  in  his  projected  Bull  of  Reformation,  prepared  in 
1546,  to  the  effect  that  clerks  wearing  secular  habits,  and 
refusing  to  abandon  them  on  due  admonition,  should  not  be 
entitled  to  the  benefit  of  clergy,  but  should  share  the  whole 
some  rigor  of  secular  law  with  their  secular  brethren.1  This 
would  have  been  wholly  inadequate  to  the  necessities  of  the 
times,  as  it  left  the  iniquities  of  the  clergy  at  large  untouched  ; 
but  as  the  bull  was  prudently  suppressed  through  the  opposition 
of  those  whose  license  it  threatened  to  curtail,  its  suggestions 
are  only  of  interest  as  showing  the  impossibility  of  enforcing 
any  such  distinction  as  Pius  proposed.  The  rule  which  he 
enunciated  had  been  the  law  of  the  church  for  three  centuries, 
and  its  attempted  revival  merely  shows  that  it  had  been  com 
pletely  neglected  and  rendered  obsolete. 

As  the  church  apparently  could  not  or  would  not  reform 
itself,  the  laity  grew  bolder,  and  insisted  on  relief  in  some 
shape.  Thus,  when  Charles  V.,  feeling  himself  juggled  out  of 
the  reform  promised  by  the  council  of  Trent,  undertook  to 
purify  for  himself  the  Teutonic  church,  the  synod  which  in 
1549  assembled  at  Salzburg  in  obedience  to  his  commands 
undertook  to  complain  of  the  invasion  of  clerical  immunity 
which  was  daily  growing  more  audacious  on  the  part  of  the 
secular  judges.  The  progress  of  Lutheranism  had  weakened 
the  respect  felt  for  the  church,  even  by  the  orthodox;  and 
Duke  William  of  Bavaria,  zealous  Catholic  though  he  was, 
responded  briefly  that  the  secular  courts  would  not  have  under 
taken  to  enforce  the  laws  on  the  clergy  had  they  not  found 
that  the  bishops  habitually  allowed  clerical  offences  to  remain 
unpunished.  The  synod  replied  by  a  series  of  x  grievances, 
among  which  were  enumerated  the  infractions  of  clerical  privi 
lege.  The  princes  concerned  were  not  disposed  to  listen  to 
these,  and  proposed  that  they  should  be  submitted  to  the  Em 
peror  Ferdinand,  who  prudently  suppressed  them,  and  no 
action  was  had  on  the  subject  for  twenty  years.2 

1  Published  by  Clausen,  Copenhagen,  1849. 

2  Dalham,  Concil.  Salisbury,  pp.  I52H-9.— Hansiz.  German.  Sacra,  II. 
618. 


224  BENEFIT     OF     CLERGY. 

At  length  the  hopes  of  the  purer  portion  of  the  Catholics 
grew  high  as  the  final  convocation  of  the  council  of  Trent  in 
1562  assembled  with  plentiful  promises  of  the  reformation 
which  every  one  deemed  essential  to  the  preservation  of  the 
orthodox  faith.  One  of  the  principal  reforms  expected  of  the 
council  was  the  removal  of  the  abuses,  which,  under  guise  of 
clerical  immunity,  scandalized  the  faithful  and  corrupted  the 
church.  This  is  evident  in  the  projects  submitted  to  the  as 
sembled  fathers  by  the  various  princes  whose  zeal  for  the  faith 
led  them  to  point  out  the  evils  that  rendered  their  peoples 
impatient  of  the  yoke.  Thus  the  honored  Bartholomew  a 
Martyribus,  Archbishop  of  Braga,  drew  up  for  Sebastian  of 
Portugal  a  series  of  articles  of  reformation,  which  was  pre 
sented  in  the  name  of  the  Portuguese  nation.  In  this  it  was 
proposed  substantially  to  abolish  the  four  lower  orders  of  the 
priesthood,  leaving  nothing  below  the  subdiaconate,  in  order 
to  preserve  the  church  from  the  endless  scandals  arising  from 
the  hordes  who  took  these  lower  orders  for  the  single  purpose 
of  abusing  the  immunity  conferred  by  them.1  The  Spanish 
bishops  asked  for  a  less  radical  measure,  only  suggesting  that 
married  clerks,  who  wore  secular  habits,  should  not  enjoy  the 
benefit  of  clergy ;  and  they  coupled  this  with  a  request  that 
even  papal  authority  should  not  be  allowed  to  sanction  infrac 
tions  of  clerical  privilege.2 

Tin1  Emperor  Ferdinand,  who  had  an  intimate  acquaintance 
with  the  foulness  of  the  Teutonic  church,  and  the  dangers  of 
the  aggressive  Lutherariism  of  the  age,  was  particularly  earnest 
in  his  demands  for  a  thorough  reform  which  should  check  the 
progress  of  the  Reformation.  Under  his  commands,  a  series  of 
articles  was  drawn  up  by  one  of  his  most  trusted  counsellors, 
Frederic  Staphylus,  whose  learning  and  orthodoxy  had  won 
for  him  the  cap  of  the  doctorate  of  theology  at  the  hands  of  the 
pope  himself,  when  his  marriage  had  rendered  the  universities 

1  Artie.  Sebast.  R.  Portug.  No.  39  (Le  Plat  op.  cit.  V.  84). 

2  Artie.  Reform.  Epise.  Hispan.  No.  25,  27  (Ibid.  V.  565). 


COMPLAINTS     OF     THE     LAITY.  225 

doubtful  about  conferring  the  honor  upon  him.  In  this  paper, 
submitted  to  the  council  in  the  name  of  the  emperor,  the  ex 
emptions  of  the  clergy  were  denounced  with  little  ceremony. 
"  Crimes  remain  unpunished,  which  is  the  greatest  of  evils? 

and  ruinous  to  the  public   welfare A  lay  murderer  is 

justly  put   to  death  by  the  law,  while  an  ecclesiastic  escapes 

with  trifling  penance,  or  none  at  all The  clergy  sin 

with  impunity,  whence  it  arises  that  they  are  a  scandal  to  the 
children  of  God,  and  a  pest  to  the  state."  He  argues  that 
these  privileges  are  derived  from  human  and  not  from  divine 
law,  and  that  they  can  be  abrogated  by  the  secular  power,  to 
the  manifest  advantage  of  both  church  and  state.1  The  same 
assertions  are  made  in  another  consultation  prepared  by  order 
of  the  emperor  to  be  laid  before  the  council.  "  The  insolence 
of  the  clergy  has  risen  to  that  point  that  they  think  they  have 
a  right  to  commit  crimes  which  in  laymen  are  punished  with 
the  utmost  rigor  of  the  law."2 

The  spirit  in  which  these  representations  were  received  is 
shown  in  the  extraordinary  proposition  presented  by  the  papal 
legates  to  the*  ambassadors  of  the  sovereigns,  Sept.  23,  1563. 
Two-thirds  of  the  prelates  present  at  the  council  had  been 
induced  to  pledge  themselves  that  no  reformation  of  the  church 
should  be  debated  until  this  paper  had  been  considered,  and  no 
more  effectual  mode  of  evading  the  pressure  for  reform  could 
be  conceived.  It  demanded,  as  a  condition  precedent  to  eccle 
siastical  reformation,  that  the  relations  between  the  various 
princes  and  the  church  should  be  revised  in  a  sense  which 
swept  away  all  concordats  and  pragmatic  sanctions,  and  de 
prived  the  sovereigns  of  what  little  control  they  enjoyed  by 
rendering  the  church  entirely  independent.  In  this  compre 
hensive  scheme,  the  widest  interpretation  was  given  to  the 
claims  of  ecclesiastical  jurisdiction  ;  all  questions  of  doubtful 
clerkship  were  reserved  for  the  spiritual  courts  alone ;  no 

1  Frid.  Staphyli  Consil.  No.  50-2  (Le  Plat  V.  227-8). 

2  Consult.  Imp.  Ferdinand,  cap.  13  (Ibid.  V.  244). 


226  BENEFIT     OF     CLERGY. 

\ 

appeal  from  them  was  allowed  to  the  secular  tribunals  ;  the 
anathema  was  denounced  against  all  who  should  infringe  on 
the  ancient  canons,  and  in  general  everything  that  had  been 
left  to  the  secular  power  in  a  struggle  of  centuries  was  swept 
away.1  As  was  expected,  the  fierce  opposition  of  the  princes, 
whose  rights  of  appointment  and  patronage  were  abolished  in 
this  scheme,  caused  it  speedily  to  be  dropped,  but  its  animus  is 
none  the  less  interesting  as  developing  the  policy  of  Rome, 
and  the  objects  of  papal  ambition. 

Animated  by  this  spirit,  it  was  not  likely  that  the  council 
would  lend  itself  to  any  searching  or  adequate  reform.  At  its 
previous  convocation,  in  1551,  it  had  already  adopted  a  canon 
declaring  that  no  secular  ecclesiastic  should  be  withdrawn  from 
the  jurisdiction  of  his  bishop  on  any  pretence2 — a  rule  which 
infringed  upon  the  judicature  by  this  time  established  in  some 
countries,  such  as  France  and  the  Netherlands.3  Under  the 
protests  of  the  princes,  indeed,  it  was  at  last  willing  to  leave  to 
their  fate  the  hordes  of  worthless  vagabonds  who  .sought  by  a 
nominal  affiliation  on  the  church  to  obtain  the  immunity  from 
punishment  consequent  on  its  prerogatives;  but  "no  disposition 
was  shown  to  abandon  one  tittle  of  the  rights  claimed  for  those 
who  held  a  substantial  place  in  the  ecclesiastical  body.  Thus 
the  reform  was  restricted  to  forbidding  any  one  from  holding  a 
benefice  before  his  fourteenth  year,  or  untonsured,  or  not  in 
the  lower  orders  ;  and  no  one  could  claim  benefit  of  clergy 
unless  he  held  a  benefice,  or,  wearing  the  habit  and  tonsure, 
was  employed  in  the  service  of  a  church,  or  prosecuted  his 
studies  in  a  seminary.  On  the  other  hand,  the  customs  of 
those  countries  which  subjected  married  clerks  to  the  secular 
courts  were  disregarded  by  reviving  a  decretal  of  Boniface 
VIII.,  which  granted  them  the  privileges  of  the  clergy,  pro- 

1  Le  Plat  VI.  228-9,  232-3,  249. 

2  Concil.  Trident.  Sess.  xiv.  dc  Reform,  can.  4. 

3  See  the  remonstrances  of  the  Sovereign  Council  of  Brabant  (Le  Plat 
VII.  84). 


THE     TRIBE  NTINE     REFORM.  22t 

vided  they  wore  the  tonsure  and  habit.1  Another  canon,  regu 
lating  the  proceedings  and  jurisdiction  of  the  ecclesiastical 
courts,  manifested  a  determination  to  win  back  all  that  had 
been  lost  during  the  preceding  two  centuries  ;2  while  a  final 
declaration  asserted  the  continued  vitality  of  all  the  ancient 
canons,  decrees  of  councils,  and  papal  sanctions  which  defined 
the  liberties  of  the  church,  the  immunities  of  her  members, 
and  the  punishments  for  infringing  those  immunities  ;  and  all 
emperors,  kings,  princes,  and  states  were  emphatically  warned 
that  these  penalties  would  be  enforced  with  the  utmost  rigor.3 

This  action  called  forth  vigorous  remonstrances  from  the 
secular  powers  ;  and  that  they  were  not  mistaken  in  the  belief 
that  it  was  intended  to  maintain  and  perpetuate  the  ancient 
abuses,  is  clearly  manifested  by  the  action  of  the  synod  of 
Salzburg,  assembled  in  1569  to  publish  the  council  of  Trent. 
This  assemblage  framed  an  elaborate  system  of  church  polity, 
based  on  the  Tridentine  canons,  so  as  to  reorganize  the  eccle 
siastical  establishment,  define  its  position  and  duties,  and  adapt 
it  in  every  respect  to  the  new  order  of  things.  This  project 
was  formally  "approved  by  Gregory  XIII.  in  1572,  and  the 
Emperor  Maximilian  was  ordered  to  enforce  it.4  As  present 
ing  an  authoritative  exposition  of  the  revised  policy  of  the 
church,  it  is  therefore  worthy  of  note  that  it  asserts  in  the  most 
formal  manner  the  immunity  of  the  clergy  as  founded  not  only 

1  Condi.  Trident.  Sess.  xxm.  do  Reform,  can.  6.— Cf.  can.  7  Extra  in. 
3;  can.  un.  in  Sexto  in.  2.     This  called  forth  vehement  remonstrances 
from  the  states  of  the  Netherlands  and  France  (Lc  Plat  VII.  33,  43,  61, 
269). 

2  Concil.  Trident.  Sess.  xxiv.  de  Reform,  can.  20.     This  likewise  gave 
occasion  to  lively  reclamations — see  Le  Plat,  VII.  17,  18,  0(5,  87.     The 
celebrated  Richardot,  Bishop  of  Arras,  responded  by  a  vigorous  statement 
of  the  little  respect  paid  by  the  courts  to  the  claims  of  clerical  immunity 
(Ibid.  28,  29).     Subsequently,  however,  in  1506,  he  deplores  the  scandals 
caused  in  the  church  by  the  absence  of  punishment  for  clerical  offenders^ 
who,  according  to  popular  belief,  were  always  enabled  to  escape  by  a 
moderate  pecuniary  sacrifice.     (Ibid.  p.  186.) 

3  Concil.  Trident.  Sess.  xxv.  can.  20. 

4  Dalham  Concil.  Salisbury,  pp.  557,  568. 


228  RENE  FIT     OF     CLERGY. 

on  human  but  on  divine  law.  Any  decision  rendered  against 
a  clerk  by  a  secular  tribunal,  whether  in  a  civil  or  a  criminal 
case,  is  pronounced  null  and  void,  and  the  judge  granting  it, 
or  even  endeavoring  to  compel  a  clerk  to  appear  before  him,  is 
excommunicated  until  he  renders  full  satisfaction,  pays  what 
ever  damages  may  have  been  caused  by  his  action,  and  under 
goes  proper  penance.  The  utmost  concession  allowed  is  that 
when  a  clerk  has  committed  some  crime  of  a  peculiarly  heinous 
character,  and  is  supposed  to  be  on  the  point  of  absconding, 
the  civil  authorities  may  arrest  him  on  condition  of  delivering 
him  within  twenty-four  hours  to  the  episcopal  officials  ;J  who, 
it  is  true,  are  urged  to  perform  their  functions  without  fear  or 
favor,  and  are  prohibited  for  the  future  from  taking  bribes  to 
allow  criminals  to  escape.2 

Not  only  were  the  officers  of  secular  justice  thus  forbidden 
to  take  cognizance  of  clerical  offences,  but  even  the  people 
were  enjoined  to  shut  their  eyes  to  the  sins  of  their  pastors,  no 
matter  how  scandalous  might  be  the  lives  of  the  latter.  They 
were  warned  that  the  fate  of  Ham  and  the  curse  of  Canaan 
awited  those  who  did  not  hasten  to  conceal  the  shame  of  their 
fathers  ;  and  as  the  priests  were  the  fathers  of  the  people,  it 
followed  that  their  sins  were  not  to  be  commented  on  or  bruited 
abroad.  In  fact,  it  was  asserted  that  a  wicked  priest  was  a 
chosen  instrument  selected  by  God  to  punish  a  wicked  people; 
he  was  therefore  to  be  venerated  ;  and  those  who  suffered  from 
him  were  on  no  account  to  resist  the  will  of  God  by  accusing 
him  of  his  crimes.3  The  full  audacity  of  such  teaching  as  this 
can  be  appreciated  only  after  a  fair  understanding  of  the  un 
speakable  corruption  of  the  whole  ecclesiastical  body  in  the 
sixteenth  century,  when  popes  and  councils  united  in  declaring 
that  the  laity  were  vitiated  by  their  priests,  that  religion  was 
rendered  odious  by  the  vices  of  its  members,  and  that  the 

1  Coneil.  Salisbury.  XLVI.    Const,  xxxix.  cap.  1,  2,  3.     (Dalham  op. 
cit.  pp.  481-2.) 

2  Ejusd.  const.  Ixiii.  cap.  1,  2  (op.  cit.  pp.  541-2). 

3  Ejtifcd.  roust.  Ivii.  cap.  4,  5  (op.  cit,  pp.  512-3). 


CORRUPTION     DK  FENDED.  229 

Lutheran  heresy  was  the  natural  protest  against  the  clerical 
vileness  which  no  system  of  ecclesiastical  discipline  could  con 
trol.1  That  this  should  fie  the  case  was  the  inevitable  result 
of  such  doctrines,  and  though  the  council  promulgated  various 
regulations  to  check  the  prevalent  vices  of  the  priesthood,  it  is 
no  wonder  that  when  Pius  V.,  not  long  afterwards,  wrote  to 
the  Archbishop  of  Salzburg,  urging  him  to  increased  energy 
in  extirpating  the  concubinage  which  was  universal  among  the 
ministers  of  the  altar,  the  prelate  sadly  responded  that  he  had 
done  everything  in  his  power,  that  he  had  proved  utterly  un 
successful,  and  that  he  despaired  of  being  able  to  effect  the 
desired  reform.2 

The  Tridentine  fathers  and  their  obedient  prelates  might 
arnuse  themselves  with  adopting  and  promulgating  brave  reso 
lutions  proclaiming  the  imprescriptible  rights  of  the  clerical 
body,  but  the  inevitable  progress  of  civilization  and  enlighten 
ment  was  against  them.  The  corruptions  which  brought  about 
the  Reformation  had  gradually  divested  the  church  of  its  claims 
to  respect,  a.nd  the  Reformation  itself  had  had  its  influence  on 
the  orthodox  as  well  as  on  the  reformer.  Never  again  could 
the  chiych  hope  for  implicit  obedience,  or  expect  that  men 
should  listen  to  its  commands  as  to  the  oracles  of  God. 
Scarcely  had  the  ink  fairly  dried  on  the  canons  of  Trent,  when 
the  Polish  Diet  of  loOo  enacted  that  a  clerk  charged  with  any 
criminal  offence  should  be  tried  by  the  secular  and  not  by  the 

1  See  Conc-il.  Coloniens.  aim.  1527  (Ilartzheim  Coneil.  German  VI. 
210-13)— Coiu-.il.  Augustan,  aim.  IMS  (Ibid.  VI.  :388)— Breve  Pii  V.  ad 
Archiep.  Salisburg.  (Ibid.  VII.  iiSl).— Coneil.  Constant,  aim.  15(>7  (Ibid. 
VII.  455)— Breve  Pii  V.  ad  Abbat.  Frisingens.  aim.  1507  (Ibid.  VII.  TxSO). 
— Even  in  the  very  council  which  promulgated  these  doctrines,  Christo 
pher  Spandel,  in  the  closing  address,  declared  that  the  vices  of  the  clergy 
had  made  them  deservedly  the  objects  of  popular  contempt  and  detesta 
tion  (Hartzheim  VII.  407).  The  same  admission  is  made  in  the  opening 
address  of  the  legates  at  the  council  of  Trent  in  1546  (Le  Plat  Monument. 
Coneil  Trident.  I.  40-1 ) . 

'2  Dalham  op.  cit.  pp.  557,  5(58. 
20 


230  BENEFIT     OF     CLERGY. 

spiritual  court.1  Indeed,  even  while  the  council  was  yet  in 
session,  the  French  government,  despairing  of  the  long  prom 
ised  reformation,  took  the  matter  into  its  own  hands,  and  in 
January,  1563,  solved  the  question  by  decreeing  that  no  clerk 
beneath  the  grade  of  sub-deacon  should  enjoy  the  benefit  of 
clergy.2  Some  concession  was  made  in  15GG  by  including 
within  the  privileged  limit  those  in  orders  actually  engaged  in 
the  ministry  of  the  church,  but  this  was  counterbalanced  by 
reserving  to  the  civil  courts  the  proof  of  clergy.3  Still  more 
significant  of  the  tendencies  of  the  age  was  the  fact  that  while 
France  was  risking  her  existence  in  the  effort  to  crush  her 
Huguenot  children,  she  never  could  be  persuaded  to  accept 
and  publish  the  council  of  Trent,  notwithstanding  the  most 
urgent  and  repeated  efforts  of  the  Holy  See.  The  Venetians, 
also,  in  1005,  showed  their  contempt  for  the  claims  of  the 
church  by  imprisoning  two  ecclesiastics  whom  they  tried  by 
the  secular  tribunals,  thus  contributing  to  the  rupture  which 
made  Fra  Paolo  celebrated.  As  though  to  console  himself  for 
the  consequent  defeat,  Paul  V.,  in  1610,  issued  a  fierce  anathe 
ma,  to  be  recited  in  all  churches  on  every  Maundy  Thursday, 
wherein  he  proclaimed  excommunication  and  interdict  against 
all  who  should  infringe  in  any  way  on  clerical  immunity — 
censures  only  removable  by  the  pope,  himself.4  In  1627, 
Urban  VIII.  refurbished  and  reissued  the  Bull  In  Ccena 
Domini,  one  of  the  clauses  of  which  pronounced  ipso  facto 
excommunication  against  all  officials  concerned  in  bringing 
ecclesiastics  before  secular  tribunals,  and  all  potentates  issuing 
laws  under  which  they  could  be  so  tried.0  Notwithstanding 
that  this  Bull  was  yearly  read  in  all  the  churches,  the  bigoted 

1  Krasinski,  Reformation  in  Poland,  I.  131. 

2  Ordonnance   de   Roussillon,  Janvier   1563,  art.  21    (Isambert,   XV, 
165). 

3  Ordonn.  de  Moulius,  Fevr.  1560,  art.  40,  55  (Ibid.  pp.  200,  203). 

4  Lunig.  Cod.  Ital.  Diplom.  T.  II.  p.  2013.     Bull.  Pastoralis  Rom.  Pon- 
tif.  §§  15,  16,  19,  20,  24  (Mag.  Bull.  Roman.  III.  250). 

5  Bull.  Pastoralis  Rom.  Pontif.  §  15  (M.  Bull.  Rom.  IV.  114). 


PRESENT     POLICY     OP     THE     CHURCH.  231 

Louis  XIV.  while  enforcing  Catholicism  with  relentless  sever 
ity,  yet  manifested  complete  disregard  of  the  pretensions  of  the 
church  by  creating,  in  1G95,  mixed  tribunals  of  ecclesiastics 
and  laymen  for  the  trial  of  clerical  offenders.1  If,  during  the 
eighteenth  century,  the  benefit  of  clergy  was  still  maintained, 
it  was  under  such  limitations  and  restrictions  as  showed  that 
it  existed  only  by  sufferance  of  the  civil  power,2  and  in  many 
places  it  was  virtually  abrogated.3  In  this,  however,  Spain 
was  exceptional.  The  old  privileges  were  there  maintained, 
leading  to  the  old  abuses.  In  1745,  in  the  Spanish  colony  of 
New  Granada,  we  find  the  secular  authorities  complaining  of 
the  forestalling  of  cattle  by  ecclesiastics,  sometimes  on  their 
own  account,  and  sometimes  for  laymen  who  used  the  clergy 
as  agents  in  order  to  enjoy  the  benefit  of  the  ecclesiastical 
courts  to  escape  the  provisions  of  the  laws  against  regrating  ; 
and  some  years  later  the  complaint  is  renewed  in  more  general 
terms,  that  laymen  transacted  their  business  in  the  name  of 
ecclesiastics  in  order  to  enjoy  the  benefit  of  their  privileges  in 
court.4  Throughout  Europe,  however,  the  Revolution  of  1789 
naturally  swept  away  what  remained  of  these  abuses,  with  the 
other  shreds  and  tatters  of  class-privilege,  and  even  in  Austria 
at  the  present  day  all  men  at  last  are  once  more  equal  before 
the  law. 

Yet  an  infallible  church  cannot  abandon  a  claim  that  has 
once  been  made  and  admitted.  If  tyrannical  princes  and  re 
publics  insist  on  the  equality  of  the  citizen,  and  subject  clerical 
offenders  to  the  laws  of  the  land  as  though  they  were  ordinary 
mortals,  it  is  simply  an  abusive  exercise  of  power,  to  which 

1  Ordonn.  Avril,  1095,  art.  38  (Isambert,  XXI.  254). 

2  Heiicourt,  Loix.  Eccles.  de  France,  E.  xix.  (Ncufchatel,  1774).      See 
also  Dupin,  Manuel  du  Droit  Pub.  Eccles.  Paris,  1845,  p.  39. 

3  In  Bavaria,  for  instance,  the  struggle  was  kept  up  for  two  hundred 
years,  and  in  1772  we  find  the  clergy  complaining  of  the  secular  jurisdic 
tion  exercised  over  them  in  criminal  matters  as  a  violation  of  their  char 
tered  rights.— Dalham  Concil.  Salisb.  p.  644. 

*  Groot,  Historia  Ecclesiastica  y  Civil  de  Nueva  Granada,  Bogota", 
1869, 1.  371,  376. 


BENEFIT     OF     CLERGY. 

the  church  submits  with   Christian  meekness  when  she  lias  no 
means  at  hand  to  assert  her  rights.      The  sacro-sanct  council  of 
Trent,  under  the  direct  inspiration  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  con 
firmed  the  privileges  enjoyed  for  centuries,  and  announced  to 
all  earthly  potentates  that  any  invasion  of  those  privileges  was 
punishable  with  the  dread  anathema  that  bars  forever  the  gates 
of  salvation.     As  long  as  this  remains  unrepealed  by  an  as 
sembly  equally  gifted  with   the  divine  power,  it  is  the  irrefra 
gable  law  which  overrides  all   human  ordinances.      In  fact,  it 
is  doubtful  whether  even  an  (jccumenic  council  could  undertake 
to  abandon  these  positions,  for  Pius  IX.,  in  an  apostolic  letter 
of  1851,  has  condemned  as  a   heresy  the  doctrine  that  clerical 
immunity  drew  its   origin    from   the   civil   power,    and   asserts 
that  it  is  derived  from  the  direct  order  of  God.1     So  when,  in 
May,  1851,  the  Republic  of  New  Granada  dared  to  abolish  the 
ecclesiastical   courts  and   to   subject   the   clergy  to  the  secular 
tribunals,  Pius  lifted  up  his  voice  and  proclaimed  to  the  nations 
that  the  act  was  null  and  void,  and  that  all  concerned  in  it  had 
incurred  the  censures  inevitable  upon  those  who  wilfully  seek 
to  violate  the  imprescriptible  rights  of  the  church.2     Not  less 
energetic  and  decisive  was  his  action  when  the  Mexican  con 
stitution  of  1855  proposed  to  abolish  the  benefit  of  clergy  ;  the 
constitution  was  at  once  declared  to  be  annulled,  and  its  sup 
porters  were  warned  of  the  penalties  in  store  for  them.3     Evi 
dently  the   church    only  lacks    the    power  and   not   the  will  to 
interfere  as  of  old  in  the  civil  and  political  affairs  of  the  nations. 
So,  in   the   manifesto  of  the  bishops  who  assembled   in   Rome 
for  the  canonization  of  the  Japanese  martyrs  in  18G2,  one  of 
the  complaints  made  against  the  "  Sub-Alpine  Government" 
was  that  it  did  not  hesitate  to  subject  the  priests  of  God  to  the 
unhallowed  courts  of  secular  law4 — the   principal  motives  for 
the  protest  being  apparently  that  the  Italian  cabinet  had  found 

1  Litt.  Apostol.  MultipUces  inter,  x.  Jan.  1851. 

2  Alloc.  Acerbissirnum,  27  Septemb.  1852. 

3  AMoc.Nunquamforc,  15  Decemb.  1856. 

4  Declarat.  Episc.  8  Junii  1862. 


PRESENT     POLICY     OF     THE     CHURCH.  233 

itself  obliged  to  prosecute  the  bishops  of  Bologna  and  Fano  for 
issuing  circulars  ordering  their  priests  to  make  use  of  the  con 
fessional  for  the  purpose  of  stimulating  desertion  in  the  Italian 
army.  In  view  of  these  declarations  of  principle,  it  is  there 
fore  a  matter  of  course  to  find,  in  the  Syllabus  of  December, 
1864,  the  immunity  of  ecclesiastics  from  secular  jurisdiction 
claimed  as  a  matter  independent  of  the  civil  law,  and  to  see 
that  potentates  are  warned  that  they  have  no  right  to  curtail 
the  exclusive  control  of  the  spiritual  courts  over  all  persons 
and  things  appertaining  to  the  church.1  In  fact,  if  any  doubt 
could  remain  as  to  the  position  of  the  Roman  curia  on  the 
subject,  it  would  be  removed  by  the  latest  expression  of  the 
authoritative  volition  of  the  Pope.  In  his  Bull  of  Oct.  12th, 
18G9,  replacing  the  older  Bulls  In  Ccena  Domini,  defining  the 
offences  which  entail  ipso  facto  excommunication,  Pius  IX. 
denounces  this  last  and  severest  of  ecclesiastical  punishments 
on  all  concerned,  directly  or  indirectly,  in  subjecting  ecclesias 
tics  to  secular  courts,  and  on  all  powers  which  promulgate  laws 
or  statutes  infringing  on  the  privileges  of  the  church  ;  and  he 
expressly  prohibits  any  prelate  from  absolving  such  offenders.2 
Rome  therefore  looks  back  with  fond  regret  to  the  days  of 
Innocent  III.,  and  eagerly  anticipates  the  time  when  oppor 
tunity  shall  enable  her  to  revendicate  the  rights  of  which  she 
has  been  deprived  by  the  irreligious  generations  of  the  past 
three  centuries.  Yet  in  weighing  the  countless  blessings  which 
have  been  vouchsafed  to  her  church  during  the  eventful  past, 
it  would  be  difficult  to  find  one  more  substantial  than  the  "  per 
secution"  which  has  restrained  her  from  the  suicidal  gratifica 
tion  of  her  own  inordinate  desires. 


1  Syllab.  Dec.  1804,  Prop.  30,  31. 

2  Bull.  Afjostolicic  Sedis,  TV.  Id.  Oct.  18G9,  cap.  7. 


20* 


EXCOMMUNICATION. 


IN  the  long  career  of  the  church  towards  universal  domina 
tion,  perhaps  the  most  efficient  instrument  at  its  command 
was  its  control  over  the  sacrifice  of  the  altar.     Through  this 

O 

it  opened  the  gates  of  heaven  to  the  obedient,  and  plunged  the 
rebellious  into  the  pit  of  hell ;  and  the  generations  which  im 
plicitly  believed  in  its  authority  over  the  world  to  come  were 
necessarily  rendered  docile  subjects  in  this  world.  Armed 
with  power  so  vast  and  vague,  it  could  intervene  decisively  in 
the  dissensions  between  sovereigns  and  people,  and  subdue  them 
both  to  its  designs  of  highest  state-craft,  making  each  the  means 
to  humiliate  the  other  ;  while,  at  the  same  time,  it  could  con 
trol  the  life  of  the  obscurest  peasant,  and  bind  him  helplessly 
in  blind  submission  to  the  behests  of  its  humblest  minister. 
This  despotism,  so  absolute  and  so  all-pervading,  which  dictated 
the  action  of  kings,  while  it  interpenetrated  every  fibre  of  so 
ciety,  was  based  upon  the  religion  of  love,  and  self-sacrifice, 
and  humility.  Human  history,  so  fruitful  of  paradoxes,  scarce 
offers  an  example  more  notable  of  the  perversion  of  good  into 
evil.  The  divine  precepts  of  charity,  forgiveness,  and  self- 
abnegation,  distorted  by  the  ignorance,  the  passion,  and  the 
selfishness  of  man,  became  the  warrant  by  which  greed  and 
ambition  attained  the  fruition  of  their  wildest  hopes. 

To  describe  minutely  the  countless  vicissitudes  by  which 
these  results  were  reached  would  greatly  transcend  the  limits 
of  the  present  essay.  I  can  only  propose  to  present  such  a 


236  EXCOMMUNICATION. 

general  view  of  the  subject  as  may  aid  the  student  in  tracing 
the  origin  of  some  of  the  moral  and  material  forces  which  have 
moulded  our  civilization,  and  which,  in  a  degree  somewhat 
modified,  are  still  at  work  around  us.  The  church  is  infallible; 
it  draws  its  inspiration  from  above,  and  cannot  rightfully  be 
called  to  account  by  any  earthly  power  for  the  use  which  it 
may  make  of  the  authority  confided  to  it.  Thus  autocratic  by 
the  organic  law  of  its  being,  uncontrolled  and  uncontrollable 
by  any  human  power  external  to  itself,  even  the  observer  of 
the  present  may  find  profit  in  contemplating  what  was  its 
policy  in  the  past,  and  the  use  which  it  has  made  of  the  supre 
macy  conceded  to  it  of  old. 


PRIMITIVE  DISCIPLINE. 

When  Jesus  said  to  his  disciples — 

"Moreover,  if  thy  brother  shall  trespass  against  thee,  go  and  tell 
him  his  fault  between  thee  and  him  alone  :  if  he  shall  hear  thee, 
thou  hast  gained  thy  brother. 

"  But  if  he  will  not  hear  thee,  then  take  with  thee  one  or  two 
more,  that  in  the  mouth  of  two  or  three  witnesses  every  word  may 
be  established. 

"And  if  he  shall  neglect  to  hear  them,  tell  it  unto  the  church, 
but  if  he  neglect  to  hear  the  church,  let  him  be  unto  thee  as  a 
heathen  man  and  a  publican. 

"  Verily  I  say  unto  you  ;  whatsoever  ye  shall  bind  on  earth  shall 
be  bound  in  heaven  ;  and  whatsoever  ye  shall  loose  on  earth  shall 
be  loosed  in  heaven." — (Matt.  xvin.  15-18. j — 

it  would  seem  as  though  they  at  once  proceeded  to  draw  from 
his  words  deductions  at  variance  with  the  exhaustless  love  and 
pity  which  it  was  his  mission  to  preach  to  man,  for  the  sacred 
narrative  proceeds — 

"  Then  came  Peter  to  him  and  said,  Lord,  how  often  shall  my 
brother  sin  airainst  me  and  I  forgive  him  ?  till  seven  times?" 


PRIMITIVE     DISCIPLINE.  237 

And  Christ,  seeing  that  his  precept  was  in  danger  of  being 
misinterpreted,  at  once  detected  and  rebuked  the  hidden 
thoughts  of  his  disciples — 

"  T  say  not  unto  thee,  until  seven  times  ;  but,  until  seventy  times 
seven." 

Frail  human  nature  grasped  eagerly  the  reversion  of  the 
symbolical  power  to  bind  and  to  loose,  and  interpreted  it  in 
the  most  rigid  and  odious  form.  It  rejoiced  in  the  authority 
to  treat  an  erring  brother  as  a  heathen  and  a  publican,  but 
with  all  convenient  speed  it  forgot  the  limitation  to  forgive  him 
seventy  times  seven. 

The  teachings  of  the  apostles  shared  the  same  fate  as  those 

of  the  Master.     Jesus  had  said  to  them  (John  xm.  3-")) "  By 

this  shall  all  men  know  that  ye  are  my  disciples,  if  ye  have 
love  one  to  another,"  and  they  never  tired  of  inculcating  that 
"  God  is  love  ;  and  he  that  dwelleth  in  love  dwelleth  in  God, 
and  God  in  him"  (I.  John  iv.  1C),  and  of  preaching  forgive 
ness,  meekness,  and  long-suffering.  Christ  had  said,  "Judge 
not,  that  ye  be  not  judged,"  and  Paul  repeated  after  him 
(Rom.  xiv.  10),  "For  why  dost  thou  judge  thy  brother?  or 
why  dost  thou  set  at  naught  thy  brother?  for  we  shall  all 
stand  before  the  judgment-seat  of  Christ."  When  one  of  the 
faithful  had  strayed,  he  was  to  be  brought  back  with  all  gentle 
ness  and  kindness — "  Brethren,  if  a  man  be  overtaken  in  a 
fault,  ye  which  are  spiritual  restore  such  an  one  in  the  spirit 
of  meekness  ;  considering  thyself,  lest  thou  also  be  tempted" 
(Galat.  vi.  1).  And  above  all,  those  to  whom  the  guidance 
of  their  brethren  was  confided  were  warned  to  exercise  their 
authority  meekly  and  humbly — "  In  all  things  approving  our 
selves  as  the  ministers  of  God,  in  much  patience,  in  afflictions, 
in  necessities,  in  distresses"  (II.  Cor.  vi.  4).  "  Neither  as 
being  lords  over  God's  heritage,  but  being  ensamples  to  the 
flock"  (I.  Peter  v.  3). 

Yet  with  all  this,  the  old  stern  exclusive  spirit  of  his  Jewish 
training  occasionally  breaks  out  in  St.  Paul,  and  it  suited  the 


238  EXCOMMUNICATION. 

temper  of  later  generations  rather  to  give  heed  to  his  denuncia 
tions  of  punishment  than  to  obey  his  injunctions  of  forbearance 
and  forgiveness. 

It  was  no  part  of  the  recognized  duty  of  the  apostles  to  frame 
an  elaborate  system  of  ecclesiastical  discipline  that  should 
regulate  the  church  of  the  future  in  its  development  over  the 
earth.  Believing,  as  they  did,  that  the  second  coming  of 
Christ  was  at  hand,  temporary  regulations  alone  seemed  neces 
sary  for  the  scanty  flock  of  believers,  whose  enthusiasm  in  sub 
mitting  themselves  to  the  law  of  love  was  a  sufficient  guarantee 
against  serious  trouble,  during  the  short  time  that  was  to  elapse 
before  the  Messiah  himself  should  return  to  govern  the  world. 
Accordingly,  the  indications  which  are  furnished  in  the  Pauline 
epistles  as  to  the  nature  of  the  spiritual  laws  for  the  control  of 
the  Christian  churches  are  necessarily  vague  and  imperfect. 
Still,  they  show  us  the  existence  of  two  kinds  of  penalties. 
The  first  and  most  severe  is  the  mysterious  one  which  has 
puzzled  so  many  commentators — "  To  deliver  such  an  one  unto 
Satan  for  the  destruction  of  the  flesh,  that  the  spirit  may  be 
saved  in  the  day  of  the  Lord  Jesus,"  which  is  threatened  in  I. 
Cor.  v.  for  the  punishment  of  a  moral  offence,  incest,  and  in  I. 
Tim.  i.  20,  to  repress  the  spiritual  sin  of  heresy.  The  other 
penalty  is  segregation  from  the  church — "  But  now  I  have 
written  unto  you  not  to  keep  company,  if  any  man  that  is 
called  a  brother  be  a  fornicator,  or  covetous,  or  an  idolater,  or 
a  railer,  or  a  drunkard,  or  an  extortioner;  with  such  a  one  no 
not  to  eat"  (I.  Cor.  \.  11).  Yet  even  this  was  to  be  adminis 
tered  in  a  loving  spirit,  and  was  evidently  an  infliction  of  com 
paratively  trivial  import. 

"  Now  we  command  you,  brethren,  in  the  name  of  the  Lord 
Jesus  Christ,  that  ye  withdraw  yourselves  from  any  brother  that 
walketh  disorderly,  not  after  the  tradition  which  he  received  of  us. 

"  And  if  any  man  obey  not  our  word  by  this  epistle,  note  that 
man,  and  have  no  company  with  him,  that  he  may  be  ashamed. 

"Yet  count  him  not  as  an  enemy,  but  admonish  him  as  a 
brother"  (II.  Tims.  in.  6,  14,  15). 


PRIMITIVE     DISCIPLINE.  239 

And  even  the  anathema  maranatha  which  subsequently  came 
to  have  a  significance  so  awful  meant  evidently  at  this  time 
only  a  setting  aside  or  separation.1  As  we  shall  see,  however, 
in  process  of  time  all  of  these  penalties  became  practically 
merged  into  one,  combining  all  the  severity  of  each  ;  and  the 
offender  who  was  cut  off  from  the  church,  was  delivered  to 
Satan,  not  in  the  flesh  for  the  salvation  of  the  soul,  but  in  the 
soul  for  eternity.  That  a  man  believing  himself  to  possess  a 
power  so  fearful  could  find  pleasure  in  wielding  it,  and  in  con 
demning  his  fellow-creatures  to  a  destiny  so  unspeakable,  is  an 
exhibition  of  the  worst  and  darkest  side  of  human  nature  ;  but 
when  we  see  this  performed  daily  in  the  name  and  for  the 
honor  of  a  God  of  love  and  pity,  and  for  the  honest  purpose  of 
enforcing  the  law  of  charity  and  universal  brotherhood,  we  are 
led  to  face  one  of  the  mysteries  of  man's  rnany-sided  character 
which  are  past  solution  by  our  finite  intelligence. 

This  penalty  of  simple  segregation  or  expulsion  was,  of 
course,  a  matter  inherently  within  the  power  of  each  congre 
gation  of  the  faithful.  A  body  bound  together  merely  by  the 
ties  of  spontaneous  aggregation  could  choose  its  own  associates, 
and  could  refuse  to  consort  with  those  whom  it  might  consider 
unfitted  for  or  unworthy  of  companionship,  of  which  the  test 
became,  at  an  early  period,  the  act  of  partaking  of  the  Lord's 
Supper.  The  references  to  this  by  St.  Paul  (I.  Cor.  x.  16-18; 
xi.  20-34),  combined  with  some  obscure  allusions  to  breaking 
bread  (Acts  u.  41-46  ;  xx.  7-11),  would  seem  to  show  that  at 
first  this  test  was  eating  in  common,  and  that  in  obedience  to 
the  command,  "  Whatsoever  ye  do  in  word  and  deed,  do  all  in 
the  name  of  the  Lord  Jesus,  giving  thanks  to  God  and  the 
Father  by  him"  (Coloss.  in.  17),  the  early  Christians  felt  that 
every  act  of  the  believer  should  be  hallowed,  that  his  whole 
life  was  a  ceaseless  dedication  to  God,  and  that  his  food  and 

1  Cf.  Rom.  ix.  3.— I.  Cor.  xn.  3;  xvi.  22.— Galat.  i.  9.  The  word 
maranatha  is  simply  a  compound  of  Mar  an,  Lord,  and  atha,  cometh 
(Buxtorfi  Lex.  Chald.  col.  2466). 


240  EXCOMMUNICATION 

drink  were  the  gift  of  the  Lord,  to  be  taken  in  thankfulness, 
as  making  him  one  with  the  Saviour  who  had  died  for  him. 
Yet  as  the  circle  of  the  faithful  enlarged,  a  celebration  of  this 
kind  could  not  but  give  rise,  among  weaker  brethren,  to  occa 
sional  scenes  which  to  devout  minds  were  a  disgrace  to  the 
church,  and  a  scandal  to  the  memory  of  the  Crucified.  It  was 
apparently  to  repress  these  that  St.  Paul  ordered  that  the  de 
mands  of  animal  hunger  and  thirst  should  be  satisfied  at  home, 
and  that  the  meal  of  fellowship  in  the  place  of  worship  should 
be  sober,  and  worthy  of  the  recollections  which  it  was  designed 
to  excite. 

In  process  of  time  this  celebration  seems  to  have  become 
separated  into  two — the  agape,  or  love-feast,1  and  the  minis 
tration  of  the  Eucharist,  though  the  latter  long  retained  its 
original  aspect  of  a  meal,  rather  than  a  ceremony  purely  reli 
gious.  Thus,  a  century  later  than  St.  Paul,  we  learn  from 
Justin  Martyr  that,  after  prayers  and  thanksgiving,  the  at 
tendant  deacons  distributed  among  the  congregation  the  bread 
and  wine,  which  were  also  carried  home  to  those  prevented  by 
legitimate  reasons  from  attending  at  worship.2  That  the  Eu- 

1  The   (if/npw,  or  love-leasts,  continued  long  to  be   celebrated  in  the 
churches.     About  the  middle  of  the  fourth  century  the  council  of  Lao- 
dicjiea  endeavored  to  abolish  them  by  forbidding  participation  in  them  to 
both  clerks  and  laymen  (can.  27,  28),  a  prohibition  which  was  imitated 
in  :!97  by  the  third  council  of  Carthage  (can.  30). 

2  The  extreme  reformers  of  the  modern  Italian  church,  in  their  efforts 
to  restore  the  primitive  simplicity  of  worship,  imitate,  or  rather  exceed, 
the  absence  of  ceremony  described  in  the  text.     According  to  a  recent 
traveller  who  attended  one  of  their  conventicles  in  Florence,  the  elements 
were  represented  by  a  loaf  of  bread  and  a  decanter  of  wine,  placed  upon  a 
common  table  in  the  midst  of  the   assembly.     After  various  religious 
exercises,  one  of  the  congregation  arose  and  broke  off  a  piece  of  bread, 
which  he  ate  and  passed  the  loaf  to  a  neighbor,  and  it  was  thus  handed 
around.     He  also  poured  out  a  tumblerful  of  wine,  took  a  sip,  and  it  then 
followed  the  loaf.     Unimpressive  as  this  may  seem,  it  derives  full  signifi 
cance  from  the  intense  religious  enthusiasm  of  the  Evangelical  Christians, 
as  they  call  themselves.     This,  indeed,  may  be  seen  by  the  hymn  which 


PRIMITIVE     DISCIPLINE.  241 

charist  still  was  more  than  the  mere  symbolical  morsel  of 
bread  and  mouthful  of  wine  and  water,  is  evident  when  the 
same  author  explains  that  it  was  provided  by  the  voluntary 
oblations  of  the  faithful.1  The  same  is  shown  in  the  next  cen 
tury  by  the  reproaches  of  Cyprian  to  an  avaricious  dame,  that 
she  comes  to  the  Lord's  Supper  without  bringing  her  share  of 
the  sacrifice,  and  that,  although  she  is  rich,  she  partakes  of 
the  Eucharist  which  has  been  contributed  by  the  poor.2  Even 
towards  the  close  of  the  fourth  century,  a  sermon  attributed  to 
St.  Augustine  echoes  the  remark  of  Cyprian  in  stigmatizing  as 
disgraceful  the  conduct  of  a  man,  able  to  make  oblations,  who 
receives  the  communion  from  the  offering  of  another.3  About 
the  same  period  there  appears  to  have  arisen  the  necessity  of 
limiting  the  nature  of  the  oblations,  which  seem  to  have  be 
come  varied,  leading  doubtless  to  abuses  arid  perversions  of  the 
rite.4  Such  portions  of  these  eucharistic  offerings  as  were  not 
consumed  by  those  present,  or  conveyed  to  the  absent,  were 
distributed  among  both  clergy  and  laity,  especial  care  being 
taken  in  general  that  none  should  reach  the  catechumens,  who 

was  sung  immediately  before  the  distribution  of  the  elements.  I  give  the 
first  two  and  last  two  verses  : — 

"  Giojosi  o  fratelli,  "  II  caro  compiamo 
Sediamo  alia  mousa,  Precetto  diviuo  ; 

In  cui  sotto  uu  velo  Gustiamo  o  fratelli, 

La  fcde  diwpensa  JNTel  pane  c  iiel  vino 

Lc  arcane,  lo  sant)  Le  arcane,  le  pure 

Dovizie  d'amor.  Dolce/ze  d'amor. 

"II  pane  e  il  vino  "  Si  celebri  in  qnesto 
I  simboli  sono  Santissimo  rito 

Di  grazia  pereune,  Del  nostro  riscatto 

Di  pace  e  perdono,  '  11  prezzo  iniinito, 

Del  corpo  c  del  sangue  In  tin  che  dai  cieli 

Del  nostro  Signer.  Nou  torni  il  Signor." 

Talmadge''s  Religious  Reform  in  Italy,  London,  1S66,  pp.  89-91. 

1  Justin.  Martyr.  Apol.  II. 

2  Cyprian,  de  Opere  et  Eleemosyn.  eap.  xv. 

3  Augustin.  Sermon.  Append.  Serin,  celxv.  eap.  2.     (Ed.  Benedict.) 

4  Conoil.  Carthag.  III.  can.  xxiv. 

21 


242  EXCOMMUNICATION. 

were  not  permitted  to  join  in  the  communion.1  It  was  thus, 
indeed,  that  the  poor  of  the  church  were  fed,  showing  the  sub 
stantial  nature  of  the  offerings.2  In  some  places,  also,  the 
custom  obtained,  to  a  comparatively  late  period,  to  call  in  the 
school  children  and  feed  them  on  the  surplus  ;  and  thus,  occa 
sionally,  it  might  reach  the  unbaptized,  as  in  a  case  mentioned 
by  Evagrius,  resulting  in  a  miracle.3  The  use  thus  made  of 
the  food  remaining  must  have  continued  until  the  ninth  cen 
tury,  as  we  find  it  forbidden  in  the  False  Decretals.4 

The  idea  of  a  celebration  of  this  nature  was  familiar  to  all 
the  races  from  which  converts  Avere  to  be  drawn,  for  propitia 
tory  and  eucharistical  feasts  formed  part  of  the  religious  insti 
tutions  of  the  Hebrews  (Dent.  xiv.  22-9),  and  the  solemn 
eating  of  the  sacrifice  was,  throughout  Pagandom,  the  bond 
which  manifested  the  connection  between  those  who  wor 
shipped  the  same  deities.  The  Izeshne  sacrifice  of  the  Ma/ 
deans  bears  a  very  remarkable  similarity  to  the  form  which 
the  Mass  assumed  in  its  final  development,  even  to  its  perform 
ance  for  the  benefit  of  the  souls  of  the  dead;5  and,  in  fact, 


1  Thcopli.  Alexandria.  Cornmouitor.  can.  vii.  (Ilarduin.  I.  1109). 

2  Cyprian  de'Op.  et  Eleemos. 

3  Evagrius  (Hist.  Eecles.  Lib.  iv.  cap.  85),  writing  during  the  reign  of 
Justinian,  describes  this  as  an  old  custom  in  Constantinople.     That  it  was 
regarded  as  a  religious  rite  is  evident  from  the  miracle  referred  to.     It 
chanced  that  a  Jewish  boy  partook  of  the  holy  repast,  along  with  his  com 
panions,  and  on  his  return  home  mentioned  it  as  an  excuse  for  his  delay. 
The  father,  wrho  was  a  glass- maker,  transported  with  rage,  cast  his  son 
into  a  glass-furnace,  where  the  child  remained  for  three  days  unharmed 
amid  the  flames,  until  his  mother,  who  had  vainly  searched  him  every 
where,  chanced  to  hear  him  answering  her  call.     A  beautiful  woman,  he 
said,  had  at  once  appeared  to  him,  covering  him  with  a  garment  impene 
trable  to  the  fire,  and  supplying  him  with  food  when  hungry.     By  order 
of  Justinian  the  mother  and  son  were  baptized,  and  the  father,  proving 
obdurate,  was  crucified.     The  same  story  is  related  by  Nicephorus  Cal- 
listus  (Hist.  Eccles.  Lib.  xvn.  cap.  18)  and  by  Gregory  of  Tours  (Mirac. 
Lib.  r.  cap.  10).     The  custom  which  gave  rise  to  it  was  likewise  followed 
in  the  West,  as  appears  from  Concil.  Matiscon.  II.  aim.  585  «an.  6. 

*  Pseudo-Clement.  Epist.  ii. 

5  Shayast-la-Shayast,  ch.  xvii.     (West's  Translation,  pp.  :284,  38.S.) 


PRIMITIVE     DISCIPLINE.  243 

from  China  to  Mexico,  the  prevalence  of  the  custom  is  so  re 
markably  uniform  as  to  lead  even  the  most  orthodox  to  the 
theory  that  all  religions  are  but  branches  of  one  primeval 
and  universal  form  of  belief.1  That  the  eucharistic  feast  should 
come  to  be  regarded  as  the  symbolic  bond  of  union  between 
believers,  and  of  their  communion  with  God,  was  therefore 
inevitable,  and  every  one  professing  Christianity  was  required 
to  partake  whenever  he  attended  the  meetings  for  worship.2 
These  meetings,  in  some  churches,  were  held  regularly  twice 
a  day,  and  it  was  the  duty  of  the  faithful  to  be  always  present;3 
while  in  others  a  daily  service  only  was  required,  in  others 
weekly,  and  in  others  again  several  times  a  week.4  Not  satis 
fied  with  the  frequent  opportunities  thus  afforded  of  partici 
pating  in  the  communion,  pious  souls  would  carry  the  Eucha 
rist  home  with  them,  that  they  might  enjoy  its  benefits  at  all 
times  ;5  and  so  universal  was  its  administration  that  infants  of 
the  tenderest  years,  as  soon  as  they  received  baptism,  were 
expected  to  be  brought  regularly  to  the  altar,  where  they 
joined  unconsciously  in  the  sacred  mysteries,6  the  belief  of  the 

1  See  Henrion,  Hist.  Eccle-aastique,  T.  VII.  pp.  1239  sqq.,  where  the 
reader  may  find  a  very  curious  defence  of  this  theory,  illustrated  with 
abundant  proof  from  the  religious  ceremonies  of  many  races.     Coulanges 
(La  Cite  Antique,  Liv.  III.  ch.  1)   has  well  developed  the  significance 
attaching  to  partaking  of  religious  repasts  and  of  food  prepared  on  the 
altar,  in  Greece  and  Rome. 

2  Canon.  Apostol.  x. — Concil.  Antioch.  ann.  341  can.  3. 

3  Constit.  Apostol.  Lib.  n.  cap.  xl.,  Ixiii. 

4  Cyprian  de  Orat,  Domin.  cap.  18.— Justin.  Martyr.  Apol.  n.—Tertull. 
de  Orat.  cap.  19. 

5  Tertull.  de  Uxor.  Lib.  n.  cap.  v. — Cyprian,  de  Spectac.  cap.  5. 

6  Cyprian,  de  Lapsis  cap.  25. — The  veneration  which  already  was  be 
stowed  on  the  Eucharist  is  manifested  by  this  passage.     During  the  De- 
cian  persecution,  a  female  infant  was  carried  by  her  nurse  before  the 
magistrates,  and  made  to  eat  of  the  pagan  sacrificial  meats.    Her  parents, 
ignorant  of  the  fact,  subsequently  took  her  to  church,  and  when  the 
deacon  placed  the  holy  cup  to  her  lips,  she  resisted  violently.     Forced  at 
length  to  swallow  a  mouthful  of  the  sacred  wine,  she  immediately  threw 
it  up.     As  Cyprian  remarks,  the  Eucharist  could  not  remain  in  her  vio 
lated  mouth  and  body  ;  the  draught,  sanctified  by  the  bloo'l  of  the  Lord, 
burst  from  her  polluted  stomach. 


244  EXCOMMUNTCATIOV. 

church  being,  as  expressly  asserted  by  Innocent  I.  and  Pela- 
gius  I.,  that  without  it  they  forfeited  their  claim  to  eternal  life.1 
An  abuse,  indeed,  at  one  time  arose  by  which  the  holy  symbol 
was  even  given  to  the  dead — a  profanation  sharply  reproved 
by  the  third  council  of  Carthage  in  397.2 

Thus,  as  participation  in  the  Lord's  Supper  became  univer 
sal,  perpetual,  and  obligatory,  it  naturally  soon  was  recognized 
not  only  as  the  bond  of  union,  but  as  the  test  of  fellowship 
among  believers.  When  the  expected  Second  Advent  did  not 
come,  and  when  the  necessity  for  permanent  organization  and 
discipline  grew  apparent,  the  Eucharist  thus  inevitably  assumed 
a  fresh  importance  as  a  means  of  efficiently  enforcing  subordi 
nation  and  obedience.  As  a  society  of  voluntary  cohesion,  the 
church  had  of  course  the  right  to  expel  a  refractory  member  ; 
and  if  it  had  doubted  its  power,  it  had  sufficient  precedent  to 
justify  the  assumption.  Among  the  Jews,  three  degrees  of 
separation  from  the  synagogue  were  practised — niddui,  cherem, 
and  samntatha — to  coerce  contumacious  offenders,  imposing 
segregation  and  disabilities  very  similar  to  those  which  we  will 
see  hereafter  adopted  by  the  church,  when  it  acquired  secular 
as  well  as  spiritual  authority.3  Among  the  Gauls,  also,  the 

1  Innocent  PP.  T.  Epist,  xxx.  cap.  5.— Gelasii  PP.  I.  Epist.  vu.     It  is 
interesting1  to  observe  that  this  belief  was  anathematized  as  heresy  by  the 
council  of  Trent,  but  it  forbore  to  condemn  the  practice  of  the  ancient 
church   (Sess.  xxi.  l)e  Commun.  cap.  1 7.  can.  4).     Gregory  XIII.,  how 
ever,  soon  after,  in  1572,  expressed  great  surprise  on  learning  that  the 
custom  was  preserved  in  some  of  the  German  Churches,  and  strictly  pro 
hibited  it,  under  threats  of  punishment.     (Dalham  Concil.  Salisburg.  p. 
577.)     In  the  fifteenth  century,  among  the  Ethiopic   Christians,  male 
infants  were  baptized  on  the  48th  day  and  females  on  the  88th,  and  the 
Eucharist  was  at  once  administered  to  them  in  the  form  of  a  crumb  of 
bread.— Osorii  de  Rebus  Emrnanuelis  Reg.  Lusit.  Lib.  ix.   (Colon.  1584, 
p.  304  6) . 

2  Concil.  Carthag.  III.  can.  (i. 

3  Buxtorfi  Lexicon  Chaldaicum,  p.   827.—  Hippolytus   (Refutation  of 
Heresies,  Bk.  ix.  chap,  xix.)  asserts  that  among  the  Essenes   excom 
municates  sometimes  perished  of  starvation,  being  refused  all  aid  by  their 
fellows,  and  at  the  same  time  being  forbidden  by  their  tenets  from  par 
taking  of  unblessed  food. 


PRIMITIVE     DISCIPLINE.  245 

theocratic  government  of  the  Druids  was  maintained  by  an 
expedient  almost  precisely  similar  in  its  details  and  applica 
tion.1 

The  standard  of  morality  erected  by  Christ  was  so  different 
from  that  of  the  hideous  society  in  which  the  infant  church 
was  nurtured,  that  a  large  portion  of  the  offences  of  its  un 
trained  converts  could  be  restrained  only  by  its  own  action, 
even  had  it  been  willing  to  see  its  members  brought  before  the 
heathen  tribunals  for  trial.  Not  only,  as  we  have  seen  in  the 
previous  essay,  did  the  church  seek  by  every  means  to  keep 
them  from  appealing  to  the  courts  in  civil  cases,  but  when  they 
were  accused  and  condemned  for  criminal  actions  it  sedulously 
held  aloof  and  abandoned  them.2  It  was  thus  obliged  to  exer 
cise  a  close  supervision  over  the  lives  of  its  followers  to  repress 
the  sins  which,  though  heinous  in  the  eyes  of  the  devout 
children  of  the  Redeemer,  were  venial  weaknesses,  or  even 
praiseworthy  deeds,  in  the  opinion  of  the  heathen.  There  was 
an  ample  field  for  the  exercise  of  its  sternest  vigilance,  for,  in 
the  incurable  corruption  of  social  life  under  the  empire,  neither 
regeneration  by  the  waters  of  baptism,  nor  the  purifying  influ 
ence  of  occasional  persecution,  could  preserve  the  church  from 
constant  and  wide-spread  contamination.  It  was  not  merely 
the  Christian  ideal  of  purity  of  character  and  abstinence  from 
evil  thoughts  and  desires  that  was  lacking,  for  even  the  gross 
est  sins  and  crimes  were  not  infrequent.  Even  in  the  second 
century,  Irenaeus  consoles  himself  with  the  conviction  that  the 
secret  evil  deeds  of  those  who  held  high  position  in  the  church 
would  receive  their  due  reward  hereafter;3  and  when  a  fraud 
ulent  banker  like  St.  Calixtus  I.  could  be  elevated  to  the 
bishopric  of  Rome,  there  could  not  be  any  very  elevated 
standard  of  morality  in  the  Christian  society  of  the  Eternal 
City.4  After  the  Decian  persecution,  Cyprian  lifts  up  his 

1  Cfesar.  de  Bell.  Gall.  Lib.  vi.  cap.  13. 

2  Constit.  Apostol.  Lib.  v.  cap.  iii. 

3  Irensei  contra  Htcres.  Lib.  iv.  cap.  xxvi.  §  3. 

4  Hippolytus,  Refutation  of  Heresies,  Bk.  ix.  chap.  7. 

21* 


246  EXCOMMUNICATION. 

voice  to  proclaim  that  the  sufferings  of  the  church  were  tl  e 
just  penalty  of  its  ineradicable  corruption.  Bishops  neglected 
their  sacred  functions  to  devote  themselves  to  the  accumula 
tion  of  wealth  wrung  from  the  poor,  while  possessions  gained 
by  fraud  were  increased  by  merciless  usury.  As  for  the  priest 
hood,  it  had  neither  purity  of  faith,  charity  of  works,  nor  dis 
cipline  of  morals  ;  while  the  laity  were  given  over  to  avarice 
and  cheating,  blasphemy  and  slander.1  Even  the  terrible, 
purification  administered  by  Decius  was  ineffectual,  for,  ten 
years  later,  an  epistle  of  Gregory  Thaumaturgus  defines  the 
penance  appropriate  for  the  crimes  committed  by  the  faithful 
during  an  irruption  of  the  Goths  into  Pontus.  Many  Christ 
ians  had  joined  the  barbarians,  and  had  aided  them  in  their 
ravages,  guiding  them  through  the  country,  pointing  out  dwell 
ings  to  be  sacked,  and  murdering,  plundering,  and  ravishing. 
Even  after  the  raid,  unfortunate  captives  escaping  and  endeav 
oring  to  return  to  their  homes  were  seized  by  Christians  and 
held  as  slaves,  while  others  obtained  possession  of  their  neigh 
bors'  property,  and  refused  to  restore  it.'2 

Human  nature,  even  among  the  early  Christians,  thus  evi 
dently  fell  far  short  of  ideal  perfection,  and  when  tried  by  the 
standard  of  the  Gospel  its  shortcomings  demanded  the  most 
earnest  efforts  at  reform.  Nor  were  the  offences  those  against 
ordinary  morality  only,  for  the  growth  of  Christian  theology 
speedily  added  a  new  and  interminable  class  of  sins  in  the 
deviations  of  faith  which  were  regarded  as  the  most  unpar 
donable  of  crimes  against  God.  The  church  thus  had  ample 
work  to  do,  and  was  obliged  to  provide  for  its  systematic  per 
formance.  For  this  it  had  full  opportunity.  Ignored  or  per 
secuted  by  the  civil  power,  and  forming  an  independent  body 
in  the  social  order  of  the  empire,  it  enjoyed  entire  autonomy 
within  its  own  borders.  Each  local  church  could  frame  its 
own  laws,  from  the  application  of  which  there  was  no  appeal  to 

1  Cyprian,  de  Lapsis  cap.  6. 

2  Greg.  Thanmat,  Epist.  can.  6,  7,  8,  9.     (ITarduin.  T.  194.) 


PRIMITIVE     DISCIPLINE.  247 

any  external  or  superior  power ;  and  thus  there  gradually  grew 
up  a  code,  of  which  the  administration  fell  of  necessity  into  the 
hands  of  the  elders,  presbyters,  or  priests  of  the  individual 
congregations,  or  the  overseers,  episcopi,  or  bishops  of  the 
towns.  The  penalties  provided  for  in  this  code  were  of  course 
merely  moral  or  spiritual  ;  but  to  the  enthusiastic  Christian 
these  were  far  more  dreadful  than  the  sternest  inflictions  of  the 
temporal  tribunals.  He  who  failed  in  his  observance  of  the 
rules  of  the  church  was  admonished  and  reproved,  or  suspended 
from  communion  for  a  period  proportioned  to  the  gravity  of  his 
offence.  Eepentance  and  amendment  procured  his  restoration, 
but  the  hardened  sinner  who  denied  the  authority  of  the  church 
and  persisted  in  his  evil  courses  was  cut  off'  and  ejected. 

To  the  sincere  Christian  no  fate  could  be  more  deplorable 
than  to  be  cast  out  of  fellowship,  to  be  pronounced  unworthy  of 
participation  in  the  sacrifice  of  the  Lord's  table,  to  be  deprived 
of  the  solace  of  intercommunion  with  kindred  souls,  and  to  be 
.shunned  as  one  who  had  renounced  or  forfeited  his  share  in  the 
redemption  of  mankind.  To  this  it  speedily  came.  As  join 
ing  in  communion  was  the  symbol  of  Christian  fellowship  and 
unity,  so  the  church,  by  withholding  the  Eucharist,  set  upon 
the  sinner  the  stigma  of  condemnation  which  separated  him 
from  the  righteous,  which  made  him  an  outcast  among  the 
faithful,  and  which,  by  expelling  him  from  the  church,  con 
signed  him  to  eternal  perdition. 

How  soon  the  ministers  of  God  conceived  that  they  wielded 
this  awful  power  to  determine  the  destiny  of  immortal  souls  it 
would  be  difficult  to  assert  with  positiveness.  It  was  not 
until  long  afterwards  that  the  naked  and  abhorrent  sentence  of 
direct  damnation  carne  to  be  customary  ;  but  that  such  was  the 
effect  of  the  deprivation  of  communion  on  the  unrepentant 
sinner  was  assumed  and  believed  at  a  comparatively  early 
period.  The  heretic  who  paltered  with  the  faith  consigned 
himself  to  hell  ;  but  it  was  the  church,  through  its  ministers, 
which  deprived  the  unrepentant  sinner  of  his  share  of  eternal 
life  in  heaven.  In  either  case,  outside  of  the  pale  there  was 


248  EXCOMMUNICATION. 

no  salvation.  At  least  as  early  as  the  time  of  Cyprian,  the 
church  had  thus  interposed  itself  between  God  and  man,  and 
the  doctrine  was  recognized  that  he  who  was  not  in  communion 
was  an  enemy  of  Christ  and  could  claim  no  share  in  the 
Atonement.  Unless  the  church  was  his  mother,  he  could  not 
call  God  his  father,  and  it  was  as  idle  to  expect  salvation  out 
of  the  church  as  to  look  for  safety  in  the  Deluge  except  in  the 
ark  of  Noah.1  Implicit  submission  to  those  who  were  clothed 
with  this  tremendous  authority  was  the  only  means  of  salvation. 
As  under  the  circumcision  of  the  flesh,  says  Cyprian,  those 
who  disobeyed  the  priests  and  judges  were  put  to  death  (Dent. 
xvn.  12),  new  that  we  have  the  circumcision  of  the  spirit,  the 
proud  and  contumacious  are  spiritually  killed  by  ejection  from 
the  church.  For  there  is  no  life  or  salvation  out  of  the  church, 
and  the  Scripture  warns  us  that  the  disobedient  shall  perish 
who  will  not  yield  to  wholesome  precepts  (Prov.  xv.  12,  10). 
To  save  them  from  this  awful  fate,  they  should  be  affectionately 
entreated  before  ejection,  but  if  they  will  not  listen,  it  is  for  us 
to  do  the  work  commanded  of  us  by  God.2 

A  little  later  than  Cyprian,  the  Apostolic  Constitutions 
develop  the  same  theory.  lie  who  is  cast  out  of  the  church  by 
its  duly  constituted  ministers  is  deprived  of  the  glory  oi  eternal 
life;  in  this  world  he  is  shunned  by  the  good,  and  God  has 
already  judged  him  for  the  next.3  A  century  later,  St.  John 
Chrysostom,  in  deprecating  the  freedom  with  which  this  fearful 
power  was  used  on  the  most  trivial  occasions,  does  not  admit 
that  its  efficiency  was  diminished  by  its  abuse.  The  man  who 
was  anathematized  was  given  up  to  the  devil.  Abandoned  by 
Christ,  he  had  no  hope  of  salvation  ;  and  Chrysostom  asks  his 
hearers  if  they  think  it  a  light  matter  thus  to  take  upon  them 
selves  the  office  of  Christ,  and  to  pass  a  sentence  of  such  awful 

1  Cyprian,  de  Unitate  Ecclesise.      This  bitter  exclusion  was  directed 
against  the  Novatiaus,  whose  only  heresy  consisted  in  refusing  to  receive 
back  those  who  had  lapsed  in  the  Decian  persecution. 

2  Ejusd.  Epist.  TV.  cap.  4,  5,  ad  Pomponium  (Ed.  Oxon.). 

3  Constit.  Apostol.  Lib.  u.  cap.  51. 


PRIMITIVE     DISCIPLINE.  249 

import  before  the  time  and  the  coming  of  the  judge.1  St. 
Jerome  declares  that  the  priesthood  hold  the  keys  of  Heaven 
and  judge  in  advance  of  the  day  of  judgment.  "  If  I  sin," 
he  exclaims,  "  the  priest  can  deliver  me  unto  Satan  for  the 
destruction  of  the  flesh,  that  the  soul  may  be  saved  ;"  and, 
after  alluding  to  the  Mosaic  law,  lie  proceeds  :  "  Now  the  dis 
obedient  is  killed  with  the  spiritual  sword,  or,  cast  out  of  the 
church,  is  torn  to  pieces  by  ravening  demons."2  St.  Augustine 
can  find  no  equivalent  for  the  dread  results  of  excommunica 
tion  save  the  expulsion  of  Adam  from  Paradise  ;8  and  in  428, 
Pope  Celestin  I.,  in  deprecating  the  withholding  of  the  sacra 
ments  from  the  dying  sinner,  as  commanded  by  numerous 
canons,  exclaims  that  their  denial  is  the  denial  of  salvation.4 

While  the  spiritual  effects  of  expulsion  from  com.munion 
were  so  awful,  the  temporal  punishment  of  the  sinner  was  by 
no  means  neglected.  Before  the  church  had  been  united  with 
the  state  under  the  Christian  Emperors,  it  of  course  had  no 
power  of  inflicting  legal  penalties  or  disabilities  on  its  recalci 
trant  children,  but  it  had  nevertheless  the  opportunity  of  visit 
ing  them  with  annoyances  hardly  less  severe.  Principal  among 
these  was  segregation — cutting  off  the  excommunicate  from  all 
intercourse  with  his  fellow  beings — a  penalty  which,  as  we 
shall  see  hereafter,  added  enormously  to  the  authority  of  the 
church  during  the  middle  ages.  It  would  seem  to  be  naturally 
derived  from  a  similar  regulation  in  the  Jewish  rules  with  re 
gard  to  excommunicates,  and  among  the  apostles  this  would  be 
heightened  by  the  exclusiveness  which,  under  the  Jewish  law, 
forbade  companionship  with  the  Gentile.  As  St.  Peter  said 
to  Cornelius  (Acts  x.  28)  :  "  Ye  know  that  it  is  an  unlawful 
tiling  for  a  man  that  is  a  Jew  to  keep  company  or  come  unto 
one  of  another  nation,"  and  the  excommunicate  being  regarded 

1  Chrysost.  Homil.  de  Anatliemat.  cap.  2,  3. 
'2  Hieron.  Epist.  XIV.  ad  Heliodor.  cap.  8. 

3  Augustin.  de  Genesi  ad  Litteram  Lib.  xr.  cap.  40. 

4  Coelest.  PP.  I.  Epist,  n.  cap.  2.    (Harduin.  I.  1259.) 


250  EXCOMMUNICATION. 

as  a  heathen  might  naturally  be  held  as  coming  under  the  same 
rule  by  those  who  were  trained  in  Jewish  traditions.  Such  an 
expedient,  therefore,  suggested  itself  as  a  matter  of  course  to 
St.  Paul,  as  expressed  in  a  text  already  quoted.  The  com 
mand  was  a  positive  one,  and  was  easily  interpreted  to  extend 
to  all  who  had  fallen  under  the  ban  and  had  been  suspended 
from  communion.  In  the  earliest  record  of  church  customs 
that  has  reached  us,  the  Apostolic  Canons,  there  is  a  provision 
that  anyone  praying  with  an  excommunicate  in  his  own  house 
shall  be  excommunicated.1  This  would  seem  to  cut  off  even 
those  who  were  penitently  striving  to  reconcile  themselves  with 
an  offended  God,  and  its  harshness  is  condemned  by  the  more 
extended  code  known  as  the  Apostolic  Constitutions,  which 
warns  the  bishops  not  to  avoid  the  guilty,  nor  to  prohibit  them 
from  the  Lord's  prayer,  nor  from  living  with  the  faithful,  for 
Christ  did  not  shun  publicans  and  sinners,  nor  hesitate  to  take 
food  with  them.  Therefore,  it  proceeds,  should  you  live  ha 
bitually  with  those  who  are  cut  off,  helping,  comforting,  and 
consoling  them,  lest  they  lapse  still  farther  into  sin.2  While 
thus  tender  of  the  penitent,  however,  it  orders  that  the  impeni 
tent  and  the  heretic  be  cut  off  without  mercy,  and  that  the 
faithful  be  instructed  to  avoid  not  only  prayers  but  even  speech 
with  them.3  St.  Paul  had  written  "  A  man  that  is  an  heretic 
after  the  first  and  second  admonition  avoid"  (Titus  in.  10), 
and  Irenoeus  asserts  that  the  Apostles  carried  out  this  regula 
tions  most  rigidly.4  Stephen  I.,  therefore,  had  warrant  for  his 
harshness  when  he  refused  to  confer  with  the  Eastern  bishops 
deputed  by  their  brethren  in  25G  to  settle  the  quarrel  between 
Rome  and  the  East  on  the  subject  of  the  rebaptisrn  of  heretics, 
and  when  he  moreover  ordered  that  no  one  should  receive  them 
to  hospitality.  He  had  cut  them  off  from  his  communion,  but 

1  Canon.  Apostol.  xi.      Cf.  Concil.  Antioch.  can.  2. 

2  Constit.  Apostol.  Lib.  ir.  cap.  44. 

3  Ibid.  loc.  cit.  ;  Lib.  vi.  cap.  18,  26. 

4  Irenaei  contra  Haeres.  Lib.  nr.cap.  3. — Euseb.  Hist.  Eccles.  Lib.  iv. 
cap.  14. 


PRIMITIVE    DISCIPLINE.  251 

St.  Firrnilian  of  Cappadocia  shows  by  his  bitter  complaints  of 
these  proceedings  that  the  action  adopted  by  Stephen  was,  to 
say  the  least,  a  most  unusual  one.1 

Stephen's  example  was  not  immediately  followed,  for  the 
frequent  prohibitions  to  allow  excommunicates  to  receive  the 
communion,  which  occur  in  the  canons  of  the  fourth  century, 
prove  that  the  more  comprehensive  punishment  of  excluding 
them  from  all  intercourse  could  not  have  been  enforced.  A 
distinction  drawn  by  the  fourth  council  of  Carthage  in  398 
shows  the  revival  of  the  practice  in  a  special  matter.  In  one 
canon  it  expresses  the  received  rule  that  any  one  communing 
or  praying  with  an  excommunicate  shall  be  excommunicated, 
while  in  another  it  forbids  all  intercourse  with  widows  who 
marry  after  taking  vows  of  continence.2  Two  years  later  a 
more  general  application  of  the  principle  is  developed  by  the 
first  council  of  Toledo,  which  suspends  from  communion  any 
one  who  knowingly  holds  intercourse  with  a  man  who  is  sus 
pended  ;  and,  in  the  case  of  nuns  who  suffer  themselves  to  be 
seduced,  both  the  guilty  parties,  after  separation,  are  con 
demned  to  len  years  of  penance,  and  excommunication  is 
threatened  against  all  who  may  associate  with  them  until  they 
are  admitted  to  prayer.3  Contemporary  with  this  is  St.  Au 
gustine's  treatise  against  the  Donatist  Parmenianus,  in  which 
he  speaks  of  this  complete  segregation  as  the  established  rule 
of  the  church,  in  the  case  of  excommunicates,  but  prudently 
counsels  that  such  a  sentence  be  pronounced  only  against  those 
who  are  friendless,  and  who  therefore  will  not  be  likely  to  ex 
cite  disturbance  or  to  create  schism.4  At  a  few  years'  later 
date  we  have  the  text  of  an  excommunication  pronounced  by 
Synesius,  Bishop  of  Ptolemais,  against  Andronicus,  Governor 
of  the  Pentapolis,  in  which  he  formally  cuts  off  the  guilty  man 
from  all  intercourse  with  the  faithful :  "  For  this  blasphemy 

1  Cypriani  Epist.  75  (Ed.  Oxon.)- 

2  Statut.  Eccleb,  Antiq.  can.  73,  104-. 

3  Couc.il.  Toletan.  I.  aim.  400  can.  15,  1fi. 

4  Augustiu.  contra  Epist.  Parmenian.  Lib.  in.  cap.  2  No.  13. 


252  EXCOMMUNICATION. 

the  church  of  Ptolemais  gives  notice  to  her  sisters  in  all  lands: 
Let  no  temple  of  God  be  open  to  Andronicus,  Tlioas  and  his 
followers.  Let  every  holy  house  and  cloister  be  closed  to  them. 
There  is  no  place  in  Paradise  for  the  Devil,  and  if  he  steals 
in  let  him  be  expelled.  I  command  all  citizens  and  magis 
trates  that  they  be  with  him  neither  under  the  same  roof  nor 
at  the  same  table;  and  all  priests  that  they  neither  salute  him 
while  living,  nor  grant  him  funeral  service  when  dead."1 
Very  similar  to  this  is  the  sentence  pronounced  at  the  council 
of  Constantinople  in  448  against  the  Archimandrite  Eutyehes 
for  his  heretical  notions  as  to  the  nature  of  Christ:  "  Sighing 
and  weeping  for  his  utter  perdition,  \ve  decree,  by  our  Lord 
Jesus  Christ  whom  he  has  blasphemed,  that  he  be  deprived 
of  all  priestly  functions,  and  of  the  government  of  his  monas 
tery  ;  and  all  who,  knowing  this,  shall  converse  with  him  and 
consort  with  him  shall  be  punished  with  the  same  excommuni 
cation."2 

By  this  time,  therefore,  we  may  conclude  that  segregation 
was  fairly  established  as  one  of  the  penalties  of  disobedience  to 
the  church.  All  excommunicates,  however,  were  not  exposed 
to  it.  The  sinner  who  repented  of  his  misdeeds  and  sought 
absolution  was  required  to  pass  through  a  course  of  probation, 
varying  in  length  and  severity  with  the  gravity  of  his  offence, 
before  he  was  again  received  to  communion,  and  during  this 
time  of  penance  he  was  not  interdicted  from  intercourse  with 
the  faithful.  If,  however,  his  patience  gave  way  under  the 
long  and  weary  trial,  which,  as  we  shall  see  hereafter,  was  by 
no  means  unlikely,  and  he  ventured  to  disregard  the  strict 
rules  imposed  on  him,  the  proceedings  of  various  councils  held 
about  this  time  show  that  he  was  then  to  be  rigorously  segre 
gated,  and  all  Christians  were  strictly  forbidden  from  associ 
ating  with  him  in  any  manner.1'5  He  was  a  pariah,  cut  off 


1  Syncsii  Epist.  53.         2  Synod.  Chalced.  Act.  i.  (Hurduin.  II.  107). 

3  Concil.  Arelatens.  II.  ami.  441  can.  49.— Synod.  II.  8.  Patiic,  c.  aim. 
460  can.  1,  2,  4.— Concil.  Turon.  I.  aim.  460  can.  8.— Concil.  Venetic. 
arm.  465  can.  3. 


PRIMITIVE    DISCIPLINE.  253 

from  human  society  ;  and  though,  during  the  earlier  times 
when  the  Christians  were  few  and  scattered,  this  might  have 
been  but  a  light  infliction  on  the  carnal  and  worldly-minded, 
yet,  as  the  religionists  multiplied,  it  became  more  and  more 
severe,  and  when  paganism  was  finally  overthrown,  it  was 
the  destruction  of  the  victim's  life  and  prospects.  In  this 
world  the  church  ruined  his  career  and  excluded  him  from  the 
company  of  men,  as  in  the  next  it  ejected  him  from  that  of 
angels,  so  that  life  here  and  hereafter  was  equally  within  its 
control.1 

Thus  terrible  was  the  fate  of  the  recalcitrant  who  was  too  proud 
to  submit,  or  too  weak  to  endure  the  penalties  of  his  trans 
gression  ;  and  in  time  he  who  earnestly  sought  reconciliation 
and  pardon  for  wrong-doing  found  his  lot  scarcely  more  endur 
able. 

In  the  earlier  ages  of  the  church,  the  penance  imposed  upon 
the  repentant  sinner  was  a  very  simple  matter.  Cyprian  was 
somewhat  scandalized  to  see  those  who  had  lapsed  in  the  Decian 
persecution  readmitted  to  communion  with  little  or  no  probation, 
and  he  remonstrated  energetically  but  vainly  against  it,  though 
even  he  was  willing  to  welcome  them  back  with  a  very  slight 
amount  of  penance.-  In  the  Apostolic  Constitutions,  likewise, 
the  bishop  is  directed  to  smooth  the  path  of  the  sinner,  and  after 
a  few  weeks  of  fasting,  to  test  the  sincerity  of  his  repentance, 
the  fold  is  again  to  be  thrown  open  to  him,  though  the  impen 
itent  is  to  be  cut  off  wiiaout  mercy. !  About  the  same  period 
Gregory  Thaumaturgus  describes  for  us  this  process  of  penitence, 
which  was  divided  into  four  stages.  The  first,  or  jletus,  was 
the  period  of  weeping,  when  the  penitent  stood  outside  the  church 
door,  weeping  and  begging  the  faithful  as  they  entered  to  pray 

1  ID  the  sixth  century,  however,  Gildas    seems  to  argue  against  the 
propriety   of   segregating   the   excommunicate. —  Abedoc    et   Ethelvolfl 
canon.  Lib.  xxxix.  cap.  J-.     (Haddan  and  Stubbs,  Councils  of  Gr.  Bri 
tain,  I.  108). 

2  Cyprian.  Epist.  15,  Hi,  17,  18,  11),  i'0,L':3,  1M,  ~>5  (Ed.  Oxou.). 

3  Constit.  Apostol.  Lib.  n.cap.  19,  45. 

22 


254  EXCOMMUNICATION. 

for  him.  During  the  second,  auditio,  he  was  allowed  to  stand 
in  the  vestibule  until  the  catechumens  were  dismissed  from  the 
congregation.  In  the  third,  subjectio,  he  was  admitted  inside 
of  the  church  amid  the  catechumens.  The  fourth  period,  con- 
sistentta,  saw  him  among  the  faithful  and  allowed  to  remain 
during  the  services,  hut  not  to  partake  of  the  sacrament.1 

Throughout  this  period,  however,  there  had  heen  zealous 
puritans  who  were  not  disposed  to  pardon  so  easily.  Montanus 
taught  that  there  was  no  power  in  the  church  to  forgive  atrocious 
sins,  and  Novatianus  held  that  the  Decian  apostates  were  riot 
inadmissible  into  the  fold.  They  refused  even  death-bed  com 
munion  to  those  who  had  lapsed,  and  their  followers,  under  the 
names  of  Montanists,  Cathari,  and  Novatians,  formed  sects  of 
heretics  which  lasted  for  centuries.  So,  after  the  final  per 
secution  of  Maxentius,  the  Donatists  for  more  than  a  hundred 
years  plunged  the  African  church  into  confusion  because  Felix 
of  Aptungis  was  allowed  to  perform  the  episcopal  functions 
after  he  had  betrayed  the  sacred  books  and  vessels  of  his  church 
to  the  heathen.  These  heresies  were  stoutly  resisted  by 
the  orthodox,  but  their  rise  and  growth  are  the  evidence  of  the 
tendency  which  existed  in  the  minds  of  all  the  faithful  to  meet 
increasing  corruption  by  sterner  measures  of  repression,  and  by 
lodging  greater  power  in  the  hands  of  the  hierarchy.  The  church 
was  fast  losing  the  boundless  charity  which  it  had  received  from 
the  Redeemer,  and  was  becoming  more  and  more  an  organiza 
tion  of  worldly  forces,  wherein  fear  was  recognised  as  a  much 
more  potent  element  than  love  in  enforcing  submission. 

1  Gregor.  Thaumat.  Epist.  can.  xi.  (Harduin.  1. 194) .  Jerome  describes 
for  us  the  appearance  of  the  noble  Roman  matron  Fabiola,  while  undergo 
ing  voluntarily  the  first  stage  of  penitence—"  Saccum  inducret,  ut  errorem 
publice  fateretur  :  et  tota  urbe  spectante  Romana  ante  diem  Paschse  in  ba 
silica  quondam  Lateraui staret  in  ordine  poeniteutiurn,  episcopo, 

presbyteris  et  omni  populo  collachrymantibus,  sparsum  crinem,  ora  lurida, 
squalidas  manus,  sordida  colla,  submitteret.  Qure  peccata  fletus  iste  non 
purget?" — Epist.  77  ad  Oceanum. 

So  St.  Ambrose—"  Volo  veniam  reus  spcrct,  pet  at  earn  lachrymis,  petat 
gemitibus,  petat  populi  toti  gemitibus,  ut  ignoscatur  obsecret." — De  Poe- 
niteut.  Lib.  I.  cap.  1(>. 


PRIMITIVE    DISCIPLINE.  255 

Thus,  within  half  a  century  after  the  Decian  apostates  had 
been  received  back  into  the  bosom  of  the  church  with  scarce  a 
question,  and  Novatianus  had  been  declared  a  heretic  for  refusing 
to  join  in  communion  with  them,  the  orthodox  council  of  Elvira 
decrees  that  to  offer  sacrifice  to  an  idol  after  receiving  baptism 
is  a  sin  which  no  expiation  can  cleanse,  and  the  sinner  is  denied 
reconciliation  even  upon  his  death-bed.1  Twenty  years  later 
the  council  of  Nicam  relaxed  somewhat  from  this  severity,  and 
parades  its  clemency  in  limiting  the  penance  of  such  backsliders 
to  three  years  passed  in  the  second  stage  of  penitence,  six  years 
in  the  third,  and  two  in  the  fourth,  after  the  contrite  and  humble 
performance  of  which  the  guilty  one  was  at  last  restored  to  com 
munion.2 

Having  once  entered  into  this  career,  the  church  could  not 
stop,  and  as  its  membership  increased  in  numbers  and  deterio 
rated  in  righteousness,  its  functions  as  a  law-giver  became  more 
and  more  active.  A  large  portion  of  the  canons  of  its  councils 
are  devoted  to  establishing  a  criminal  code,  which  existed  side 
by  side  with  the  imperial  jurisprudence,  and  which,  while  pro 
viding  for  numberless  cases  which  were  not  noticed  in  the  civil 
law,  created  duplicate  punishments  for  many  offences  which  were 
likewise  under  the  cognizance  of  the  secular  tribunals.  These 
canons,  however,  were  mostly  local  and  tentative  in  their  char 
acter,  varying  greatly  with  time  and  place ;  and  though  ample 
materials  exist  for  forming  a  tolerably  complete  summary  of  their 
leading  features,  yet  space  will  hardly  permit  the  consideration 
of  more  than  two  important  points  which  bear  directly  upon  the 
future  development  of  our  subject — the  disabilities  imposed  upon 
penitents  and  excommunicates,  and  the  questions  connected  with 
death-bed  absolution  and  communion. 

We  have  just  seen  that  for  apostates  the  council  of  Nicsea 
imposed  a  penitence  of  eleven  years — increased  to  twelve  by  a 
Roman  synod  in  488.3  Long  as  this  term  may  seem,  it  was  by 

1  Concil.  Eliberit.  ami.  30,")  can.  1. 

2  Concil.  Nicaen.  can.  xi.  s  Felicia  PP.  III.  Epist.  vii. 


256  EXCOMMUNICATION. 

no  means  unusual,  for  the  length  was  proportioned  to  the  grade 
of  offence  committed,  and  for  heinous  sins  there  are  various 
canons  which  deny  reconciliation  during  a  lifetime,  and  only 
permit  it  on  the  death-bed.1    This  course  of  penitence  was  by  no 
means  a  mere  deprivation  of  spiritual  privileges,  for  the  church 
had  to  deal  for  the  most  part  with  natures  by  far  too  hardened 
to  be  broken  into  subjection  by  penalties  so  light.     In  fact,  the 
council  of  Vannes,  in  465,  gives  us  a  curious  illustration  of  the 
decline  of  reverence  for  the  awful  privilege  of  the  Eucharist  in 
providing  for  drunken  ecclesiastics  the  alternative  of  corporal 
punishment    or    thirty    days'    suspension     from    communion.2 
Evidently  something  more  substantial  was  required,  nor  was 
there  much  scruple  in  finding  it.     Fasting,  as  we  have  seen, 
formed  part  of  the  punishment  as  early  at  least  as  the  date  of 
the  Apostolic  Constitutions,  and  as  the  church  obtained  influ 
ence  over  secular  life  it  commenced  to  interfere  with  the  worldly 
pursuits    and    privileges    of   its  penitents.      Thus    they  were 
deprived  of  the  right  of  acting  as  prosecutors  or  of  appear 
ing  as  witnesses;3  and  guilty  prelates  took  advantage  of  this  by 
excommunicating  their  clergy,  to  shield  themselves  from  pro 
secution,  so  that  it  became  necessary  to  provide  a  sort  of  tem 
porary  absolution  in  such  cases  to  procure  testimony  against 
bishops  who  had  thus  disabled  those  who  could  convict  them.4 
Not  only  was  marriage  prohibited  during  penitence,5  but  even 
all  connubial  intercourse  between  husband  and  wife,6  so  that, 
with  profound  respect  for  the  rights  of  both   parties,  neither 
could  be  admitted  to  penitence  without  the  consent  of  the  other.7 
The  penitent,  moreover,  was  forbidden  to  bring  suit — he  was 

1  Concil.  Elibcrit.  can.  3,  10, 13.— Condi.  Ancyrens.  can.  21. 

2  Concil. Venetic.  ann.  465   can.  13. 

3  Coucil.    Constantinop.  I.    ann.  381  can.  0.  —  Cod.   Eccles.  African, 
can.    128. 

4  See  the  case  of  Ibas  of  Edessa,  ap.  Chr.  Lupi  Append,  ad  Ephesin. 
Latrocin.   (Opp.  II.  223). 

5  Concil.  Arelatens.    II.  ann.  441  can.  21. 

6  Siricii  PP.  Epist.  i.  cap.  v.  (TTarduin.  I.  StS). 
i  Concil.  Arelatens.  II.  can.  22. 


PRIMITIVE     DISCIPLINE.  257 

not  allowed  tlie  privilege  of  refusing  to  appear  as  defendant, 
but  be  must  not  act  as  plaintiff.  Tins  of  course  cut  him  off 
from  all  legal  defence  of  bis  civil  rigbts;  but  in  cases  of  peculiar 
hardship  Leo  I.  astutely  suggested  that  he  might  be  allowed  to 
appeal  to  the  ecclesiastical  tribunals.1  He  was  likewise  pro 
hibited  from  rendering  military  service,  and  it  was  even  doubt 
ful  whether  lie  could  transact  business.  Leo  I.  hesitates  to 
enforce  this  latter  regulation,  but  suggests  that  the  penitent 
had  much  better  suffer  loss  than  risk  the  sin  that  is  almost  in 
separable  from  trade.2  The  two  or  three,  or  ten  or  twelve 
years  spent  in  penance  were  evidently  not  a  pleasant  portion 
of  a  sinner's  life,  and  as  the  penance  had  to  be  applied  for  vol 
untarily,  it  is  no  wonder  that  an  alternative  so  fearful  as  expul 
sion  from  human  society  was  found  necessary  as  the  alternative 
to  coerce  the  recalcitrant. 

In  many  respects,  moreover,  the  penitent  when  readmitted 
to  communion  was  not  restored  to  his  original  condition. 
When  the  church  had  once  condemned  a  man,  the  mark  set 
upon  his  brow  was  indelible,  and  no  subsequent  repentance  or 
expiation  could  wholly  efface  it.  God  might  forgive  him 
wholly  and  freely,  but  God's  ministers  were  not  so  placable. 
Any  one,  whether  clerk  or  layman,  who  had  once  been  forced 
to  pass  through  a  course  of  penitence,  became  thereafter  ineli 
gible  to  holy  orders,  and  a  bishop  knowingly  ordaining  such  a 
man  forfeited  the  power  of  ordination.3  He  was  likewise,  if 
belonging  to  the  military  profession,  forbidden  to  return  to  it;4 
and  the  inquiries  made  of  Leo  I.,  by  Rusticus  of  Narbonne, 
show  that  doubts  were  even  entertained  whether  it  was  lawful 
for  an  absolved  penitent  to  engage  in  business  or  to  marry.5 

1  Leon.  PP.  I.  Epist.  CLXVII.  Inquis.  10. 

2  Ibid.  Inquis.  11,12. 

3  Siricii  PP.  I.  Epist.  I  cap.  xiv.— Conci].  Roman,  ann.  405  can.  3.— 
Gelasii  PP.  I.  Epist.  v.  cap.  iii.— Statut.  Eccles.  Antiq.  can.  68. 

4  Leon.  PP.  I.  Epist.  CLXVII.  Inquis.  12, 

5  Ibid.  Inquis.  11,  13.— From  a  passage  in  this  it  is  evident  that  peni 
tence  was  sometimes  assumed  in  times  of  danger  or  calamity,  as  an  act 


258  EXCOMMUNICATION. 

On  this  latter  point  Leo  prudently  replies  that  it  would  be 
better  for  a  man  who  had  assumed  to  undergo  penitence  to 
remain  for  life  chaste  in  mind  and  body  ;  but  that,  if  he  fears 
that  youthful  ardor  may  lead  him  into  sin,  and  therefore  takes 
a  wife  as  a  precaution,  the  transgression  may  be  regarded  as 
venial.  All  this  was  doubtless  intended  for  the  health  of  the 
souls  of  the  faithful,  but  its  efficacy  was  quite  as  great  in  ex 
tending  the  authority  of  those  who  had  so  absolute  a  control 
over  the  lives  of  their  fellow-creatures. 

The  questions  connected  with  the  granting  or  withholding 
of  death-bed  communion  involved  considerations  of  more  tre 
mendous  import.     When  man  assumes  to  place  himself  between 
his  Creator  and  his  fellow-beings,  and  to  wield,  without  appeal, 
supreme  authority  over  eternal  life  and  death,  the  contrast  be 
tween  his  finite  intelligence,  obscured  by  human  passions,  and 
the  infinite  power  to  which  he  aspires,  would  be  ludicrous  if  it 
were  not  revolting.     To  make  the  salvation  of  a  living  soul 
dependent  upon  the   ministrations  of  a  fallible  fellow-creature, 
to  be  withheld  at  his  caprice,  or  lost  through  his  malevolence, 
or  ignorance,  or    supineness,  would  seem   to  be  an   imposture 
too  gross  for  the  most  fatuous  credulity  ;  and  yet  it  has  been 
for  fifteen  hundred  years,  and  still  is,  the  belief  of  a  majority 
of  those  who  profess  faith  in  their  Redeemer,  and  in  the  doc 
trine  of  the  Atonement.     When,  in  enlightened  France,  within 
a  few   years,  we  have  seen  a  priest  on  his  trial  for  murder, 
because  in  his  ignorant  zeal  he  performed  the  Ca>sarean  opera 
tion,  and  thus  destroyed  both  mother  and  child  in  the  effort  to 
save  the  unborn  babe  by  the  water  of  baptism,  we  can  hardly 
be  surprised  that  in  former  ages  doctrines  so  monstrous  found 
ready  acceptance  in  the  minds  of  all. 

The  «ood  fathers  of  the  council  of  Elvira  had  a  stiff-necked 
generation   to  deal  with,  and   they  doubtless  felt  that,  in   their 

of  propitiation,  in  the  same  way  that  pilgrimages,  and  other  pious  per 
formances,  were  vowed  in  subsequent  ages. 


PRIMITIVE     DISCIPLINE.  259 

zeal  for  the  enforcement  of  morality,  they  were  merely  exer 
cising,  under  the  influence  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  the  power  in 
trusted  to  them  by  Christ,  yet  they  designated  no  less  than 
fourteen  offences  for  which  the  transgressor  was  to  be  cut  off 
from  all  hope  of  salvation  by  refusing  him  communion  even 
upon  his  death-bed.  Jesus  had  pardoned  the  thief  upon  the 
cross,  and  the  Apostle  had  said,  "  Be  not  overcome  of  evil, 
but  overcome  evil  with  good  ....  love  is  the  fulfilling  of  the 
law"  (Romans  xn.  21,  xin.  10),  but  those  who  assumed  to 
speak  in  His  name,  and  to  act  as  His  direct  agents,  proclaimed 
that  no  amount  of  repentance,  no  subsequent  reformation  and 
life-long  remorse  could  wash  out  sin,  and  merit  salvation  for  a 
woman  who  had  left  her  husband  and  married  another  ;  or  for 
a  priest  who  did  not  separate  himself  from  an  adulterous  wife  ; 
or  for  a  man  who  brought  a  false  accusation  against  a  bishop  or 
priest,  and  who  failed  in  his  proof.1  For  these  and  for  many 
kindred  offences  the  sinner  was  cut  off  in  this  world  and  re 
jected  in  the  next.  Christ  had  intrusted  his  ministers  with 
the  power  to  bind  and  to  loose  on  earth  and  in  heaven,  and 
they  exercised  this  authority  by  giving  or  withholding  the 
sacraments,  of  which  they  possessed  the  exclusive  control ;  nor 
was  there  any  possible  tribunal  to  which  an  appeal  could  be 
carried  against  their  decisions,  for  they  spoke  in  the  name  and 
with  the  assent  of  the  supreme  and  omnipotent  God. 

That  men  believing  themselves  armed  with  so  tremendous 
and  fearful  a  power  should  exercise  it  so  recklessly,  seems  in 
credible,  and  yet  unfortunately  the  facts  exist  to  show  beyond 
the  possibility  of  doubt  that  those  who  so  acted  were  possessed 
of  that  belief.  The  man  who  died  excommunicate  and  unre 
conciled  was  damned  beyond  the  hope  of  redemption.  It  is 
true  that  if  he  had  been  admitted  to  penitence,  and  had  been 
zealously  seeking  to  merit  forgiveness,  and  was  suddenly  cut 
off'  by  shipwreck  or  other  unforeseen  accident  at  a  distance  from 

i  Concil.  Eliberit.  ami  305  can.  1,  6,  7,  8,  13,  V?>,  17,  18,  63,  64,  65,  66, 
70,  71,  73,  73,  75.— Concil.  Arclatens.  I.  aim.  814  can.  33. 


260  EXCOMMUNICATION. 

priestly  aid,  then  the  church  indulged  in  some  doubt  as  to  his 
perdition.  He  might  possibly  be  saved,  but  the  presumption 
was  against  him.  and  his  name  might  not  be  included  in  the 
prayers  of  the  faithful,  for  if  God  had  willed  his  salvation,  he 
would  not  have  been  condemned  to  die  afar  off  from  the  savin°- 

O 

viaticum1 — though,  it  is  true,  some  authorities  shrank  from  so 
cruel  a  practical  application  of  the  principles  which  all  pro 
fessed.2  For  those  not  yet  reconciled,  who  expired  within 
reach  of  ghostly  assistance,  and  who  yet  failed  of  the  last  sacra 
ments,  there  was  therefore  no  hope  ;  and  the  extreme  severity, 
such  as  that  of  the  council  of  Elvira,  which  deliberately  re 
fused  the  communion  to  the  despair  of  the  dying  sinner,  was 
rebuked  by  the  less  rigorous  portion  of  the  church,  not  for 
assuming  a  power  which  did  not  belong  to  the  ministers  of 
God,  but  for  its  unmerciful  abuse.  In  428  Celestin  I.  ex 
presses  his  horror  at  the  impiety  of  those  who  coldly  refused 
to  grant  the  entreaties  of  the  dying,  and  to  relieve  them  of  the 
weight  of  the  sins  that  would  bear  them  down  to  hell,  thus 
cruelly  killing  the  soul,  and  adding  a  second  death  to  that  of 
the  body.3 

The  practice  of  the  church,  therefore,  was  by  no  means 
uniform  in  the  exercise  of  its  awful  prerogatives.  Cyprian 
mentions  that  some  bishops  of  his  day,  as  we  have  seen  them 
subsequently  do,  refused  to  allow  penitence  or  a  chance  of 
forgiveness  to  adulterers.  He  himself  considers  this  contrary 
to  the  precepts  of  Christianity;  but  at  the  same  time  he  de 
cides  that  sinners  who  have  not  sought  for  penance  during 
health,  cannot  be  listened  to  when  the  approach  of  death  warns 
them  to  prepare  for  the  judgment-seat ;  for  he  who  has  lived 

1  Leon.  PP.  I.  Epist.  CLXVII.  Inquis.  8. 

2  Thus  the  fourth  council  of  Carthage,  in  398  (can.  79,  81),  leaned  to 
the  more  merciful  view  of  the  matter,  and  the  eleventh  council  of  Toledo, 
in  075,  alluding  to  the  conflict  of  precedent  on  this  point,  concluded  in 
favor  of  reconciliation  to  the  church  (Concil.  Toletan.  XI.  can.  12).     So 
also  did  the  Concil.  Vasens.  I.  ami.  442  can.  2. 

3  Ca'lest.  PP.  I.  Epist.  iv.  cap.  2. 


PRIMITIVE    DISCIPLINE.  261 

without   thought   of  death,   is   not   worthy  to   be  forgiven    in 
death.1 

This  extreme  rigor  declined  somewhat  in  time,  and  the  great 
council  of  Nicsea  condemned  it  by  restoring  the  primitive  rule 
which  forbade  the  viaticum  to  be  denied  to  any  one  demanding 
it  on  his  death-bed.2    This  view  became  generally  adopted,  and 
is  laid  down   by  Siricius   about  the  year  385,  by  the  fourth 
council  of  Carthage  in   398,  by  Innocent  I.  in  405,  by  Leo  I. 
in  452,  and  by  the  eleventh  council  of  Toledo  in   G75.3     Yet 
we  have  just  seen  that  a  hundred  years  after  the  authoritative 
declaration   of  the   most   venerable   first   general   council,  the 
epistle  of  Celestin  I.  shows  that  its  commands  continued  to  be 
disregarded  notwithstanding  the  efforts  made  in  the  interval 
to    abrogate    the    abuse.     The   temptation    to   employ  to   the 
utmost  a  power  so  absolute  over  their  fellow-men  was  too  much 
for  weak  humanity.     If  God  had  deigned  to  share  His  author 
ity  with  His  creatures,  He  had  not  seen   fit  to  accompany  the 
grant  with  the  grace   requisite  to  its  proper  exercise  ;  and  it 
was,   perhaps,   some    recognition    of  the  awful    responsibility 
attaching  to  this  power,  as  well  as  the  desire  to  extend  the 
control  of  the  church  beyond  the  grave,  that  led  to  the  adop 
tion  of  the  doctrine  of  Purgatory — an   intermediate  state   of 
probation,  in  which  the  sentence  of  the  condemned  could  still 
be  revoked,  and  the  deficiencies  of  the  death-bed  be  made  good 
by  prayers  or  sacrifices  offered  on  earth.     An  instructive  illus 
tration  of  this  is  to  be  found  in  a  story  related  of  himself  by 
Gregory  the  Great.     While  he  was  yet  abbot  of  the  monastery 
of  St.  Andrew,  three  pieces  of  gold  were  found,  belonging  to 
one  of  his   monks,  then  lying  in  mortal  sickness.     So  gross  a 
violation  of  the  vow  to  possess  nothing  except  in  common  could 


1  Cyprian.  Epist.  55  cap.  21,  23  (Ed.  Oxon.). 

2  Concil.  Nicam.  L   can.  13.—"  Etiamntinc  lex 


lex  antiqua  regularisque 
servabitur." 

3  Siricii  PP.  Epist.  I.  cap.  5.— Concil.  Carthag.  IV.  ann.  398  can.  76, 
77.— Innocent.  PP.  I.  Exsupcrio  Tolosan.  cap.  ii.— Leon.  PP.  I.  Epist. 
CVHI.  cap.  4.— Concil.  Tolctan.  XI.  ann.  075  can.  12. 


262  EXCOMMUNICATION. 

not  be  passed  over  without  exemplary  chastisement,  and 
Gregory  ordered  that  all  the  consolations  of  religion  should  be 
denied  to  the  dying  man,  and  that  when  dead  his  corpse  should 
be  buried  in  a  dung-hill,  without  funeral  rites.  A  month  after 
the  death  of  the  unhappy  wretch  he  relented,  and  commanded 
that  for  thirty  days  the  sacrifice  of  the  Eucharist  should  be 
daily  offered  for  the  salvation  of  the  defunct.  At  the  expira 
tion  of  that  time  the  spirit  of  the  departed  appeared  to  his 
brother,  and  stated  that  he  had  been  in  torment  until  that  day, 
when  lie  had  at  last  been  blessed  by  being  admitted  to  com 
munion.  In  coldly  recording  this  solemn  warning,  Gregory 
seems  to  manifest  no  sense  of  the  frightful  responsibility  at 
tendant  on  the  power  of  thus  regulating  at  his  caprice  the  sal 
vation  or  damnation  of  a  human  soul.1 

All  men  were  not  so  lenient  as  Gregory,  and  indeed  there 
were  other  differences  besides  those  already  mentioned  as  to 
the  employment  of  these  awful  prerogatives.  The  complete 
reconciliation  of  the  sinner  required  the  sacrament  of  penitence, 
including  the  imposition  of  hands  by  a  bishop.  In  the  sudden 
emergency  of  death  it  is  evident  that  the  episcopal  ministra 
tion  could  not  always  be  at  hand,  giving  rise  to  nice  questions 
as  to  what  was  to  be  done  in  its  absence  ;  yet  a  canon  of  the 
council  of  Elvira  adopted  to  settle  this  point  shows  the  con- 

1  Gregor.  PP.  I.  Dialog.  Lib.  iv.  cap.  55.— A  similar  occurrence  is 
related  of  Peter  the  Venerable  Abbot  of  Cluny  (Rodulphi  Vita  Petri 
Venerab.  c.  9— Martene  Ampl.  Collect.  VI.  1190).  The  Dialogues  of 
Gregory  show  us  the  commencement,  in  his  time,  of  the  belief  in  a  defi 
nite  condition  of  temporary  purgation,  accessible  to  the  efforts  of  the 
church.  After  relating  various  marvellous  visions,  and  other  manifesta 
tions  tending  to  the  establishment  of  the  doctrine,  he  is  asked  by  his 
interlocutor  why,  in  these  latter  times,  so  much  is  revealed  to  man  con 
cerning  the  future  life,  which  had  previously  been  concealed—"  Quid  est 
hoc,  quaeso,  quod  in  hi§  extremis  temporibus  tarn  multa  de  animabus 
clarescunt  quse  ante  latueruiit?"  To  this  Gregory  can  only  give  the 
answer,  that,  as  the  end  of  the  world  was  approaching,  bur  nearness  to 
the  world  to  come  rendered  its  manifestations  more  appreciable  (Ibid, 
cap.  40,41).  This  belief  in  the  impending  destruction  of  the  earth  is 
elsewhere  expressed  not  infrequently  by  Gregory. 


PRIMITIVE    DISCIPLINE.  263 

fusion  existing  by  giving,  in  the  readings  of  different  MSS., 
instructions  diametrically  opposite — one  of  them  insisting  on 
the  interposition  of  a  bishop,  or  at  all  events  of  his  authority, 
while  another  directs  that  a  priest,  or  even  a  deacon,  in  cases 
of  necessity,  can  administer  the  viaticum  to  the  dying  sinner.1 
In  this  conflict  of  opinion,  we  find  that  the  second  council  of 
Carthage,  in  390,  reduces  the  chances  of  salvation  by  directing 
that  the  priest  appealed  to  for  absolution  by  a  dying  sinner  in 
the  absence  of  his  bishop  shall  seek  that  functionary  for  orders 
before  granting  the  request.2  Fortunately,  in  the  African 
church  of  the  period,  bishops  were  almost  as  plentiful  as  priests 
were  elsewhere  ;  and  possibly  the  practical  inconvenience  of 
such  a  rule  in  the  larger  dioceses  of  Gaul  may  be  the  reason 
why  the  first  council  of  Orange,  in  441,  decreed  that  the  im 
position  of  hands  was  unnecessary  for  the  reconciliation  of  the 
dying  penitent.3  Even  in  the  African  church  the  interposition 
of  the  bishop  could  not  always  have  been  insisted  on,  for  in 
397  the  third  council  of  Carthage  permits  by  implication,  in 
cases  of  pressing  necessity,  the  absolution  of  a  penitent  \>y  a 
priest  whose  bishop  is  absent  ;4  and  in  398  there  is  a  canon 
providing  that  when  a  dying  man  asks  to  be  admitted  to  peni 
tence,  and  the  priest  on  arriving  finds  him  speechless  and  in 
sensible  the  evidence  of  those  who  heard  his  request  shall  be 
sufficient,  and  the  priest  shall  open  for  him  the  gates  of  heaven 
by  pouring  the  Eucharist  down  his  unconscious  throat."  It 
would  be  difficult  to  conceive  a  more  complete  usurpation  of 
the  divine  right  of  judgment  and  pardon. 

While  this  death-bed  communion  washed  off  all  stain  of  sin 
from  the'soul  which  sought  the  judgment-seat  of  God,  and  was 
amply  sufficient  for  the  tribunal  of  heaven,  it  was  remarkable 

1  Condi.  Eliberit.  can.  32.  2  Concil.  Carthag.  II.  aim.  390  can.  4. 

3  Concil.  Arausican.  I.  ann.  441  can.  3. 

4  Concil.  Carthag.  III.  can.  33. 

5  Concil.  Carthag.  IV.  ann.  398  can.  70.     In  the  eighth  century,  this 
proceeding  is  commanded  by  Gregory  III.  (Dediversis  Crimin.  etRemed. 
cap.  xxxi.)  and  in  the  eleventh  century  by  Burckhardt  (Decret.  Lib.  xvm. 
cap.  10). 


264  EXCOMMUNICATION. 

in  this,  that  it  was  insufficient  for  the  tribunal  of  man,  if  the 
soul  was  so  unhappy  as  to  remain  on  earth.  Dying  sinners 
sometimes  recovered  unexpectedly,  and  naturally  enough  sup 
posed  that  that  which  had  been  assumed  to  be  enough  for  God 
might  be  held  to  satisfy  the  claims  of  the  ministers  of  God. 
In  this  they  were  mistaken.  The  church  was  not  disposed 
thus  to  abandon  its  claims  upon  its  penitents,  and  nearly  all  the 
canons  quoted  above  contain  a  clause  providing  that,  in  case  of 
recovery,  full  penitence  must  be  performed  before  the  reani 
mated  sinner  can  be  received  again  into  full  communion. 

Even  those  who  died  in  the  bosom  of  the  church  and  were 
dismissed  with  the  saving  viaticum  were  not  always  safe  from 
a  power  which  extended  to  the  uttermost  regions  of  the  world 
to  come.  Their  peaceful  slumbers  might  be  broken  by  post 
humous  excommunication,  and  the  Almighty  be  notified  that 
the  zeal  of  his  watchful  agents  could  not  rest  satisfied  with  the 
judgment  that  He  might  already  have  pronounced.  It  is  true 
that  the  power  to  bind  and  to  loose  had  been  delegated  only  as 
to  tilings  on  earth,  and  so  Gelasius  I.  decided,  saying  that  the 
church  had  no  authority  to  determine  as  to  the  condition  of 
those  who  had  already  passed  away,  and  in  4i)">  a  Roman 
synod  confirmed  his  decision  emphatically.1  Leo  I.  in  i;>2  had 
already  taken  the  same  position,  alleging  that,  for  the  dead, 
God  had  already  passed  His  judgment,  which  the  church  could 
not  subsequently  modify.2  In  401,  however,  the  fifth  council 
of  Carthage  had  decreed  that  bishops  bequeathing  their  pro 
perty  to  heretics  or  pagans  should  be  anathematized  after 
death  ;3  and  a  hundred  and  fifty  years  earlier  Cyprian  chroni 
cles  the  decision  of  a  council  which  deprived  of  all  connection 
with  the  church  those  who  in  dying  should  appoint  an  ecclesi 
astic  to  the  guardianship  of  their  children.  In  those  days  it 
was  a  crime  to  impose  secular  cares  on  the  ministers  of  the 
altar,  and  Cyprian  orders  the  sentence  to  be  enforced  in  the 

1  Gelasii  PP.  I.  Epist.  4,  11— Concil.  Roman.  H. 

2  Leon.  PP.  1.  Epist.  108  cap.  o. 

3  Cod.  Eccles.  African,  can.  81. 


PRIMITIVE    DISCIPLINE.  265 

case  of  a  certain  Geminius  Victor  who  had  nominated  a  priest 
named  Geminius  Faustinus  as  guardian.1  St.  Augustine  more 
than  once  offered  to  the  Donatists,  in  the  name  of  the  African 
church,  that  if  they  could  prove  the  crimes  alleged  against 
Cecilianus,  he  should  be  anathematized,  though  he  had  been 
dead  a  hundred  years.2  Theophilus,  Patriarch  of  Alexandria, 
actually  excommunicated  Origen  after  the  latter  had  been  in 
his  grave  for  two  centuries,3  showing  how  little  dead  sinners 
could  rely  upon  perpetual  immunity,  and  that  no  statute  of 
limitations  ran  against  the  rights  of  the  church,  when  defended 
by  fearless  and  persevering  ministers.  Such  excommunica 
tions,  indeed,  must  have  been  of  common  occurrence,  for  St. 
John  Chrysostom,  about  382,  denounces  them  as  an  intolerable 
abuse.  He  entreats  his  hearers  not  to  undertake  to  decide  on 
that  which  God  had  already  reserved  for  His  own  judgment, 
and  assures  them  that  they  are  preparing  for  themselves  the 
tires  of  hell.4 

The  question  evidently  was  a  debatable  one,  with  little  pros 
pect  of  positive  proof  on  either  side,  but  the  case  of  Theodore 
of  Mopsuestia  settled  it,  at  least  for  a  time,  in  favor  of  the 
largest  prerogatives  of  the  church  militant.  Theodore  had 
been  a  bishop  of  the  strictest  orthodoxy,  a  supporter  of  St. 
Cyril  of  Alexandria,  and  a  zealous  persecutor  of  the  Nestorians 
both  in  his  writings  and  his  actions.  The  council  of  Chalcedon 
had  not  doubted  his  doctrinal  correctness,  but  the  progress  of 
theology,  in  the  course  of  a  century  or  more  after  his  death, 
developed  some  heretical  tendencies  latent  in  his  writings,  and 
the  Emperor  Justinian  resolved  on  his  condemnation.  Pope 
A^igilius  did  not  attempt  to  defend  the  heretic,  but  stoutly 
maintained  that  the  church  had  inherited  from  the  Apostles  no 
power  to  condemn  any  one  whom  God  had  taken  to  his  own 

1  Cyprian.  Epist.  1  (Ed.  Oxon.). 

2  Augustin.  Epist.  185  cap.  1  §  4.— Epist.  141  §  6  (Ed.  Benedict,). 
:{  Socrat.  Hist.  Eccles.  Lib.  vn.  cap.  45. 

4  Chrysost.  Homil.  de  Anatheinate. 
23 


2G6  EXCOMMUNICATION. 

judgment.1  When  a  pope  and  an  emperor  differed  in  those 
days,  it  was  the  pope  who  had  to  succumb.  The  fifth  general 
council,  held  in  Constantinople  in  553,  formally  anathematized 
not  only  Theodore  of  Mopsuestia,  but  also  all  those  who  should 
not  join  in  the  anathema;2  and  by  personal  ill-treatment  Vigi- 
lius  was  forced  to  subscribe  his  hand  to  the  condemnation.3 
To  the  Roman  mind,  these  proceedings  were  somewhat  irregu 
lar,  as  conducted  in  spite  of  the  earnest  protests  of  the  Apos 
tolic  See,  yet  Gregory  the  Great  did  not  hesitate  to  acknowledge 
the  acts  of  the  council  as  equal  in  validity  and  authority  to 
those  of  its  cecumenic  predecessors,4  and  it  has  always  been 
received  as  such  by  the  Catholic  church.  Still,  the  question 
of  excommunicating  the  dead  was  not  completely  set  at  rest, 
but  its  further  discussion  belongs  to  a  period  later  than  that 
which  we  are  at  present  considering. 

The  power  to  inflict  a  penalty  so  tremendous  in  its  conse 
quences  as  excommunication  was  one  not  lightly  to  be  exer 
cised  by  conscientious  men  ;  and,  in  the  earlier  ages  of  the 
church,  it  was  guarded  and  limited  by  certain  prerequisite  for 
malities.  The  Apostolic  Constitutions  strenuously  urge  upon 
bishops  the  utmost  moderation  and  self-command  in  their  deal 
ings  with  offenders.  Every  resource  of  fatherly  exhortation 
and  brotherly  love  and  kindness  is  to  be  exhausted  in  the  effort 
to  bring  the  sinner  to  repentance  before  recourse  is  had  to  the 
censures  of  the  church.5  Even  then  there  is  to  be  no  condem 
nation  without,  the  fullest  investigation  and  the  evidence  of 
two  or  three  witnesses,  irreproachable  in  character  and  not 
suspected  of  animosity  towards  the  accused.  The  bishop  is  to 
have  his  priests  and  deacons  as  assessors  ;  the  evidence  is  to 
be  carefully  sifted,  and,  if  the  charge  is  not  sustained,  the  ac- 

1  Vigilii Constit.  de  TribusCapitulis.— Cf.  Facundi  Episc.  Hermaniens. 
Epist.  in  Defens.  Trium  Capit. 

2  Concil    Constantinop.  II.  cap.  13.— Cf.  Collat.  viii. 

3  Ibid.  Collat.  vii.  4  Gregor.  PP.  I.  Regist.  Lib.  I.  Epist.  35. 
5  Constit.  Apostol.  Lib.  ir.  cap.  33. 


PRIMITIVE     DISCIPLINE.  267 

cuser  is  to  be  punished  as  a  calumniator.  After  a  careful  and 
formal  trial,  the  guilty  man  is  to  be  again  entreated  in  secret 
to  repent,  and,  if  he  still  hardens  his  heart,  the  sentence  is  at 
length  to  be  reluctantly  pronounced  in  the  presence  of  two  or 
three  witnesses.  The  punishment  to  be  inflicted  is  propor 
tioned  to  the  magnitude  of  the  offence,  and  only  in  extreme 
cases  is  excommunication  allowed.  Even  then,  if  the  offender 
repents,  he  is  to  be  welcomed  back  with  as  much  eagerness  as 
a  new  convert  would  be  sought  for  among  the  heathen.1 

In  theory,  at  least,  this  continued  to  be  the  rule  of  the 
church.  A  trial  with  not  less  than  two  witnesses  was  held  to 
be  necessary.  The  third  council  of  Carthage,  in  397,  decreed 
that  no  ecclesiastic  should  be  suspended  from  communion  un 
less  he  disobeyed  for  two  months  a  summons  to  trial  before  his 
superior.  If  he  appeared  neither  there  nor  before  the  annual 
synod  to  have  his  cause  investigated,  he  was  held  to  be  self- 
condemned.2  The  fifth  council,  in  401,  modified  this  to  some 
extent,  in  deference  to  a  custom  by  which  churchmen  were 
sometimes  suspended  for  causes  kept  secret,  either  for  their 
own  reputation  or  for  that  of  the  church,  and  in  such  cases 
they  could  demand  a  trial  within  a  year,  failing  in  which  they 
forfeited  their  right  to  be  heard.?  About  the  same  period,  St. 
Augustine  declares  ihat  no  one  could  be  excommunicated  ex 
cept  for  crime,  either  voluntarily  confessed  or  proved  in  a 
secular  or  ecclesiastical  court  ;4  and  this  confession  had  to  be 
public,  for  in  419  the  seventh  council  of  Carthage  declared 
that  if  a  bishop  refused  communion  on  account  of  a  crime  re 
vealed  to  him  in  confession,  and  the  excommunicate  denied  it, 
the  other  bishops  should  not  regard  the  sentence,  but  should 
withhold  communion  from  him  who  had  pronounced  it,  to  teach 
him  not  to  punish  for  that  which  he  could  not  prove  by  evi- 

\  Constit.  Apostol.  Lib.  II.  cap.  24,  41,  42,  47,  51,  52,  53,  54,  55,  50. 

2  Concil.  Carthag.  III.  can.  7.  8. 

3  Concil.  Carthag.  V.  can.  12. 

4  Augustin.    Serin.  35 L    §  10  (Ed.  Benedict.).     Cf.  Innocent.    PP.  I. 
Epi&t.  vr.  §  10. 


2P>8  EXCOMMUNICATION. 

dence.1  The  council  of  Vaison,  in  442,  was  not  quite  so 
strict,  and  permitted,  in  such  cases,  the  bishop  to  decline  join 
ing  in  communion  with  the  sinner,  but  allowed  the  latter  to 
enjoy  communion  with  all  the  rest  of  the  faithful.2  The  council 
of  Nicrca,  moreover,  had  provided  an  additional  safeguard,  by 
ordering  a  semi-annual  synod  of  all  the  bishops  of  each  province, 
where  all  cases  of  excommunication  were  to  be  examined  and 
confirmed,  if  found  justifiable — thus  giving  to  the  condemned 
a  court  of  appeal  and  revision.3 

As  the  proceeding  thus  assumed  the  form  of  a  regular  judi 
cial  process,  other  limitations  and  formalities  necessarily  arose 
which  protected  the  accused.  Both  the  fourth  council  of  Car 
thage  and  St.  Augustine  declare  that  no  sentence  could  be 
pronounced  in  the  absence  of  the  culprit,  and  the  judge  or 
bishop  violating  this  rule  was  threatened  with  prosecution*— 
though  of  course,  as  we  have  just  seen,  this  did  not  hold  good 
in  cases  of  contumacy,  when  the  accused  refused  to  appear. 
This  rule  was  emphatically  enforced  by  the  council  of  Chal- 
cedon,  when  Ibas,  Metropolitan  of  Edessa,  complained  that 
he  had  been  excommunicated  in  his  absence  by  the  Robber 
Synod  of  Ephesus,  and  the  assembled  fathers  promptly  ex 
claimed  that  all  proceedings  in  the  absence  of  the  accused  were 
void.5  They  had  already  proclaimed  this  general  principle 
with  still  more  force  when  Eustatius  of  Berytus  informed  them 
that  he  had  been  excommunicated  by  a  synod  recently  held 
in  Constantinople,  for  resisting  the  division  of  his  province 
attempted  in  favor  of  Photius  of  Tyre.  "  No  one  can  condemn 
the  absent,"  they  shouted,  and  Eustatius  was  reinstated  forth 
with.6 

Another  approximation  to  established  legal  proceedings,  of 

1  Cod.  Eccles.  African,  can.  133,  133. 

2  Concil.  Vasensis  I.  ann.  442  can.  8.  3  Conc.il.  Nic;xm.  I.  can.  5. 

*  Concil.  Carthag.  IV.  aim.  398  can.  30.— Augustin.  Epist.  43  cap.  3 

§11. 

5  Concil.  Chalcedon.  act.  x.  (TTarduin.  II.  507). 

6  Ejusd.  act.  iv.  (Ibid.  p.  439). 


PRIMITIVE    DISCIPLINE.  2f>9 

much  value  to  the  accused,  was  the  adoption  of  the  lex  talionis, 
which  provided  for  an  unsuccessful  accuser  the  same  penalty  as 
that  to  which  he  had  exposed  the  accused.  Under  the  Roman 
law,  any  one  bringing  an  accusation  was  required  to  inscribe 
himself,  and  run  the  risk,  in  case  of  failure,  of  undergoing  the 
punishment  of  the  crime  charged  in  his  indictment.  This 
naturally  found  its  way  into  ecclesiastical  jurisprudence.  Al 
ready,  in  the  Apostolic  Constitutions,  it  is  provided  that  an 
accuser  failing  to  prove  his  case  shall  be  punished  as  a  calum 
niator  ;  he  is  to  be  ejected  from  the  congregation  as  a  homicide  ; 
if  repentant,  he  may  be  readmitted  after  long  fasting,  and 
pledging  himself  not  to  repeat  the  offence  ;  and  if  guilty  a 
second  time,  he  is  to  be  cut  off  without  mercy.1  The  spirit 
thus  manifested  came  naturally,  in  process  of  time,  to  assume 
the  legal  form  of  the  talio,  and  though  this  does  not  seem  to 
have  been  often  enforced,  it  was  nevertheless  kept  in  view  in 
formal  prosecutions.  Thus,  in  448,  when  Eutyches  was  first 
accused  of  heresy  in  the  synod  of  Constantinople,  the  prose 
cutor,  Eusebius  of  Doryla3imi,  manifested  great  anxiety  in  the 
debate  lest  the  charge  should  fail,  and  he  be  involved  in  the 
fate  which  he  expected  for  Eutyches — deposition  and  banish 
ment  to  the  great  Oasis  of  Egypt,  which  was  the  customary 
place  of  relegation  for  troublesome  ecclesiastics.  So,  in  the 
next  year,  at  the  Robber  Synod  of  Ephesus,  the  monks  of 
Eutyches  make  formal  complaint  of  their  sufferings  arising 
from  the  condemnation  of  their  archimandrite,  and  demand 
that  the  talio  be  enforced  against  the  Patriarch  Flavianus  for 
bringing  it  about.2  It  is  true  that  Flavianus  and  Eusebius 
were  condemned  not  for  this  but  for  presumed  Nestorianism, 
yet  at  the  council  of  Chalcedon  we  see  the  process  rigorously 
adopted,  when  the  accusers  of  Dioscorus  of  Alexandria  were 
not  admitted  to  a  hearing  until  they  had  formally  inscribed 
themselves.3 

1  Constit.  Apostol.  Lib.  n.  cap.  47,  54. 

2  Concil.  Chalced.  Act,  i.  (Harduin.  II.  234-,')). 

3  Concil.  Chalced.  Act.  nr.  (Ibid.  pp.  S22-(i). 

23* 


270  EXCOMMUNICATION. 

Rules  like  these  could  be  enforced  in  the  political  warfare 
between  great  sections  of  the  church,  where  the  prize  at  stake 
was  supremacy,  and  a  defeated  aggressor  was  exposed  to  all 
that  could  increase  or  confirm  the  triumph  of  his  opponent.  In 
the  innumerable  details  of  daily  life,  however,  such  equitable 
provisions  proved  flimsy  protection  against  the  showers  of  ex 
communications  by  which  personal  interests  were  to  be  grati 
fied,  or  the  purity  of  faith  preserved.  It  is  true  that  those 
efficient  instruments  of  priestly  tyranny  in  mediaeval  and 
modern  times — the  ex  certa  scicntia,  the  ex  informata  con- 
scientia,  and  more  than  all,  the  excommunication  ipso  facto, 
or  latce  sententice — had  not  yet  been  invented;  but  their  advent 
was  foreshadowed  by  a  remark  of  St.  Augustine,  that  the  dis 
cipline  of  the  church  could  always  be  administered  when  a 
crime  was  notorious,  and  the  criminal  not  powerful  enough  to 
cause  risk  of  dissension  or  schism.1  To  admit  such  a  practice 
•\vas  an  ominous  abandonment  of  all  the  principles  which  in 
sured  impartial  justice  to  the  friendless  and  the  wretched;  and 
there  is  evidence  enough  that  those  who  claimed  to  be  the 
delegates  of  Christ  in  binding  and  loosing  were  already  begin 
ning  to  abuse  their  power  for  the  gratification  of  worldly  pas 
sions.  In  the  disgraceful  contests  for  supremacy  between  the 
leading  churches  the  anathema  was  employed  as  a  sort  of 
heavenly  artillery  for  mutual  destruction,  reckless  of  the  devas 
tation  wrought  in  whole  provinces  of  the  church,  and  the  spirit 
in  which  it  was  used  is  often  only  too  evident.  When  the 
Apostles  urged  the  Saviour  to  destroy  the  Samaritan  village 
which  refused  to  receive  them,  He  rebuked  the  revengeful 

?3 

spirit,  saying,  i(i  For  the  Son  of  Man  is  not  come  to  destroy 
men's  lives,  but  to  save  them,"  and  meekly  turned  to  seek 
another  resting-place.  The  church,  which  believed  itself  to 
speak  in  the  name  and  by  the  authority  of  Him  whom  no  insult 
or  ill  usage  could  move  to  anger,  sometimes  found  that  the 
ordinary  process  of  damnation  was  too  weak  to  satisfy  its  pas- 

1  Au£ustin.  contra  Epist.  Parmenian.  Lib.  in.  cap.  2  §  13. 


PRIMITIVE     DISCIPLINE.  271 

sions,  and  sought  to  give  a  keener  zest  to  the  destruction  of  an 
antagonist.  Thus,  during  the  Monothelite  quarrel,  when,  in 
646,  a  political  revolution  had  banished  Pyrrhus,  the  Patriarch 
of  Constantinople,  from  his  see,  and  he  took  refuge  in  Rome, 
he  recanted  his  heresy,  but  relapsed  on  proceeding  to  Ravenna. 
The  holy  rage  of  Pope  Theodore  at  this  apostasy  could  not  be 
quenched  by  the  usual  formula  of  excommunication.  He  as 
sembled  his  clergy  at  the  tomb  of  St.  Peter,  and  there  launched 
the  thunders  of  the  church  at  the  unhappy  heretic.  Then, 
calling  for  the  sacred  cup,  lie  mingled  some  of  the  precious 
blood  of  the  Lamb  of  God  with  the  ink  wherewith  he  signed 
the  sentence  which  consigned  Pyrrhus  to  degradation  and  per 
dition.  In  869  the  same  hideous  device  was  adopted  at  the 
council  of  Constantinople  in  the  quarrel  between  Photius  and 
Ignatius.  Ignatius  was  reinstated  in  the  patriarchate  for  a 
time,  and  Photius  deposed  and  excommunicated.  The  sen 
tence  which  condemned  Photius  and  degraded  all  whom  he 
had  ordained  was  signed  by  the  assembled  bishops  with  ink 
containing  the  blood  of  the  sacrifice.1  Knowing  the  veneration 
felt  at  the  time  for  the  elements  of  the  Eucharist,  we  might 
hesitate  to  believe  that  such  profanation  was  possible,  if  it 
were  not  that  nothing  is  sacred  from  the  wrath  of  an  angry 
churchman. 

It  was  not,  however,  only  in  the  strifes  which  shook  the 
Christian  world  that  the  power  to  bind  and  to  loose  was 
shockingly  abused.  In  the  minuter  ambitions  and  conflicts  of 
daily  life  the  control  of  the  Eucharist  was  employed  as  an 
efficient  weapon,  and  was  degraded  until  there  was  danger,  that 
its  power  of  exciting  reverence  might  be  exhausted.  In  his 
homily  on  the  subject,  which  is  an  eloquent  plea  for  charity 
arid  love,  Chrysostom  sadly  declares  that  the  anathema  was 
distributed  around  so  copiously  and  so  ignorantly  that  the  very 
Pagans  made  of  it  a  mockery  for  the  Christian  faith  ;  and  its 
use  had  become  so  general  that  to  say  that  such  a  one  had 

1  C)n\  Lupi  Dissert,  de  Sexta  Synodo  cap.  v.  (Opp.  TIT.  25.) 


272  EXCOMMUNICATION. 

been  excommunicated  for  a  certain  act  excited  no  more  atten 
tion  than  if  it  had  been  said  that  he  had  paid  his  devotions 
to  God.1  Chrysostom  himself  does  not  appear  to  doubt  the 
power  to  damn  without  appeal,  however  much  that  power 
might  be  abused,  but  St.  Augustine  was  more  independent 
when  he  declared  that  if  the  name  of  a  Christian  was  written 
in  the  book  of  life,  it  mattered  little  whether  human  ignorance 
struck  it  off  from  the  diptychs  of  the  church.2  This  was  not 
orthodox,  as  may  be  seen  by  an  epistle  of  Leo  the  Great 
reproving  in  the  West  the  same  abuses  which  Chrysostom 
denounced  in  the  East.  Writing  to  the  bishops  of  Gaul  in 
44f)  he  asserts  that  he  has  known  men  deprived  of  communion 
for  light  and  careless  words,  and  the  souls  for  which  Christ 
had  shed  His  precious  blood  delivered  helpless  to  Satan  by  a 
penalty  which  should  be  reserved  for  the  gravest  sins,  and 
should  only  be  applied  with  grief  and  unwillingness,  not  reck 
lessly  administered  at  the  pleasure  of  an  angry  priest.3  Well 
meant  exhortations  such  as  these,  however,  only  recognized  the 
evil  without  curing  it ;  and  there  seemed  a  risk  that  the  misuse 
of  the  power  of  excommunication  might  at  length  deaden  the 
souls  of  men  to  its  influence.  It  was  about  this  period  that  St. 
Arsenius  was  forced  to  adopt  the  policy  of  separating  from  the 
church  only  old  men  whose  lively  dread  of  perdition  rendered 
them  amenable  to  the  censure,  for  he  had  found  by  experience 
that  in  the  flush  of  youth  sinners  were  only  hardened  by  it  and 
rendered  less  susceptible  to  repentance.*  Few  ecclesiastics 
were  so  cautious  as  Arsenius,  and  the  continued  growth  of  the 
evil  at  length  called  for  the  interposition  of  the  civil  authority. 
Human  nature  could  not  be  expected  to  wield  with  moderation 
the  irresponsible  powers  claimed  by  the  church,  and  the  state, 
in  self-defence,  was  obliged  to  interfere  and  assume  the  control 
of  the  sacraments  of  which  the  church  had  alwavs  boasted  the 


1  Chrysost.  Homil.  de  Anathemate  cap.  1,  2. 

2  S.  Augustin.  Epist,  78  §  4  (Ed.  Benedict.). 

3  Leon.  PP.  I.  Epist,  10  cap.  8. 

*  Socrat.  Hist.  Eccles.  Lib.  iv.  cap.  2:5. 


PRIMITIVE     DISCIPLINE.  213 

exclusive  guardianship.  In  f)41 ,  Justinian  accordingly  promul- 
o-ated  an  edict  forbidding  all  bishops  and  priests  from  excom 
municating  any  one  without  a  regular  trial  in  accordance  with 
the  ancient  rules.  In  cases  of  contravention  of  this  law  the 
excommunicate  was  to  be  restored  to  communion  by  superior 
ecclesiastical  authority,  and  the  excommunicator  was  himself 
to  be  suspended,  under  the  operation  of  the  lex  talionis,  for  the 
same  length  of  time  as  that  to  which  he  had  condemned  his 
victim,1  a  law  which  was  continued  in  force  by  Basil  the  Mace 
donian  and  Leo  the  Philosopher.2  Such  legislation  might  be 
enforced  in  the  East,  where  the  state  retained  its  full  supremacy, 
but  in  the  West,  as  has  been  seen  in  a  preceding  essay,  the 
revolution  which  eventually  left  the  church  supreme,  had  com 
menced  long  before. 

Exclusion  from  communion  was  not  a  mere  local  disability, 
which  could  be  evaded  by  emigration  from  one  diocese  to  an 
other.  The  sinner  was  under  the  ban  of  a  Divine  law,  which 
operated  everywhere,  and  at  an  early  period  measures  of  police 
were  adopted  by  which  the  sentence  of  a  bishop  in  further 
Spain  had  as  much  force  on  the  banks  of  the  Euphrates  as  at 
home.  No  stranger,  whether  corning  to  reside  or  passing  on 
his  way  as  a  traveller,  could  be  admitted  to  communion  without 
exhibiting  Utter  a  formates  or  commendatitice  from  his  bishop, 
showing  him  to  be  in  full  communion  at  home.  All  bishops 
were  strictly  interdicted  from  absolving  the  excommunicates  of 
their  brethren,  and  the  rule  was  universal  that  the  sentence 
could  be  reversed  only  by  him  who  had  pronounced  it,3  except 
where  superior  authority  existed,  as  in  the  synods  created  by 
the  council  of  Nicaea  for  the  purpose. 

As  early  as  the  Apostolic  Canons  and  Constitutions,  we  find 
that  these  commendatory  letters  were  fully  in  vogue,  but  also 
that  shameless  reprobates  had  already  begun  to  take  advantage 

1  Novell.  12o  cap.  xi.  2  Baeilicon  Lib.  in.  Tit.  i.  cap.  20. 

3  Canon.  Apostol.  can.  xxxiii.— Concil.  Elibcrit.  can.  58.— Coucil.  Arc- 
latcns.  I.  ami.  314  can.  16. 


274  EXCOMMUNICATION. 

of  the  system,  rendering  extreme  caution  requisite  to  avoid 
imposition  in  receiving  those  which  were  forged  or  improperly 
obtained1 — a  fact  confirmed  by  the  council  of  Elvira  in  302. 2 
The  council  of  Antioch  repeats  the  rule  in  341,  showing  that 
it  was  not  properly  observed,  and  adds  that  only  bishops  and 
chorepiscopi  could  give  general  letters,  priests  being  restricted  to 
recommending  their  communicants  to  the  bishops  of  the  neigh 
boring  dioceses.3  Notwithstanding  the  antiquity  of  these  regu 
lations,  the  first  council  of  Carthage  in  348  insists  on  the 
production  of  such  letters  in  terms  which  seem  to  show  that 
the  custom  had  not  been  generally  observed  in  the  African 
churches,  and  that  its  enforcement  was  necessary  to  render  the 
sentence  of  excommunication  respected.4 

The  prohibition  of  the  reception  of  excommunicates  by  other 
bishops  was  repeated  with  a  frequency  and  vigor  which  show 
how  difficult  its  enforcement  was  found.5  Various  penalties 
were  devised  for  the  prevention  of  the  abuse.  As  early  as  the 
third  century,  Cyprian  declared  that  those  who  thus  joined 
themselves  to  the  guilty  should  not  be  separated  in  the  punish 
ment.6  The  general  expression  was  that  they  should  share  in 
the  excommunication  ;7  though  the  second  council  of  Carthage 

1  Canon.  Apostol.  can.  xiii.,  xxxiv. — Constit.  Apostol.  Lib.  u.  cap.  02. 

2  Concil.  Eliberit.  can.  58.     In  the  appendix  to  Marculfus  (Formul. 
No.  12— Baluz.  II.  304)  and  in  Gratian  (P.  I.  Dist.  Ixxiii.)  will  be  found 
the  devices  adopted  to  prevent  fraud.     The  letter  was  to  be  headed  with 
the  Greek  letters  TT,  v;  «,  v,  being  the  initials  of  the  Trinity,  in  whose 
name  it  was  written.     These  were  repeated  at  the  foot,  followed  by  the 
initials,  also  in  Greek,  of  the  writer,  the  party  addressed,  the  bearer,  the 
city  whence  written,  and  the  indiction.     If  the  trouble  existed  in  an  age 
of  civilization,  it  of  course  must  have  increased  enormously  in  the  igno 
rance  of  the  dark  ages,  when  excommunication  had  become  as  common 
as  education  was  rare. 

3  Concil.  Antioeh.  can.  7,  8.  *  Concil.  Carthag.  I.  can.  7. 

5  Concil.  Nicaen.  I.  can.  5.— Concil.  Sardicens.  can.  16.— Synod.  Roman, 
aim.  384  ad  Gallic.  Episcopos  can.  14,  15. — Coneil.  Taurinens.  ami.  401 
can.  7.— Innocent.  PP.  I.  Epist.  n.  cap.  7.— Concil.  Arausican.  I.  aim. 
441  can.  11.— Felicis  PP.  III.  Epist.  vu.,  etc. 

6  Cyprian.  Epist.  (57  (Ed.  Oxou.). 

7  Concil.  Antioch.  can.  2. — Statin.  Eccles.  Antiq.  can.  73. 


PRIMITIVE     DISCIPLINE.  275 

is  more  precise  in  specifying  for  them  the  penalty  of  the  crime 
for  which  the  excommunicate  had  been  condemned.1  In  the 
form  of  excommunication  used  by  Synesius  we  find  that  after 
warning  all  ecclesiastics  to  hold  no  intercourse  with  Andronicus 
and  Thoas,  he  winds  up  by  threatening. — "And  if  any  one 
contemns  the  church  of  our  little  city,  as  though  it  were  need 
less  to  respect  the  poor,  let  him  know  that  he  divides  the 
church  which  Christ  made  one.  And  whether  he  be  deacon, 
or  priest,  or  bishop,  we  will  hold  him  as  we  hold  Andronicus, 
for  never  will  we  take  the  hand  or  sit  at  the  same  table — much 
less  partake  of  the  sacred  mysteries — with  any  one  who  has 
aught  to  do  with  Andronicus  or  Thoas."2  This  is  mildness, 
however,  compared  with  the  ferocity  manifested  by  Gelasius  I. 
in  his  quarrel  with  the  church  of  Constantinople  over  the  ex 
communication  of  the  Patriarch  Acacius.  Acacius  had  been 
orthodox,  though  tolerant,  and,  as  the  Emperor  Zeno  was  la 
boring  earnestly  to  heal  the  dissensions  arising  from  the  Nesto- 
rian  and  Eutychian  heresies,  he  had  not  refused  to  join  in 
communion  with  those  who  professed  these  heterodox  dogmas. 
For  this  he  had  been  excommunicated  by  Rome  ;  and  when 
his  successor,  Euphemius,  entreated  Gelasius  to  remove  the 
separation  which  existed  between  the  churches,  the  latter 
angrily  replied  :  "  This  would  not  be  stooping  to  support  the 

church,  but  manifestly  to  plunge  into  hell AVas  he  not, 

by  communing  witli  the  successors  of  Eutyches,  liable  to  the 
same  fate?  And  of  such  it  is  written,  'Living  they  descend 
into  hell  !'  ":! 

These  regulations  established  an  efficient  system  of  police 
throughout  the  church,  and  organized  it  as  a  body  independent 
of  the  state.  Notwithstanding  their  occasional,  or  even  fre 
quent,  infraction,  in  the  vast  majority  of  cases  they  rendered 
the  impenitent  excommunicate  an  outcast,  who  could  associate 
only  with  Pagans  or  heretics.  After  the  conversion  of  Con- 

'  Concil.  Carthag1.  II.  can.  7.  2  Synesii  Epist.  58. 

*  Gelasii  PP.  1.  Epist.  1  (Harduin.  II.  881). 


27G  EXCOMMUNICATTON. 

stantine  the  former  rapidly  dwindled  in  numbers,  while  the 
latter  were  soon  reduced  to  a  position  endurable  only  by  men 
who  felt  that  they  were  suffering  for  conscience'  sake.  As  the 
church  was  coterminous  with  the  empire,  and  as  the  empire 
embraced  all  that  was  then  considered  the  civilized  world, 
there  was  thus  no  rest  for  the  disobedient  Christian  save  in 
recourse  to  the  tender  mercies  of  the  Barbarian.  Even  this 
fearful  alternative,  however,  was  often  preferred  to  the  endless 
torments  of  existence  under  the  ban  of  the  church  ;  and  this 
may  perhaps  explain  why  nearly  all  conversions  to  Christianity 
among  those  not  subject  to  the  imperial  authority  were  con 
versions  not  to  orthodoxy  but  to  heresy — why  the  Goths  and 
Vandals  and  Burgundians  were  Arians,  why  the  Christians 
of  Central  Asia  were  Nestorians,  and  those  of  Abyssinia  Euty- 
chians. 

It  was  easy  under  such  a  code  of  discipline  to  break  down 
the  resistance  of  individual  offenders,  and  to  reduce  to  obedi 
ence  the  most  recalcitrant  of  believers  who  were  accessible 
either  to  the  hopes  of  ambition  in  this  world  or  to  the  fears  of 
perdition  in  the  next.  But  a  different  problem  was  presented 
in  the  case  of  those  who  conscientiously  differed  from  the 
majority  on  some  point  of  faith  or  observance  ;  who  courted 
excommunication  as  martyrdom  in  the  cause  of  truth,  or  who 
themselves  withdrew  from  communion  as  from  contamination  ; 
and  who  were  sufficiently  numerous  to  establish  congregations 
of  their  own,  with  priests  and  bishops,  where  they  administered 
the  Eucharist  among  themselves  with  a  satisfaction  peculiarly 
exasperating  to  the  orthodox.  In  such  cases  the  ordinary 
ecclesiastical  censures  were  of  course  powerless,  but  the  church 
was  not  therefore  obliged  to  abandon  the  flock  to  the  ravages 
of  the  wolves.  Constituted  as  it  was  under  the  care  and  pro 
tection  of  the  state,  the  latter  Avas  bound,  as  the  supreme 
authority,  to  supplement  its  powers  when  required  for  the 
maintenance  of  discipline  or  the  purity  of  faith.  Constantine 
controlled  the  sacraments,  as  he  showed  when,  deceived  by  the 


PRIMITIVE     DISCIPLINE.  277 

cunning  of  Arius  into  the  belief  that  that  arch-heretic  was 
orthodox,  he  ordered  Alexander,  Bishop  of  Constantinople,  to 
admit  him  to  communion,  and  the  scandal  was  only  prevented 
by  the  sudden  and  fearful  death  of  the  heresiarch  while  on  his 
way  in  triumph  to  the  church  where  the  trembling  bishop,  not 
daring  to  refuse,  awaited  his  advent.1  It  was,  therefore,  the 
duty  of  the  sovereign  to  preserve  the  purity  of  the  sacrament 
and  .the  unity  of  the  church,  and  the  church  found  little  diffi 
culty  in  procuring  from  the  orthodox  emperors  whatever  legis 
lation  seemed  requisite  to  effect  this  purpose.  The  history  of 
persecution  is  too  vast  a  subject  to  be  treated  here  in  detail. 
Suffice  it  to  say  that,  with  the  exception  of  Constantius,  who 
was  an  Arian,  and  Julian,  who  was  a  Pagan,  every  emperor, 
from  Constant ine  to  Valentinian  III.,  has  left  enduring  evi 
dence  of  his  zeal  for  the  suppression  of  heterodoxy.  The  Theo- 
dosiaii  code  alone  has  preserved  sixty-six  edicts,  promulgated 
in  little  more  than  a  hundred  years,  which  inflict  on  those  who 
hold  aloof  from  the  communion  of  the  church  every  variety  of 
disability  and  penalty,  from  the  suppression  of  their  religious 
assemblies  to  the  last  resort  of  capital  punishment.'2  This  alone 
was  wanting  to  place  in  the  hands  of  the  hierarchy  absolute 
command  over  the  souls  and  bodies  of  men.  Within  their 
communion  there  was  obedience,  without  it  persecution  ;  and 
the  Christian  had  but  the  choice  between  submission  and  out 
lawry.  In  theory,  their  powrer  knew  no  limit,  for  they  spoke 
in  the  name  of  the  M^st  High,  and  practically  it  was  only 
limited  by  the  autocratic  constitution  of  the  empire,  the  su 
premacy  of  which  they  were  not  as  yet  prepared  to  seriously 
contest.  In  a  sphere  continually  widening,  they  combined  the 
legislative,  the  judicial,  and  the  executive  functions,  for  they 
were  at  once  the  framers,  the  expounders,  and  the  ministers  of 
the  law. 

As  the  church  was  essentially  theocratic,  and  its  discipline 

1  Soorat.  Hist.  Kccles.  Lib.  r.  cap.  2~>. 
-  Lib.  xvi.  Cod.  Thcod.  Tit.  v. 
24 


278  EXCOMMUNICATION. 

was  based  upon  the  idea  that  the  supernatural  prerogatives 
conferred  upon  its  ministers  preserved  them  from  abusing  their 
sacred  functions,  its  organization  was  of  necessity  despotic, 
excommunication  being  the  weapon  ever  at  hand  to  enforce 
subordination.  As  early  as  the  Apostolic  Constitutions  we 
find  the  bishops,  priests,  and  deacons  all  intrusted  with  the 
power  of  excommunicating,  the  only  limitation  being  that  they 
could  not  exercise  it  upon  those  higher  than  themselves  in 
ecclesiastical  rank.1  As  the  organization  of  the  hierarchy 
grew  more  complex,  and  additional  grades  were  established, 
the  bonds  were,  if  anything,  drawn  more  tightly.  There  is 
extant  a  curious  set  of  canons  in  Arabic,  passing  under  the 
name  of  those  of  Nic.-va,  and  dating  probably  from  the  first  half 
of  the  fifth  century,  which  embodies  a  detailed  statement  of  the 
relations  existing  between  the  various  grades  of  the  hierarchy 
and  the  laity.  The  patriarch  was  supreme  within  his  own 
boundaries,  with  authority  to  judge  all  the  faithful,  from  met 
ropolitans  to  laymen,  the  council  of  the  whole  patriarchate 
being  the  only  tribunal  to  which  he  was  amenable.  No  bishop 
could  excommunicate  a  brother  bishop,  all  controversies  between 
them  being  referred  to  the  patriarch.  No  wrong  could  justify 
a  priest  in  excommunicating  a  bishop,  and  any  priest  or  deacon 
resisting  his  superior  was  cut  off  without  mercy.  Of  course  no 
layman  could  undertake  to  excommunicate  an  ecclesiastic  ;  and 
if  he  made  the  attempt,  he  was  promptly  removed  from  com. 
munion,  and  not  restored  until  he  had  satisfied  his  adversary 
by  lengthened  penitence  and  by  embracing  a  monastic  life. 
He  who  was  excommunicated,  no  matter  how  unjustly  or  impro 
perly,  was  obliged  to  endure  it  patiently  until  absolved,  for 
excommunication  lasted  either  until  the  deatli  of  the  sinner, 
or  until  he  had  confessed  his  fault  and  made  due  submission.2 

These  arbitrary  and  irresponsible  powers  were  never  to  be 
allowed   to  rust  for  want  of  use.      As  the  church  assumed  that 

1  Constit.  Apostol.  Lib.  vm.  cap.  :34-. 

2  Sanctum  Patrum  CCCXVIIJ.  Const,  xv.      (Hanluin.  I.  :>0:;-L.) 


PRIMITIVE     DISCIPLINE.  279 

it  had  to  answer  for  the  souls  intrusted  to  its  charge,  it  directed 
its  officials  to  exercise  over  them  the  most  minute  and  watchful 
supervision.     The  bishop  was  not  to  wait  for  complaints  to  be 
brought  before  him  of  lapses  in  faith  or  morals  of  his  flock,  but 
was  to  search  out  the  infected  sheep,  and  either  cure  or  eject 
them,  lest  they  should  spread  the  disease  to  others  ;  he  was  to 
see  that  the  righteous  preserved  their  righteousness,  and  that 
the  evil  were  brought  to  acknowledge  and  repent  their  trans 
gressions.1     Thus,  when  Gregory  Thaumaturgus  heard  of  the 
ill-deeds  of  the  Pontic  Christians  during  an  inroad  of  the  Bar 
barians,  he  at  once  ordered  commissioners  to  be  dispatched  thither 
armed  with  ample  powers  to  search  out  the  guilty  and  inflict  on 
them  condign   spiritual  penalties.'2      How  effective    and    how 
untrammelled  by  form  was  this  authority  is  seen  in  a  canon  of 
the  first  council  of  Toledo,  held  in  400,  which  provides  that  if 
a  powerful  man  shall  despoil  the  poor,  or  the  clergy,  or  monks, 
and  when  summoned  by  his  bishop  shall  disdain  to  answer, 
notice  shall  be  sent  to  all  the  bishops  of  the  province,  who  shall 
thenceforth  hold  him  excommunicate  until  he  shall  submit  and 
make  restoration/'     The  minuteness  of  this  supervision,  more 
over,  is  shown  by  the  list  of  occupations  which  Christians  were 
forbidden  to  follow  under  pain  of  expulsion,  embracing  not  only 
pimps,  procuresses,  and  prostitutes,  but  also  actors,  charioteers, 
gladiators,  racers,  minstrels,  musicians,  dancers,  tavern-keepers, 
astrologers,  and  soothsayers,  while  soldiers  were  to  promise  to 
be  content  with  their  pay,  and  abstain  from  plundering  or  in 
flicting  unnecessary  injury.4     But  one  thing  was  required  to 
render  this  system  complete  in  the  control  which  the  church 
acquired  over  the  individual,  and  that  was  found  when  the 
practice  of    confession  was    introduced  and    enforced,  which 
occurred  at  a  period  comparatively  early.0 

1  Constit.  Apostol.  Lib.  n.  cap.  20,  21.— Cf.  Sanct.  Pat.  CCCXVI1I. 
ubi  sup. 

2  Greg.  Thaumaturg.  Epist.  can.  vi.     (Harduin.  I.  196.) 

3  Condi.  Toletan.  1.  can.  xi.  4  Constit.  Apostol.  Lib.  vm.  cap.  2 

5  I  have  not  investigated  the  question  as  to  the  probable  date  in  which 


280  EXCOMMUNICATION. 

Nor  was  it  only  by  regulating  the  conduct  of  daily  lite  among 
the  faithful  that  the  church  wielded  power  so  immense.  To 
him  who  represented  the  living  God,  and  who  spoke  in  His 
name  to  enforce  His  laws,  the  ordinary  distinctions  of  human 
rank  were  as  naught.  Compared  with  the  majesty  of  the 
Almighty,  the  infinite  littleness  of  humanity  placed  all  men 
on  the  same  level,  and  the  proudest  potentate  was  as  much 
subject  to  the  behests  of  the  minister  of  Christ  as  the  meanest 
slave.  Before  the  ineffable  mystery  of  the  Eucharist  there 
could  be  no  acceptance  of  persons,  and  the  poorest  priest  held 
in  his  hands  the  salvation  of  the  ruler  of  men.  This  opened 
to  the  church  a  sphere  of  influence  of  which  it  was  not  slow  to 
avail  itself.  Hardly  had  Constantine  proclaimed  his  faith  by 
decreeing  toleration  for  Christianity,  when  we  find  the  council 
of  Aries,  in  »>14,  arranging  to  bring  under  the  direct  control  of 
the  church  all  those  whose  station  gave  them  importance.  It 
orders  that  whenever  any  Christian  is  appointed  governor  of  a 
province,  he  shall  take  with  him  the  customary  letters  of  com 
munion  to  the  bishop  of  his  seat  of  government,  who  shall 
exercise  supervision  over  him,  and  promptly  suspend  him 
from  communion  in  case  he  shall  contravene  in  any  respect  the 
discipline  of  the  church.1  As  Constantine,  after  his  conversion, 
would  naturally  seek  to  strengthen  himself  against  the  Pagan 
party  by  intrusting,  as  far  as  possible,  all  offices  of  influence 
to  those  who  were  united  with  him  in  the  faith,  it  is  easy  to 
see  what  enormous  political  influence  was  thus  acquired  by- 
ecclesiastics,  to  be  used  for  good  or  ill,  for  the  benefit  of 
humanity  or  for  their  own  aggrandizement  and  that  of  the 
church. 

An  instance   of  the    practical   power   thus   accruing  to  the 

confession  to  priests  became  customary.,  but  already  in  the  year  400  the 
council  of  Toledo  (can.  vi.)  alludes  to  one  of  its  evils  which  even  then 
was  making;  itself  felt ,  and  in  410  an  epistle  of  Innocent  I.  (Epist.  i.  can. 
vii.)shows  the  system  fully  developed,  the  confessor  having1  the  power  of 
absolution  when  satisfied  of  the  contrition  of  the  penitent. 
1  Coucil.  Arelatens.  I.  can.  vii. 


PRIMITIVE     DISCIPLINE.  281 

church  is  afforded  by  the  quarrel  already  referred  to  between 
Synesius  of  Ptolemais  and  Andronicus,  Governor  of  the  Pen- 
tapolis.  The  latter,  a  cruel  and  sanguinary  tyrant,  distin 
guished  his  rule  by  savage  and  lawless  oppression.  Synesius 
dared  to  interpose  between  the  despot  and  his  victims,  but  his 
entreaties  and  exhortations  were  alike  unheeded.  Finally 
Andronicus  grew  restive  under  the  reproaches  of  the  one  man 
who  dared  to  resist  him;  he  posted  on  the  church  door  of 
Ptolemais  an  edict  closing  it  to  the  faithful,  and  sacrilegiously 
boasted  that  his  victims  should  not  escape  him,  even  if  they 
were  clinging  to  the  feet  of  Christ  Himself.  Whatever  doubts 
Synesius  may  have  felt  as  to  his  power  to  punish  the  crimes 
of  the  governor  vanished  when  the  man  thus  dared  openly  to 
beard  the  church  ;  he  hesitated  no  longer,  and  promulgated  the 
full  sentence  of  excommunication  against  the  impious  wretch. 
At  once  the  haughty  defiance  of  Andronicus  gave  way;  his 
friends  interceded  for  him  with  Synesius,  and  it  was  with  dif 
ficulty  that  the  latter  consented  to  suspend  the  sentence  upon 
pledges  of  repentance  and  amendment.1  In  this,  Synesius  had 
an  illustrious  precedent  of  an  excommunication  launched  not 
very  long  before  by  St.  Athanasius  against  a  wicked  governor 
of  Libya.  The  culprit  was  a  native  of  Cappadocia,  and  St. 
Basil,  the  metropolitan  of  that  province,  on  receiving  the  cir 
cular  notification  of  excommunication,  wrote  to  Atlmnasius 
that  no  one  in  that  region  should  extend  to  the  excommunicate 
the  hospitality  of  fire,  water,  or  shelter.'2 

Even  the  supremacy  of  the  imperial  dignity,  approachable 
by  no  other  power,  wras  not  exempt  from  the  jurisdiction  of 
the  church.  St.  John  Chrysostom  declares  that  a  man  who 
approaches  the  Eucharist  while  unabsolved  from  sin  is  worse 
than  one  possessed  by  the  devil,  and  as  there  can  be  no  excep 
tion  to  so  universal  a  rule  he  urges  the  ministers  of  God  to 
refuse  it  to  all  who  seek  it  unworthily — "  be  he  a  leader  af 

1  Synesii  Epist.  57,  58,  72,  89. 

a  Basil.  EpisL-.  57  (ap,  Baron,  Aimal,  aim.  870,  No,  92). 
24* 


282  EXCOMMUNICATION. 

armies,  or  a,  prefect,  or  even  he  who  wears  the  crown,  for  thou 
hast  a  power  superior  to  his."1  This  control  over  the  master 
of  the  world,  however,  was  rather  theoretical  than  practical. 
Constantius  the  Ariari,  baptized  like  his  father  only  on  his 
death-bed,  was  beyond  the  reach  of  the  anathema,  as  was 
likewise  the  pagan  Julian,  and  the  orthodox  emperors  were 
surrounded  by  those  who  were  rather  courtiers  than  ardent 
members  of  the  church  militant.  At  length,  however,  a  man 
arose  whose  commanding  talents,  unbending  firmness,  and  un 
conquerable  zeal  fitted  him  to  give  the  world  a  memorable 
example  of  the  superiority  of  spiritual  authority  over  tem 
poral  power.  This  was  St.  Ambrose,  the  noblest  of  the  Latin 
fathers. 

When  the  Emperor  Gratian,  in  383,  was  put  to  death  by 
order  of  the  tyrant  Maximus,  Ambrose  was  sent  as  an  envoy 
to  procure  the  body  of  the  murdered  sovereign.  To  most  men 
the  mission  would  have  seemed  a  delicate  one,  but  the  prelate 
was  not  disposed  to  humble  himself  before  the  emperor.  Rising 
to  the  full  height  of  his  supremacy  as  the  vindicator  of  the 
prerogatives  of  the  Most  High,  he  boldly  reproached  Maximus 
with  the  crime  which  stained  him  with  his  sovereign's  blood  ; 
he  excommunicated  him,  and  ordered  him  to  undergo  a  due 
course  of  penitence  if  he  desired,  for  the  future,  the  favor  of 
God  ;  and  the  pious  biographer  and  secretary  of  Ambrose  as 
sumes  that  the  defeat  and  death  of  Maximus,  which,  however, 
did  not  occur  until  388,  were  the  direct  result  of  his  disregard 
of  the  commands  of  the  man  of  God.2 

Ambrose  had  already  manifested  the  same  contempt  for 
earthly  dignity,  when  the  cause  of  religion  was  at  stake,  in 
refusing  to  the  Empress  Justina  and  her  son  Valentinian  II., 
on  account  of  their  Arianism,  the  use  of  a  church  in  Milan 
wherein  to  offer  their  impious  devotions.  The  city  was  ortho- 

1  Chrysost.  Honiil.  8:2  in  Mult.  cap.  rt  (. Milne's  Ed.  V.  9(>-t-r>). 

2  Paulini  Vit.  S.  Ambros.  cap.  19. — On  a  second  mission  to  Maximus, 
in  387,  Ambrose  states  that  he  refused  to  enter  into  communion  with  the 
bishops  of  the  tyrant's  court. — Anil/rose.  Epist.  xxiv.  cap.  1:2. 


PRIMITIVE     DISCIPLINE.  283 

dox,  and  blindly  attached  to  its  bishop.  It  was  not  difficult  to 
persuade  the  people  that  the  bare  toleration  of  heresy  was  per 
secution  of  the  true  faith  ;  and  Ambrose,  when  threatened  for 
this  contumacious  resistance  to  the  imperial  commands,  re 
sponded  by  tumults  which  speedily  caused  the  courtiers  and 
their  masters  to  abandon  the  unholy  design.1  With  equal 
firmness  he  rebuked  the  youthful  Valentinian  II.,  when  the 
latter  gave  signs  of  yielding  to  the  Pagan  party  in  Rome,  and 
of  allowing  them  to  restore  some  of  their  altars.  Valentinian 
was  as  yet  only  a  catechumen,  and,  not  being  admitted  to  com 
munion,  could  not  be  threatened  with  excommunication,  but 
Ambrose  warned  him  that  he  should  be  excluded  from  the 
church  itself.  "You  may  enter  the  church,  it  is  true,  yet 
there  you  will  find  either  no  priests  or  those  who  will  with 
stand  you  ;  and  what  can  you  reply  to  him  who  shall  say, 
'  The  church  wishes  no  gifts  from  hands  like  thine,  which  have 
aided  in  adorning  the  temples  of  the  false  gods?"1 

In  the  hands  of  a  man  of  dauntless  fervor  like  Ambrose,  the 
power  conferred  by  the  control  of  the  sacraments  was  almost 
boundless,  and  the  crowning  proof  of  this  was  given  when  he 
dared  to  suspend  from  communion  the  Emperor  Theodosius  the 
Great. ;  and  the  world  saw  with  wonder  its  imperial  master,  in 
the  full  flush  of  his  splendid  victories,  bend  submissively  before 
the  moral  greatness  of  an  unarmed  priest.  The  spectacle  was 
indeed  an  impressive  one,  and  seemed  to  promise  that  thence 
forth  the  gospel  truths  of  mercy  and  charity  should  reign 
supreme,  and  be  at  last  acknowledged  as  the  rule  of  life.  The 
same  hasty  temperament  which  led  Theodosius  to  permit  the 
slaughter  of  Thessalonica,  rendered  him  prompt  to  deplore  it, 
and  earnest  in  his  remorse.  Ambrose  was  swift  to  take  ad 
vantage  of  the  situation,  and  he  addressed  the  emperor  in  lan 
guage  which  must  have  sounded  strangely  in  ears  accustomed 
to  the  slavish  adulation  of  the  imperial  court.  "Thou  art  a 

1  Paulini  op.  c.it.  cap.  12-18. 

2  Ambrosii  Epist.  xvir.  cap.  18,  H.— Kjusd.  tie  Ohitu  Valentin.  Consol. 
cap.  51. 


284  EXCOMMUNICATION. 

man,  and  temptation  comes  to  thee.  Conquer  it.  Sin  is 
washed  away  only  by  tears  and  repentance.  Angels  and  arch 
angels  can  do  no  more."  The  time  was  not  yet,  nor  was 
Ambrose  the  man  to  suggest  it,  when  the  church's  treasures  of 
salvation  were  to  be  bought  by  splendid  gifts  to  found  monas 
teries  and  endow  cathedrals.  "  The  living  God,  who  alone  can 
say  I  am  with  you,  stays  his  hand  when  we  have  sinned,  only 
if  we  truly  repent" — and  he  proceeds,  not  indeed  formally  to 
excommunicate,  but  in  a  deprecating  way  to  intimate  that  lie 
cannot  admit  the  emperor  to  communion.  "  I  have  no  reason 
to  be  contumacious,  but  I  have  reason  to  fear,  and  I  dare  not 
offer  the  sacrifice  if  you  are  present."  Kven  this  he  seems  to 
feel  it  necessary  to  justify  by  recounting  a  recent  vision — a 
vision  which  the  character  of  the  man  forbids  us  from  stigma 
tizing  as  supposititious,  and  which  was  probably  a  dream  sug 
gested  to  his  ardent  mind  by  pondering  over  the  perplexities 
of  the  situation.1 

However  deferential  Ambrose  may  have  been  in  communi 
cating  his  determination  to  the  emperor,  he  was  none  the  less 
firm  in  maintaining  it.  lie  refused  to  allow  Theodosius  to 
enter  the  church  until  lie  should  have  peformed  a  public 
penance,  and  when  the  imperial  culprit  urged  that  David  had 
been  guilty  of  adultery  and  homicide,  he  was  met  with  the 
reply  that  if  he  chose  to  imitate  the  Jewish  monarch  in  sin,  he 
must  likewise  imitate  him  in  repentance.'2  In  the  splendid 
panegyric  which  Ambrose  pronounced  on  the  death  of  his 
friend,  he  does  not  omit  to  recount  how  "  He  laid  aside  all  the 
imperial  insignia.  He  publicly  bewailed  in  the  church  the 
crime  to  which  he  had  been  beguiled  by  the  fraud  of  others, 
and  prayed  with  sighs  and  tears  for  pardon.  The  emperor 
was  not  ashamed,  as  so  many  private  citizens  are,  to  undergo 
a  public  penance;  and  until  his  death  there  was  never  a  day  in 
which  he  did  not  bewail  his  fault."3 

1  Ambrosii  Epist.  LI.  cap.  11-14.          2  pau]ini  Vit.  S.  Ambros.  cap.  24. 
3  Ambros.  de  Obitu  Theodos.  Orat.  cap.  84.— So  delicate  was  the  con 
scientiousness  of  Theodosius,  that,  as  Ambrose  relates  (loc.  cit.),  when 


PRIMITIVE     DISCIPLINE.  285 

The  somewhat  theatrical  account  of  the  affair  by  Theodoret 
may  reasonably  be  supposed  to  represent  rather  the  fancy  of 
the  historian  than  the  sober  outlines  of  truth,  but  both  he  and 
the  cooler  Sozomen  assert  that  one  of  the  conditions  imposed 
on  Theodosius  was  the  promulgation  of  a  law  prescribing  an 
interval  of  thirty  days  between  the  rendering  of  a  capital  sen 
tence  and  the  signing  of  the  death-warrant,  so  as  to  allow  time 
for  revision  and  reflection  ;  and  there  is  reason  to  believe  that 
such  was  the  case.1 

Had  the  hierarchy  been  filled  with  men  such  as  Ambrose, 
and  the  secular  power  been  always  in  the  hands  of  conscien 
tious  Christians  like  Theodosius,  the  moral  development  of 
mankind  might  ere  now  have;  almost  realized  the  idea  of  the 
Gospel.  Unfortunately  neither  conditions  could  be  fulfilled, 
and  the  splendid  example  was  lost  to  mankind,  or  at  most  only 
served  as  a  precedent  when  Gregory  VII.  or  Innocent  III. 
desired  to  break  down  royal  resistance  to  papal  theocratic 
supremacy.  At  the  same  time  it  must  be  observed  that  even 
Ambrose  did  not  dare'  to  enforce  the  rules  of  the  church  against 
the  imperial  criminal.  There  was  no  formal  excommunication, 
no  segregation  of  the  sinner  from  human  society,  no  prolonged 
penitence,  which  the  canons  of  Ancyra  order  to  continue  for 
five  or  seven  years  for  involuntary  homicide,  and  for  life  in 
cases  of  voluntary  slaughter.2  The  emperor  merely  held  him 
self  aloof  for  a  few  months,  and  then  on  making  application 
was  restored  to  communion  after  undergoing  a  single  act  of 
public  penitence. 

he  had  defeated  the  tyrant  Eugenius,  he  abstained  from  communion  on 
account  of  the  slaughter  of  his  enemies,  until  assured  of  the  favor  of  (rod 
by  the  arrival  of  his  sons. 

1  Theodoreti  Hist.  Eccies.  Lib.  v.  cap.  18.— Sozomen.  Hist.  Eccles.  Lib. 
vn.  cap.  24. — The  law  in  question  is  found  in  both  the  imperial  codes 
(Lib.  ix.  Cod.  Theod.  Tit.  xl.  1.  13,  and  Const.  20  Cod.  ix.  47),  but  it  is 
attributed  to  Gratian,  under  date  of  382      Godei'roi,  however,  after  weigh 
ing  the  conflicting  evidence,  is  inclined  to  believe  that  the  date  is  erro 
neous,  and  that  the  ecclesiastical  historians  are  correct  in  attributing  it 
to  the  influence  of  St.  Ambrose,  at  the  time  of  the  penance,  in  390. 

2  Concil.  Ancyrens.  can.  21,  22. 


280  EXCOMMUNICATION. 

Such  as  it  was,  however,  the  firmness  of  Ambrose  had  no 
imitators  for  centuries,  and  the  highest  dignitaries  of  the 
church  recognized  too  well  their  subordination  to  their  tem 
poral  masters  to  indulge  in  any  experiments  of  the  kind.1  So 
thoroughly  was  this  established  that  even  when  the  imperial 
rule  was  subverted  in  Italy  by  the  Barbarians,  the  awe  inspired 
by  the  diadem  of  Constantinople  was  still  too  great  to  permit 
the  popes  to  call  the  emperors  to  account  for  even  the  most 
flagrant  misdeeds.  Thus,  when  the  Emperor  Zeno  endeavored 
to  put  an  end  to  the  quarrels  between  Eutychianism  and  ortho 
doxy  by  the  Henoticon  which  enjoined  mutual  toleration,  Felix 
III.  in  484  promptly  assembled  a  synod  and  pronounced  the 
most  extreme  sentence  of  excommunication  against  the  Patri 
arch  Acacius  for  obeying  the  edict  and  joining  in  communion 
witli  heretics,  but  Zeno,  the  real  author  of  the  impiety,  was 
wisely  spared.2  Felix,.  Acacius,  and  Zeno  passed  away,  but 
the  quarrel  continued  between  their  successors  as  bitter  as  ever. 
Gelasius  I.  asserted  the  papal  prerogative  more  haughtily  than 
any  of  his  predecessors,  and  when  Euphemius  of  Constantinople 
applied  for  restoration  of  communion  between  the  churches,  he 
was  repulsed  with  curses  unless  he  would  consent  to  join  in 
the  excommunication  of  Acacius.  This  he  was  unable  to  do, 
as  the  new  emperor,  Anastasius,  was  resolved  to  maintain  the 
toleration  established  by  Zeno  ;  but  when  Gelasius  heard  that 
Anastasius  deemed  himself  included  in  the  anathema,  he  hast 
ened  to  write  to  his  envoy  Faustus  that  nothing  had  been 
further  from  his  thoughts  or  from  those  of  his  predecessor,  and 
he  referred  in  proof  to  the  letters  of  congratulation  which  had 
been  promptly  sent  to  the  emperor  on  his  accession  to  the 
throne  by  Felix,  and  to  those  which  he  had  himself  written  on 

1  There  are  extant  epistles  in  which  Innocent  I.  excommunicates  Arca- 
dius  and  Eudoxia  for  the  persecution  of  St.  John  Chrysostom,  and  the 
emperor  humbly  solicits  restoration  (Migne's  Patrol.  T.  xx.  pp.  629-34), 
but  they  are  admitted  on  all  hands  to  be  forgeries — one  of  the  innumer 
able  pious  attempts  to  manufacture  evidence  that  the  church  from  the 
beginning  enjoyed  all  that  it  subsequently  claimed. 

2  Felicis  PP.  ITT.  Epist.  vi. 


PRIMITIVE     DISCIPLINE.  287 

bis  installation  in  the  chair  of  St.  Peter.1  The  sovereignty  of 
Italy  was  then  fiercely  disputed  between  Theodoric  the  Goth 
and  Odoacer  the  Herulian,  and  the  siege  of  Ravenna  was  about 
to  terminate  in  favor  of  the  former  ;  but  the  distant  power  of 
Constantinople  was  still  near  enough  to  make  Gelasius  feel 
that  even  this  disclaimer  to  his  legate  was  not  sufficient,  and 
he  addressed  an  humble  and  adulatory  letter  to  exculpate  him 
self  in  the  eyes  of  one  who  was  maintaining  the  schism  by  sup 
porting  and  communing  with  excommunicates.  While  not 
yielding  a  jot  in  consigning  Acacius  and  Euphemius  to  perdi 
tion,  and  not  denying  the  risk  incurred  by  the  emperor  of 
sharing  their  fate,  he  cannot  do  more  than  implore  him  to  be 
ware  of  the  divine  judgment :  "  I  pray,  and  entreat,  and  exhort 
you  not  to  spurn  my  petition,  which  is  that  you  should  rather 
listen  to  my  entreaties  in  this  world  than  be  exposed  to  my 
accusations  in  the  next.  Be  not,  I  pray  you,  angry  with  me 
if  I  so  love  you  that  I  would  wish  to  assure  you  the  perpetua 
tion  of  your  temporal  sovereignty,  and  that  you  who  govern  in 
this  world  may  also  reign  with  Christ,  But  I  leave  it  to  your 
own  conscience  whether  it  is  better  that  we  should  all  acquire 
certain  life  as  I  desire,  or  should  be  devoted  to  inevitable 
death  as  they  propose."2 

The  courage  of  Ambrose  found  more  admirers  than  imita 
tors.  The  fate  of  Vigilius  was  not  reassuring  ;  and  it  was  not 
until  the  eighth  century,  when  Leo  the  Isanrian  committed 
the  unpardonable  sin  of  image-breaking,  that  a  Roman  pontiff 
could  summon  energy  to  blast  the  imperial  purple  witli  the 
withering  censures  of  the  church. 

i  Gelasii  PP.  I.  Epist.  iv.  2  Gelasii  PP.  I.  Epist.  viii. 


288  EXCOMMUNICATION. 


THE  PAPACY. 

In  the  practical  development  of  the  principles  thus  detailed, 
the  church  insensibly  acquired  an  enormous  power  over  its  in 
dividual  members,  and  an  almost  dominant  influence  even  in 
political  affairs.  Although  the  supremacy  of  the  state  was 
still  admitted,  yet  the  foundation  was  laid  for  that  mighty  the 
ocratic  structure  which  in  after  ages  was  to  overshadow  all 
secular  institutions  with  a  superiority  as  assured  as  that  of 
heaven  over  earth.  In  a  religion  of  which  the  essence  was 
the  regulation  of  every  thought,  every  feeling,  and  every  act 
of  the  believer,  it  was  impossible  to  define  rigidly  the  bounds 
of  spiritual  authority,  which  were  capable  of  indefinite  exten 
sion  {is  policy  or  ambition  might  dictate.  We.  have  seen  that 
in  the  earlier  times  the  church  was  so  careful  to  confine  itself 
to  spiritual  concerns  that  it  was  an  unpardonable  offence  to 
nominate  an  ecclesiastic  as  executor  of  a  will  or  as  guardian  of 
children,  because  it  withdrew  him  to  some  extent  from  his  proper 
sphere  of  action.  When  such  principles  prevailed  there  was 
comparatively  little  danger  that  the  spiritual  power  conceded 
to  the  ecclesiastical  body  would  be  abused  for  purposes  of  ag 
grandizement,  individual  or  general  ;  but  when  the  adoption 
of  Christianity  as  a  state  religion  opened  to  the  churchman  a 
career  of  worldly  ambition,  and  when  the  gradual  abasement  of 
the  civil  authority  seemed  to  invite  its  replacement  by  a  the 
ocracy,  the  primitive  conscientious  abstention  from  secular 
affairs  was  forgotten.  Insensibly  the  spiritual  jurisdiction 
widened,  and  the  reconstruction  of  society  under  the  Barba 
rians  found  the  church  in  possession  of  prerogatives  so  elastic 
that,  as  opportunity  offered,  it  was  easy  to  justify  the  appropri 
ation  of  any  desirable  fragment  of  power.  Among  believers,  a 
very  simple  correlation  of  forces  might  transmute  the  authority 
to  condemn  or  to  save  into  any  other  authority  that  might  be 
wanted.  As  early  as  the  close  of  the  fifth  century,  Gelasius 
could  declare  that  "•  there  is  no  sin  so  great  but  that  the  church 


THE     PAPACY.  289 

can  pray  for  its  remission  ;  and,  through  the  power  granted  to 
her  by  God,  absolve  him  who  desists  and  repents."1  Who, 
then,  could  presume  to  set  bounds  to  the  aspirations  of  a  body 
which  might  withhold  the  prayer  or  dictate  the  penance? 

To  render  this  awful  power  completely  effective,  however, 
required  its  concentration.  As  long  as  the  autonomy  of  the 
bishops  or  of  the  metropolitans  was  maintained,  there  were 
constantly  clashing  interests  and  a  lack  of  intelligent  direction 
of  the  united  authority  of  the  ecclesiastical  body  towards  a 
definite  purpose.  If  the  church  was  to  obtain  the  temporal 
supremacy  which  her  prerogatives  placed  within  reach,  it  was 
necessary  that  her  efforts  should  be  directed  by  unity  of  pur 
pose  and  concerted  action,  and  this  could  be  accomplished  only 
by  the  subordination  of  all  to  one  recognized  head.  It  was  the 
gradual  assumption  of  this  commanding  position  by  the  Holy 
See  that  enabled  the  church  to  realize  the  full  benefits  deriv 
able  from  her  control  over  the  sacraments. 

There  were  two  principal  instrumentalities  through  which 
the  supremacy  of  the  representatives  of  St.  Peter  was  secured 
— the  appellate  power  authorizing  the  Bishop  of  Home  to  revise 
the  sentences  of  other  bishops  by  absolving  their  excommuni 
cates,  and  the  original  jurisdiction  by  which  they  could  expel 
from  communion  those  who  differed  from  them  on  points  of 
faith  or  discipline,  or  who  resisted  their  pretensions  to  domina 
tion.  The  growth  of  the  appellate  power  has  already  been  ex 
amined  with  some  minuteness  in  a  preceding  essay,  and  need 
not  now  be  adverted  to  except  by  reminding  the  reader  how 
it  became  established,  after  a  struggle  which  lasted  for  centu 
ries.  As  regards  the  use  of  excommunication  in  asserting  the 
supreme  original  jurisdiction  of  the  Holy  See,  a  few  words, 
however,  may  not  be  out  of  place. 

In  the  organization  of  the  early  church  there  was  nothing  to 
prevent  any  bishop  from  refusing  communion  to  any  of  his 
brethren  whom  he  might  deem  to  err  in  faith  or  morals.  If 

1  Gelasii  PP.  I.  Tom  us  de  Anathematis  Vinculo. 
25 


290  EXCOMMUNICATION. 

this  action  was  sustained  by  the  majority  of  the  churches,  the 
victim  was  cut  off,  and  if  he  persisted,  he  might  be  held  as  a 
schismatic  ;  while,  if  the  excommunicator  was  felt  to  be  in  the 
wrong,  he  incurred  the  same  risk.  For  the  first  three  hundred 
years  all  the  evidence  points  to  the  complete  equality  between 
the  churches  as  represented  by  their  several  primates.  For 
instance,  in  the  quarto-deciman  controversy,  respecting  the 
computation  of  Easter,  the  Asian  bishops,  under  the  lead  of 
Polycrates  of  Ephesus,  maintained  their  right  to  celebrate  the 
festival  on  the  fourteenth  day  of  the  moon  instead  of  on  Sun 
day.  Victor  of  Rome,  becoming  gradually  heated  and  finding 
his  arguments  fruitless,  at  length,  about  the  year  190,  endea 
vored  to  cut  off  the  Asian  churches,  and  denounced  them  as 
excommunicate  on  account  of  their  heterodoxy.  For  this  he 
was  rebuked  by  many  leaders  of  the  faithful,  notably  by  Ire- 
na^us.1  His  decree  of  excommunication  Was  disregarded,  and 
the  controversy  was  not  decided  until  authoritatively  settled 
against  the  Asians  by  the  council  of  Nica?a  in  32o,  followed 
by  that  of  Antioch  in  341. 2 

A  half-century  later,  Cyprian,  in  his  controversy  with  Ste 
phen  I.  on  the  subject  of  the  rebaptism  of  heretics,  formally 
asserts  this  episcopal  independence  in  his  opening  address  at, 
the  council  of  Carthage,  held  in  2T)6 — "  It  remains  for  each  of 
us  to  declare  his  opinion,  judging  no  one  nor  presuming  to  de 
prive  any  one  of  communion  for  difference  of  belief.  None  of 
us  has  constituted  himself  a  bishop  of  bishops,  or  has  sought 
by  the  terror  of  tyranny  to  force  his  colleagues  to  subjection. 
In  the  exercise  of  his  free  authority  every  bishop  lias  the  right 
of  judgment,  and  he  can  no  more  be  judged  bv  another  than 
he  can  judge  another.  Let  us  await  the  universal  judgment  of 
Christ,  who  alone  has  the  power  of  placing  us  over  his  church 
and  of  judging  our  actions."3 

While  Cyprian  was  thus  modestly  firm,  St.  Firmilian,  Arch- 

1  Euseb.  Hist.  Eccles.  Lib.  v.  cap.  24-26. 

2  Com'il.  Antioch.  can.  1. 

3  Cypriani  Opp.  pp.  22lt-:>.()  (Ed.  Oxon.). 


THE     PAPACY.  291 

bishop  of  Cappadbcian  C*esarea,  could  scarcely  find  words  to 
express  his  contemptuous  indignation  at  the  presumption  of 
Stephen  in  excommunicating  the  Eastern  bishops  for  differing 
with  him  on  this  question.  "  I  am  justly  indignant  at  this 
open  and  manifest  folly  of  Stephen,  who,  puffed  up  by  the  loca 
tion  of  his  bishopric,  presents  himself  as  the  successor  of  St. 
Peter,  on  whom  are  built  the  foundations  of  the  church,  and 
brings  in  many  other  stones  and  builds  many  additions  to  the 
church."  .Then  addressing  Stephen  himself,  he  proceeds: 
"  Truly  you  are  the  worst  of  all  the  heretics,  for  when  they,  ac 
knowledging  their  errors,  come  to  you  for  the  true  light  of  the 
church,  you  add  to  their  errors  and  increase  the  darkness  of 
the  night  of  heresy  by  hiding  the  light  of  religious  truth.  .  .  . 
And,  great  as  is  your  sin,  you  have  still  more  exaggerated  it 
by  cutting  yourself  off  from  so  many  churches.  You,  I  repeat, 
have  cut  yourself  off.  Do  not  deceive  yourself,  for  if  he  is  a 
schismatic  who  apostatizes  from  the  communion  of  ecclesiasti 
cal  unity,  you,  while  you  think  to  excommunicate  others,  only 
succeed  in  excommunicating  yourself."1  This  vehement  and 
uncourtly  assertion  of  equality  with  Rome  not  only  did  not 
forfeit  Firmilian's  distinguished  position  and  influence  in  the 
Eastern  church,  but  did  not  pi-event  his  enrolment  in  the  cata 
logue  of  saints,  and  to  this  day  his  feast  holds  its  place  of  Octo 
ber  28th  in  the  Greek  calendar. 

The  causes  which  led  to  the  gradually  increasing  power  of 
the  papacy,  through  its  influence  over  the  emperors  and  the 
skilful  use  made  of  the  dissensions  of  the  Eastern  churches, 
need  not  be  recapitulated  here.  As  that  power  grew,  the  artil 
lery  of  excommunication  increased  in  range  and  efficiency,  and, 

1  Cypriani  Epist.  LXXV.  cap.  17,  24,  25.  Orthodox  catholics  have  as 
serted  that  this  epistle  is  a  forgery,  interpolated  by  some  Doriatist  of  the 
fourth  century,  and  it  Avas  omitted  in  the  Roman  edition  of  Cyprian's 
works  printed  by  P.  Manutius  in  1563.  It  is  given  in  all  subsequent 
editions,  however,  and  Baluze  states  that  it  is  contained  in  twenty-seven 
ancient  MSS.  collated  by  himself  and  previous  editors.  See  his  note,  T. 
I.  p.  1201  of  Migne's  reprint. 


202  EXCOMMUNICATION. 

while  it  gave  expression  to  the  claims  made  by  Rome  for  supre 
macy,  it  aided  largely  in  establishing  those  claims.  Thus,  when 
in  the  internecine  strife  between  Alexandria  and  Constantinople 
the  former  gained  a  temporary  ascendency  by  procuring  the 
degradation  and  banishment  of  St.  John  Chrysostom,  the  West 
stood  boldly  forth  in  defence  of  the  persecuted  saint,  excommu 
nicated  the  Eastern  churches,  and  resolutely  refused  for  eight 
years  to  allow  the  restoration  of  unity,  until  Chrysostom  should 
be  restored  to  his  place  on  the  diptychs,  and  be  acknowledged 
as  having  been  the  legitimate  Bishop  of  Constantinople  until 
his  death.1  As  representative  spokesman  for  the  West,  Inno 
cent  I.  found  ample  opportunity  during  this  long  quarrel  to 
magnify  the  importance  of  his  office.  Thus,  in  receiving  back 
the  church  of  Antioch,  in  41."),  he  speaks  with  the  calm  supre 
macy  of  a  master—"  I  have  carefully  inquired  whether  all  the 
conditions  have  been  fulfilled  with  respect  to  the  case  of  the 
blessed  John,  that  bishop  worthy  of  God,  and  on  finding  them, 
according  to  the  statement  of  the  envoys,  all  met  to  my  satis 
faction,  I  have  received  the  communion  of  your  church."2 

The  successive  victories  of  Theophilus  over  Chrysostom,  of 
Cyril  over  Nestorius,  and  of  Dioscorus  over  Flavianus,  gave 
to  the  see  of  Alexandria  so  great  a  preponderance  that  it  threat 
ened  to  overshadow  Rome  herself,  and  even  to  become  inde 
pendent  of  the  imperial  power.  Rome  took  the  alarm,  and 
endeavored  to  strengthen  Constantinople  as  her  least  dangerous 
competitor;  but  her  legates  were  treated  with  contumely  at 
the  Robber  Synod  of  Ephesus,  and  were  utterly  powerless  to 
save  the  Patriarch  Flavianus.  Leo  I.,  who  then  wielded  the 
authority  of  St.  Peter,  was  not  disposed  to  brook  these  insults; 
but  when  he  solemnly  excommunicated  Dioscorus  as  the  author 
of  the  troubles,  the  latter,  secure  in  his  overwhelming  influ 
ence,  and  strengthened  by  his  relations  with  the  imperial  court, 
boldly  retorted  the  excommunication.  A  sudden  change  of 
dynasty,  however,  transferred  the  sceptre  from  the  hands  of 

1  Theocloreti  Hist.  Ecclcs.  Lib.  v.  cap.  34. 

2  Innocent   PP.  I.  Epist.  19;  Of.  Epist.  21,  22. 


THE    PAPACY.  293 

the  feeble  Theodosius  II.  to  Marcian,  who,  as  orthodox  and 
emperor,  was  not  disposed  to  encourage  either  Eutychianism 
or  Alexandrian  insubordination.  The  council  of  Chalcedon 
found  no  difficulty  in  condemning  Dioscorus.  As  the  council 
was  nominally  presided  over  by  the  legates  of  Leo,  and  as  one 
of  them,  Paschasinus,  Bishop  of  Lilybseum,  summed  up  the 
accusations  against  Dioscorus  prior  to  the  vote  condemning 
him,  it  is  no  wonder  that  his  audacity  in  excommunicating  the 
Apostolic  Bishop  is  enumerated  among  his  crimes,  though  no 
mention  is  made  of  it  in  the  sentence  itself.1 

This  defeat  broke  the  power  of  Alexandria,  and  left  Rome 
and  Constantinople  face  to  face.  The  strife  between  these 
rivals  was  bitter  and  prolonged,  but  to  enter  into  its  details 
would  lead  us  too  far  from  our  subject,  and  I  need  only  take 
note  of  the  rupture  which  for  thirty-five  years  separated  the 
communions  of  the  East  and  the  West  on  the  subject  of  the 
excommunication  of  the  Patriarch  Acacins. 

When  the  Emperor  Zeno,  in  his  desire  to  still  the  dissen 
sions  arising  from  the  monophysite  heresy,  which  the  council 
of  Chalcedon  had  utterly  failed  to  suppress,  issued  his  Heno- 
ticon  commanding  toleration,  the  orthodoxy  of  Rome  was 
sadly  disturbed.  When,  however,  Peter  Moggus  of  Alex 
andria,  presuming  upon  the  imperial  indifference,  dared  to 
anathematize  the  sacred  decrees  of  Chalcedon  and  the  orthodox 
epistle  of  Leo,  and  to  restore  to  the  diptychs  of  his  church  the 
names  of  Dioscorus  and  of  Timothy  JElurus,  and  when  Acacius 
was  found  to  remain  in  communion  with  so  bold  a  heretic, 
Rome  felt  that  her  patience  was  no  longer  a  virtue.  In  484, 
Felix  III.  assembled  around  him  a  synod  of  sixty-seven  bishops, 
and  fulminated  against  Acacius  a  decree  depriving  him  of  his 
patriarchal  office  and  consigning  him  to  hopeless  perdition— 
"  Know  that  thou  art  set  apart  from  all  priestly  honors,  from 
Catholic  communion,  and  from  the  flock  of  the  faithful;  that 
thou  art  deprived  of  the  name  and  functions  of  the  ministry  of 

1  Concil.  Chalked.  Act.  nr.     (ITanluin.  H.JU8-7S.) 
25* 


294  EXCOMMUNICATION. 

God,  and  damned  by  the  judgment  of  the  Holy  Ghost  and  the 
authority  of  the  Apostle,  never  to  be  released  from  the  bonds 
of  the  curse  I"1  As  Acacius  was  supported  by  the  favor  of  the 
emperor  and  the  good-will  of  the  Constantinopolitans,  it  was 
not  easy  to  serve  a  notice  of  this  sentence  upon  him  ;  but  at 
last  an  ardent  monk  of  the  sleepless  monastery  of  Dios,  noted 
for  the  violence  of  its  orthodoxy,  was  found  to  undertake  the 
dangerous  office,  but  even  he  only  dared  to  accomplish  it  by  an 
artifice,  which,  when  compared  with  the  gravity  of  the  missive, 
savored  strongly  of  the  ludicrous.  Mingling  with  the  crowd 
which  surrounded  the  patriarch  as  he  entered  his  church,  the 
monk  succeeded  in  pinning  to  his  back  the  dangerous  docu 
ment.  Even  thus,  however,  the  audacious  volunteer  was  not 
successful  in  escaping  detection,  and  his  monastery  suffered,  in 
the  slaughter  of  many  of  its  inmates,  for  its  si i are  in  the 
transaction  ;  while  Acacius  promptly  retorted  by  excommuni 
cating  Felix  and  his  accomplices.2 

Rome  stood  firm,  for  she  had  at  stake  not  only  the  purity  of 
the  faith,  but  all  her  own  claims  to  supremacy.  Felix  and 
Acacius  both  passed  away,  but  when  Euphemius,  the  suc 
cessor  of  Acacius,  applied  to  Gelasius  I.  for  a  restoration  of 
communion  between  their  churches,  it  was  haughtily  refused, 
unless  he  would  consent  to  join  in  the  condemnation  of  his 
predecessor  by  striking  his  name  from  the  diptychs.  Acacius 
had  been  of  unquestioned  orthodoxy,  but  he  had  not  refused  to 
join  in  communion  with  heretics,  and  his  sin  admitted  neither 
of  extenuation  nor  pardon.  li  Of  such  it  is  written,  '  They 
are  plunged  alive  into  hell;'  for  while  they  seem  to  live  the 
true  and  Catholic  life  of  the  just,  they  suddenly  seek  the 

depths  of  depravity  or  the  hell  of  heretical  communion 

Dying  in  his  treachery  and  damnation,  his  name  can  no  more 
be  included  in  the  services  of  the  church  than  could  the  con 
tagion  of  his  living  communion."3 

1  Felicis  PP.  III.  Epist,  vi. 

2  Liberat,  Breviar.  cap.  18.— Nic-eph.  Oallist.  IT.  E.  Lib.  xvi.  cap.  17. 
:i  Gelasii  PP.  I.  Epist.  i.,  vni. 


THE     PAPACY.  295 

The  quarrel  went  drearily  on,  depending  for  its  issue  much 
more  on  the  political  relations  of  the  imperial  court  than  on 
ecclesiastical   considerations.      Gelasius   died   in   496,  but  his 
successors,  Anastasius  II.,  Symmachus,  and  Hormisdas,  were 
equally    inexorable.     The    Emperor    Anastasius,    whose    long 
reign   extended   to   518,  sturdily  supported   the   policy  of  his 
predecessor.     Though   himself   a    believer    in    the    council  of 
Chalcedon,  and  though  at  times,  when  sorely  pressed  by  poli 
tical  complications,  he  eagerly  sought  a  reconciliation  which 
would  have  been  of  the  greatest  value  to  him,  still  he  persist 
ently  refused  the  only  terms  which  Rome  would  listen  to — the 
condemnation  of  the  memory  of  Acacius.     At  length  he,  too, 
died,  and  his  throne  was  seized  by  the  fiercely  orthodox  Justin, 
who  hastened   to   make   his   submission    to   Hormisdas.     The 
triumph  of  Rome  was  complete.     The  authors  and  leaders  of 
the  schism,  orthodox  and  heretic  alike,  Acacius  and  Euphe- 
mius,  Timothy  JElurus,  Dioscorus  II.,  and  Peter  of  Alexandria, 
were  promptly  excommunicated  by  having  their  names  erased 
from  the  sacred   diptychs,  and   John  the   Patriarch  made  his 
peace  by  degrading  himself  in  humble  obedience  to  the  Apos 
tolic   See — "  I  promise  for  the  future  not  to  recite  amid  the 
holy  mysteries  the  names  of  those  ejected  from  the  communion 
of  the  Catholic  church — that  is,  those  not  agreeing  in  all  tilings 
with  the  Apostolic  See.      And  if  in  anything  I  shall  endeavor 
to  render  this  my  profession  doubtful,  I  agree  to  submit  to  the 
fate   of  those   whom   I   thus   condemn."1     John   did    not   long 
survive  this  humiliation,  and  his  successor,  Epiphanius,  was 
obliged  to   admit  the  supremacy  of  Rome   in    the   most  abject 
manner.     He  submitted  for  the  approval  of  Hormisdas  a  decla 
ration  of  faith  ;  he  solemnly  declared  that  he  did  not  allow  to 
be  read  from  the  diptychs  the  names  of  those  whom  Rome  had 
condemned  ;  and,  as  if  this  was  not  enough,  he  had  to  call  as 

1  Libell.  Joannis  inter  Hormisdae  Epist.  (Migne's  Patrol.  T.  LXIII.  p. 
4-14:).  The  signing  of  this  pledge  was  made  a  condition  precedent  to  ad 
mission  to  communion  of  all  the  Eastern  bishops  (Hormisdae  Epist.  51, 

Thid.  p.  4()D). 


296  EXCOMMUNICATION. 

witnesses  of  his  sincerity  the  papal  legates  who  had  zealously 
enforced  the  commands  of  their  master.1 

This  would  seem  to  be  sufficient,  but  a  further  triumph  was 
reserved  for  the  policy  or  the  fortune  of  Hormisdas.  Under 
Zeno  or  Anastasius,  Rome  would  have  been  content  with  the 
•simple  removal  of  the  name  of  Acacius  from  the  diptychs. 
Now  she  demanded  that  all  who  had  remained  in  communion 
with  him  and  his  successors,  and  had  thus  contracted  the  con 
tagion  of  Eutychianism,  should  be  declared  excommunicate  by 
the  same  process.  This  was  strictly  logical,  but  difficult  of 
execution,  as  it  involved  the  whole  Eastern  Empire.  Justin 
vainly  endeavored  to  enforce  it,  but  the  innumerable  churches 
of  his  dominions  resisted  the  attempt  to  make  them  consign  to 
perdition  such  multitudes  of  venerable  prelates  whom  they 
had  reverenced  while  living.  With  his  nephew  Justinian,  then 
consul,  he  wrote  beseechingly  to  Hormisdas  to  spare  them  the 
necessity  of  devastating  their  empire,  as  neither  fire  nor  sword, 
the  certainty  of  torment,  nor  the  fear  of  death,  could  force  the 
congregations,  orthodox  as  they  were,  thus  to  declare  their 
pastors  excommunicate.2  Letter  after  letter  was  sent,  and  one 
envoy  after  another,  but  Hormisdas  long  remained  silent.  At 
length  he  addressed  to  Justin  an  epistle,  full  of  unctuous  pro 
fessions  of  Christianity,  in  which  the  emperor  was  reminded 
that  he  had  set  his  hand  to  the  plough,  and  that  if  he  now 
looked  back  he  was  not  fit  for  the  kingdom  of  God  ;  and,  not 
content  with  kindling  his  orthodox  zeal,  Hormisdas  stimulated 
the  imperial  pride  by  adroitly  suggesting  that  those  who  would 
not  follow  the  example  of  their  sovereign  should  be  forced  to 
bend  to  his  power.  Still,  even  the  pleasure  of  decimating  the 
fairest  provinces  of  the  East  in  vindication  of  a  punctilio  might 
be  forborne  in  view  of  a  substantial  benefit,  and  Hormisdas 
eluded  the  difficulty  by  appointing  the  Patriarch  Epiphanius 
his  vicar  to  readmit  to  communion  those  who  had  forfeited 

1  Relatio  Epiphanii  (Ibid.  pp.  49-t-5). 

a  See  the  letters  among  the  Epistles  of  ITormisdus. 


THE     PAPACY.  297 

their  right.  The  elaborate  instructions  with  which  he  accom 
panied  this  grant  of  delegated  power  were,  if  not  intended,  at 
least  well  adapted,  to  demonstrate  that  Rome  held  the  keys  of 
heaven,  and  that  she  alone  could  point  out  the  path  to  salva 
tion.1  For  the  time,  Constantinople  was  thoroughly  humbled. 
Her  sacraments  were  administered  at  the  dictation  of  the  Holy 
See ;  her  Patriarch  was  but  the  local  representative  of  the 
Pope,  and  Home  alone  controlled  the  communion  which  was 
the  Christian's  only  hope  of  grace. 

The  proud  boast  of  Gelasius,  made  thirty  years  before, 
seemed  to  have  received  its  fulfilment — "  Everything  is  com 
mitted  to  the  decision  of  the  Apostolic  See.  What  the  Apos 
tolic  See  affirms  in  its  synods  is  to  be  received;  what  it  rejects 
is  to  be  rejected  ;  and  by  itself  it  rescinds  whatever  is  wrong 
fully  decided  by  any  sy nodical  assembly."2  Yet  Rome  could 
not  foresee  how  humbly,  in  little  more  than  a  quarter  of  a  cen 
tury,  she  would  submit  to  the  denial  of  all  her  claims  by  the 
second  general  council  of  Constantinople,  after  the  prosperous 
reign  of  Justinian  had  restored  the  imperial  power  ;  nor  that 
the  long  silent  church  of  Africa  would  dare  in  550  to  excom 
municate  Pope  Vigilius  for  his  cowardice  in  the  affair  of  the 
Three  Chapters.3 

The  relations  of  the  papacy  with  the  East  were  thus 
chequered  until  the  latter  half  of  the  ninth  century  saw  the 
rivals  separated  in  permanent  schism.  In  the  West,  mean 
while,  the  church  was  beginning  to  rally,  after  the  shock  of 
successive  barbarian  invasions,  and  gradually  to  acquire  con 
trol  over  its  new  proselytes.  The  ecclesiastical  organization 
participated  largely  in  the  dislocation  of  all  the  relations  of 
political  and  civil  society,  and  the  supremacy  which  Rome  had 
established  with  infinite  pains  became  well  nigh  overthrown. 
In  the  protracted  effort  to  reconquer  its  power,  the  Holy  See 
found,  as  before,  its  most  valuable  instrument  in  its  claim  of 

1  Hormisdoe  Epist.  78,  80. 

2  Gelasii  Tomus  de  Anathematis  Viriculo. 

3  Victor.  Tinienens.  Cliron.  turn.  550. 


298  EXCOMMUNICATION. 

supreme  control  over  the  communion.  The  process  is  well 
illustrated  by  the  manner  in  which  Gregory  the  Great  reduced 
to  submission  Maxim  us,  Archbishop  of  Salona. 

On  the  death  of  Natalis,  Archbishop  of  Salona  (afterwards 
Spalatro),  there  was  a  quarrel  over  the  succession.  Honoratus 
the  archdeacon  was  elected  and  approved  by  Gregory  ;  but  the 
imperial  power,  represented  by  the  troops,  preferred  Maximus, 
and  a  faction  was  easily  formed  to  place  him  in  the  vacant 
seat.  According  to  the  papal  writers,  his  reputation  was  not 
good — at  all  events,  his  rival  was  recognized,  and  Gregory 
wrote  to  the  bishops  of  Dalmatia  and  Zara,  prohibiting  them 
from  consecrating  him.  Large  bribes,  it  is  said,  induced  them 
to  disregard  this  command,  and  Maximus  was  duly  installed. 
Gregory  then  summoned  him  to  Rome  for  trial  on  the  charge 
of  bribery.  To  this  he  demurred,  asking  that  a  commission 
should  be  sent  to  Salona  to  examine  into  the  affair  upon  the 
spot  ;  but  to  agree  to  this  would  have  been  to  risk  the  integrity 
of  his  envoys,  and  Gregory  refused.  Finding  that  Maximus 
was  unyielding,  Gregory  forbade  him  to  celebrate  mass,  and 
then  excommunicated  him  ;  but,  supported  by  the  imperial 
power,  the  contumacious  archbishop  disregarded  the  papal  cen 
sures,  and  for  seven  years  maintained  his  independent  position. 
During  this  time  Gregory  was  not  idle.  At  first,  but  two  of 
the  clergy  of  Salona  obeyed  the  sentence,  and  abstained  from 
communion  with  their  prelate,  but  Gregory  attacked  them 
with  threats  and  exhortations  ;  and  he  likewise  threatened  the 
bishops  of  Zara  and  Dalmatia  with  excommunication  unless 
they  should  withdraw  from  the  communion  of  Maximus,  and 
erase  his  name  from  their  diptychs.  Terrified  at  this,  they 
succumbed,  abandoned  Maximus,  and  begged  for  pardon.  The 
only  support  of  the  recalcitrant  archbishop  now  was  Marcellus, 
the  proconsul  of  Dalmatia,  to  whom  Gregory  then  addressed 
himself,  holding  him  responsible  for  the  continuance  of  the 
strife,  and  significantly  warning  him  to  make  his  peace  with 
God.  At  length  Marcellus,  too,  gave  way,  and  Maximus  was 
reduced,  in  the  year  600,  to  ask  the  intercession  of  Callinicus, 


THE  CHURCH  AND  THE  BARBARIANS.     299 

the  Exarch  of  Ravenna.  The  terms  granted  were  hard,  yet. 
Gregory  represented  them  as  a  special  favor  to  the  Exarch. 
Marinianus  of  Ravenna,  and  Constantine  of  Milan,  were  ap 
pointed  judges  to  examine  whether  Maximus  had  acquired  his 
see  simoniacally,  and  whether  he  had  persisted  in  saying  mass 
when  he  knew  himself  to  be  excommunicate.  The  investi°'a- 

C 

tion  was  a  pre-arranged  comedy,  to  the  effect  that  if  Maximus 
should  deny,  under  oath,  the  guilt  of  simony,  and  should  clear 
himself  on  the  relics  of  St.  Apollinaris  of  the  other  crimes  im 
puted  to  him,  then  Marinianus  should  prescribe  the  penance 
for  his  contumacy — and  the  understanding  in  advance  was 
shown  by  Castorius  the  notary  bearing  from  Gregory  the  in 
structions  to  Marinianus,  along  with  a  letter  of  reconciliation 
to  be  delivered  to  Maximus  after  the  performance  of  his 
allotted  part.  The  penance  inflicted  was  not  prolonged,  but  it 
was  exquisitely  humiliating.  For  three  hours  Maximus  pros 
trated  himself  in  the  dust,  exclaiming,  "  I  have  sinned  before 
God  and  the  blessed  Pope  Gregory,"  until  raised  by  Mari 
nianus  and  Castorius  ;  and  then,  in  their  presence,  he  per 
formed  still  greater  penance.  He  retained  his  see,  but  Rome 
had  sharply  vindicated  her  supremacy.1 


THE  CHURCH  AND  THE  BARBARIANS. 

Under  Barbarian  rule,  the  church  found  itself  confronted  by 
a  new  series  of  problems.  In  the  Pagan  Empire,  the  church 
consisted  of  pastors  and  people,  with  common  interests  and 
sympathies,  exposed  to  the  same  evils,  and  forming  an  indi 
visible  whole.  Under  the  Christian  Emperors,  the  clergy, 

1  Joan.  Diac.  Vit.  S.  Gregor.  Lib.  iv.  cap.  9-15.— Gregor.  PP.  I.  Regist. 
Lib.  v.  Epist,  21.— Lib.  vi.  Epist.  25,  26,  27.— Lib.  vn.  Epist.  17.— Lib. 
vni.  Epist.  10,  24.— Lib.  ix.  Epist.  5,  10,  41,  67,  79,  SO,  81. 


300  EXCOMMUNICATION. 

endowed  with  certain  privileges,  gradually  found  their  per 
sonal  interests  diverging  from  those  of  the  populations  who  had 
been  converted  in  masses.  Though  technically  the  church  of 
Christ  might  still  be  held  to  comprehend  the  laity,  yet  prac 
tically  it  consisted  of  the  ecclesiastics,  with  whom  naturally 
the  advancement  of  their  order  and  the  preservation  and  ex 
tension  of  its  immunities  became  the  first  consideration.  This 
divergence  between  the  clergy  and  the  people  was  rapidly 
developed  by  the  incursions  and  conversion  of  the  Barbarians. 
There  could  be  little  in  common  between  the  established  clergy 
of  Gaul,  for  instance,  and  the  untamed  German  hordes  which 
presented  themselves  for  Christianization  and  civilization  ;  and 
the  antagonism  naturally  existing  under  such  circumstances 
left  its  indelible  impress  on  the  character  and  policy  of  the 
church.  The  priest  who  undertook  parish  duty  amid  a  clan  of 
wild  Frankish  converts,  however  conscientiously  he  might  labor 
for  their  salvation,  could  not  hut  feel  that  in  the  flesh  they  were 
possible  enemies  who  might  at  any  moment  drive  him  away  or 
slay  him  ;  and  the  supernatural  prerogatives  which,  under 
Roman  civilization,  were  scarcely  required  to  enforce  respect 
for  his  authority,  became  the  only  weapons  of  self-defence  upon 
which  lie  could  rely. 

The  Barbarian  was  a  man  of  deeds  rather  than  of  words. 
His  laws  were  few  and  simple,  and  for  the  most  part  resolved 
themselves,  in  their  ultimate  analysis,  into  provisions  for  the 
payment  of  damages,  which  could  be  eluded  by  an  appeal  to 
brute  force.  Rude  as  they  were,  the  history  of  the  times  shows 
that  these  laws  could  easily  be  brushed  aside  by  any  one  with 
power  and  audacity  sufficient  to  disregard  them  ;  and  it  can 
readily  be  imagined  how  hopeless  would  be  the  application  to 
the  mallum,  or  court  of  freemen,  by  a  clerk  who  would  be  re 
garded  with  double  contempt,  as  a  Roman  by  his  conquerors, 
and  as  a  man  of  peace  by  warriors  emulous  only  of  martial 
renown.  The  attempt  to  escape  this  danger  introduced  a 
further  cause  of  separation  between  the  clergy  and  their  new 
converts.  As  all  law  under  the  Barbarians  was  personal  and 


THE  CHURCH  AND  THE  BARBARIANS.     301 

not  territorial,  the  church  found  little  difficulty  at  an  early 
period  in  obtaining  for  its  ministers  the  advantage  of  living 
under  the  Roman  law,  thus  securing,  nominally  at  least,  the 
privileges  and  immunities  granted  by  the  Christian  Emperors;1 
and  in  addition  to  this  the  safety  of  the  ordained  clergy  was 
provided  for  by  increased  wer-gilds,  or  blood-money.2 

Yet,  notwithstanding  these  favors,  the  church  was  sorely 
oppressed  by  the  lawless  warriors  who  found  it  easier  to  pass 
enactments  than  to  observe  them  or  to  enforce  their  observance. 
In  a.  previous  essay  we  have  seen  some  of  the  means  adopted 
to  meet  the  necessities  of  this  position,  in  procuring  special 
privileges  with  regard  to  tribunals,  and  exemptions  from  ordi 
nary  processes  of  law.  But,  while  these  concessions  served  to 
separate  more  than  ever  the  clergy  from  the  laity,  they  afforded 
little  practical  protection  from  wrong  and  outrage.  What  was 
wanted  was  some  speedy  process  that  should  be  prepared  for 
every  emergency.  Every  freeman  relied  on  his  sword  and 
right  hand  for  self-protection.  II'  the  priest  were  not  to  be 
reduced  into  hopeless  servitude,  he  too  must  have  some  ever 
ready  weapon  like  the  freeman's  sword,  which  would  either 

1  Secundum  Legem  Romanam  qua  ecclesia  vivit. — LI.   Ripuar.   Tit. 
Iviii.  §  1.     This  privilege  was  extended  to  the  Italian  church  as  late  as  the 
ninth  century,  by  Louis  le  Debonnaire — Capit.  ex  LegeLongobard.  (Baluz. 
1.690).     About  the  same  period  Floras  Diaconus  alludes  to  the  enjoy 
ment   by   the    church    of   the    prerogatives   granted    by   the    Christian 
Emperors,   in   his   address   to   Modoiu   of  Autun,   complaining  of  the 
oppression  of  the  church  of  Lyons — 

"  Mo  Coustantinus  revfrendo  munit  ab  ore  ; 
Me  quoque  Theodosins  protegit  ore  pio, 
Arcadio  dulci  perdulcis  Honorins  hserens, 
Me  dulci  eloquio  laudat,  lionorat,  amat." 

(Migne's  Patrol.  T.  CXIX.  p.  2.">.) 

2  L.  Salic.  Tit.LXViir.LXXVii.  (Fourth  Text  of  Pardessus).  Ll.  Ripuar 
Tit.  xxxvi. — Ll.  Alainan.  Tit.  x.-xvi. — For  the  murder  of  a  bishop,  the 
Baioarian  laws  provide  a  remarkable  penalty.     A  tunic  of  lead,  suitable 
for  the  murdered  prelate,  was  made,  and  its  weight  had  to  be  counter 
poised  in  gold  by  the  criminal.     If  he  were  unable  to  make  good  the 
amount,  then  he,  his  wife,  and  his  children,  were  delivered  to  the  church 
in  servitude  until  the  fine  was  paid. — Ll.  Baioar.  Tit.  i.  cap.  xi.   §  1. 

26 


302  EXCOMMUNICATION. 

prevent  oppression  by  inspiring  salutary  fear,  or  avenge  it  on 
the  spot. 

The  only  weapon  available  for  these  purposes  was  to  be  found 
in  excommunication.  By  heightening  the  supernatural  at 
tributes  of  the  priest  and  of  the  sacrament  which  he  made  and 
controlled,  he  was  invested  with  a  vague  and  awe-inspiring 
sanctity,  most  conducive  to  his  personal  safety  ;  and  if,  when 
no  other  means  of  righting  himself  were  to  be  found,  he  had 
recourse  to  his  power  over  the  Eucharist  on  every  trivial  occa 
sion,  and  distributed  damnation  freely  in  avenging  every  petty 
insult,  we  should  remember  the  precariousness  of  his  position, 
and  the  restrictions  which  debarred  him  from  recourse  to  the 
only  other  arguments  which  his  untamed  flock  was  likely  to 
respect.  An  illustration  of  this  is  to  be  found  in  the  fearful 
curses  which,  about  this  time,  came  to  be  attached  to  the 
charters  and  privileges  granted  to  monasteries  and  other  reli 
gious  foundations.  The  papal  chancery  had  an  ample  store  of 
formulas  for  these  occasions,  in  which  we  see  how  the  auda 
cious  violator  of  the  rights  of  the  church  was  condemned  with 
an  anathema  which  consigned  him  to  hopeless  and  eternal  hell- 
fire  along  with  the  devil  and  Judas  Iscariot.1  Even  this  sen 
tence,  terrible  in  its  simplicity,  was  insufficient  to  awe  the 
rude  and  unimpressionable  natures  with  which  the  church  had 
to  deal,  and  formulas  were  invented  which  in  their  homely 
reduplication  of  malediction  were  designed  to  connect  the  curse 
with  every  detail  of  daily  life  in  this  world,  as  well  as  to 
awaken  terror  with  respect  to  the  inevitable  fate  in  store  in 
the  world  to  come.  As  an  example  of  this  I  may  quote  an 
anathema,  probably  of  the  seventh  century,  launched  by  an 
archbishop  of  Sens  against  some  godless  persecutors  and  in 
vaders  of  the  property  of  his  church.  After  reciting  their 
names  and  misdeeds  he  continues — 

1  Sciat  se.  .  .  .  anathematis  vinculo  innodatum,et  cum  diabolo  et  ejus 
atroeissimis  pompis  atque  cum  Juda  traditore  .  .  .  in  teternum  igne  con- 
eremanduni,  sirnulque  in  chaos  clemersus  cum  impiis  deficiat. — Lib. 
Piurn.  Roman.  Pontiff,  rap.  vn.  tit.  22.— Cf.  tit.  2,  5,  16.  IS,  10. 


THE  CHURCH  AND  THE  BARBARIANS.    303 

"We  anathematize  them  by  the  Father  and  the  Son  and  the 
Holy  Ghost,  and  by  the  authority  granted  us  by  God,  so  that  they 
may  have  no  part  in  Christianity  ;  nor  shall  they  enter  a  church  of 
God,  nor  shall  anyone  celebrate  mass  for  them,  unless  he  wishes  to 
share  their  punishment ;  nor,  unless  they  render  satisfaction,  shall 
any  oblation  or  commemoration  with  incense  or  frankincense  be 
made  for  them.  But,  living  or  dying,  they  shall  receive  no  portion 
of  the  holy  light,  and  their  lot  shall  be  with  the  wicked,  with  the 
rebels  towards  God,  and  with  the  assailants  of  the  Saints  ;  and  their 
inheritance  shall  be  eternal  fire  and  perpetual  torment.  Cursed  be 
they  in  the  town  and  cursed  in  the  field,  Amen  !  Cursed  be  they  in 
their  houses  and  cursed  in  their  farms,  Amen  !  Cursed  be  they  in 
the  forests  and  cursed  in  the  waters,  Amen  !  Cursed  be  they  in 
the  roads  and  cursed  in  the  streets,  and  in  all  places,  Amen  ! 
Unless  they  amend  let  them  be  involved  in  manifold  maledictions, 
Amen  !  Let  no  priest  visit  them  when  dying,  nor  be  they  buried 
in  holy  ground,  but  be  cast  out  as  stinking  corpses,  Amen  !  Cursed 
be  their  granaries  and  cursed  be  what  they  leave,  Amen  !  Cursed 
be  they  in  going  out  and  cursed  in  coining  in,  Amen  !  May  the 
Lord  strike  them  with  want,  with  fever,  with  cold,  with  heat,  with 
thirst,  and  persecute  them  until  they  perish,  Amen  !  And  as  this 
caudle  is  extinguished  in  the  eyes  of  men,  so  may  their  light  be 
extinguished  in  eteniit}r,  Amen  I"1 

Fearful  as  may  seem  the  spirit  of  this  elaborate  malediction, 
we  should  not  judge  too  harshly  of  those  who  sought  by  sucli 
endeavors  to  make  an  impression  on  a  reckless  and  savage 
generation.  Cursing  was  the  only  arm  of  the  defenceless 
churchman,  and  if  he  cursed  with  heart  and  soul,  we  can  only 
measure  the  apparent  intensity  of  his  malignity  by  the  real 
intensity  of  his  fear. 

Even  so  temperate  and  sagacious  a  pontiff  as  Gregory  the 
Great  yielded  to  the  irresistible  necessities  of  the  times,  and 
was  seen  to  fulminate  the  Apostolical  anathema  against  un 
known  persons,  without  a  trial,  and  for  a  very  venial  offence. 
In  597,  Castorius,  the  papal  notary  at  Ravenna,  was  annoyed 
by  an  anonymous  satirical  libel,  and  Gregory  hastened  to  his 
assistance  by  addressing  letters  to  the  Ravennatese  summoning 

1  D'Achery  Spicilegium,  III.  320-1. 


304  EXCOMMUNICATION. 

the  author  to  reveal  himself  and  justify  his  accusations,  in  de 
fault  of  which  he,  and  all  privy  to  his  act,  were,  in  the  name 
of  God  and  Jesus  Christ,  deprived  of  communion.  In  the 
event  of  their  remaining  concealed  and  continuing  to  receive 
the  prohibited  body  and  blood  of  the  Lord,  they  were  anathe 
matized  and  cut  off'  from  the  church,  and  any  papal  letters  of 
good  wishes  ignorantly  addressed  to  them  were  declared  null 
and  void.1  Yet  Gregory  could  rebuke  in  others  the  prostitu 
tion  of  the  power  which  he  himself  was  ready  thus  to  abuse. 
On  a  previous  occasion  he  had  told  a  priest  who  had  been  ex 
communicated  by  his  bishop  without  cause  that  the  sentence 
was  void  and  need  not  be  respected  ;  and  at  another  time  he 
sternly  reproved  Januarius,  Archbishop  of  Cagliari,  for  exeorn- 
munieating  and  anathematizing  a  layman  for  some  insulting 
words,  assuring  him  that  the  rules  of  the  church  forbade  the 
use  of  its  censures  to  avenge  personal  injuries.2  If  such  a  man 
as  Gregory  could  not  restrain  himself  within  the  limits  which 
he  thus  prescribed  for  others,  it  is  easy  to  see  how  formidable 
was  the  power  of  every  priest  who  could  thus  summon  at  will 
the  omnipotence  of  God  to  overwhelm  his  adversary  ;  and  it 
cannot  be  a  matter  of  surprise  if  the  majority  of  ecclesiastics 
considered  it  to  be  their  special  office  to  inspire  the  laity  with 
a  salutary  dread  of  their  supernatural  powers,  whether  exer 
cised  justly  or  unjustly,  lor  worthy  purposes  or  for  considera 
tions  purely  selfish. 

It  was  therefore  perfectly  natural  that  there  should  spring 
up  a  luxuriant  growth  of  miraculous  interpositions  of  Provi 
dence  to  vindicate  the  respect  due  to  the  church  and  to  pun 
ish  the  spoiler  of  her  goods.  In  fact,  the  manufacture  of 
these  miracles  became  a  recognized  armory  to  which  for  cen 
turies  the  ecclesiastical  body  was  accustomed  to  resort.  They 
formed  part  of  the  education  of  the  people,  who  were  thus 
trained  to  look  with  awe  upon  the  priest  and  his  church,  with 

1  Gregor.  PP.  I.  Regist.  Lib.  vi,  Epist.  :J1. 

2  Ejusd.  Lib.  in.  Epist.  26;  Lib.  n.  Epist.  49. 


THE  CHURCH  AND  THE  BARBARIANS.    305 

its  assortment  of  relics  ;  upon  the  monastery  with  its  tempting 
vineyards  and  orchards,  and  apiaries,  and  fields  of  grain;  upon 
the  episcopal  palace  and  cathedral,  with  their  treasures  accumu 
lated  from  the  piety  of  generations.  The  unarmed  churchman 
could  ill  guard  by  force  the  rich  and  widely-extended  pos 
sessions  intrusted  to  his  care,  and  if  he  busied  himself  with 
imagining  and  disseminating  the  marvels  which  proved  that 
his  person  and  his  property  were  the  peculiar  care  of  God,  we 
should  not  too  sternly  judge  and  condemn  him.  What  he 
repeated  of  the  stories  of  others,  he  doubtless  believed,  for  his 
training  taught  him  to  expect  the  active  interference  of  God  in 
behalf  of  the  church.  AVhat  he  invented  he  no  doubt  regarded 
in  the  light  of  wholesome  parables,  like  those  in  Holy  Writ,  to 
teach  the  wayward  sons  of  men  the  path  of  righteousness.1 

Thus  it  is  interesting  to  observe  that  in  Italy,  where  the 
barbarian  oppressor  witli  whom  the  priest  had  to  deal  was 
generally  a  heathen  or  an  Arian,  and  therefore  incapable  ot 
excommunication,  the  vengeance  of  Heaven  usually  overtakes 
the  spoiler  either  by  direct  interposition  or  through  a  simple 
execration.  When,  for  instance,  Darida  the  Goth  overran 
Samnium,  some  of  his  troops  chanced  to  overtake  Libertinus, 
prior  of  the  monastery  of  Fondi,  threw  him  from  his  horse,  and 
took  the  animal  with  them.  The  holy  man  not  only  offered  no 
resistance,  but  even  handed  them  his  whip  with  which  to  drive 
the  beast,  and  resumed  his  interrupted  prayer.  The  river 
Voltorno  crossed  their  road  at  a  short  distance,  and  when  they 
reached  the  ford  they  found  that  no  amount  of  spurring  and 
beating  could  force  their  horses  to  enter  the  water.  Exhausted 

1  It  is  worthy  of  remark  that  miracles  are  very  rarely  recorded  as 
wrought  by  men  living  at  the  time  of  the  chronicler.  No  matter  what 
his  age  may  be,  his  miracle-workers  are  almost  all  of  the  past  generation. 
In  the  vast  collection  of  those  instructive  stories  related  by  Gregory  the 
Great  in  his  Dialogues,  his  interlocutor  is  made  to  wonder  why  men  able 
to  perform  these  marvels  are  no  longer  to  be  found,  to  which  Gregory 
replies  that  though  there  are  none  who  do  them  there  are  plenty  quite 
equal  to  those  who  had  done  them  (Greg.  Dialog.  Lib.  r.  cap.  12).  Each 
generation  thus  attributed  its  wonders  to  its  predecessor. 

2G* 


306  EXCOMMUNICATION. 

by  fruitless  effort?,  they  remembered  the  priest  whom  they  had 
just  despoiled,  and,  taking  his  horse  back,  found  him  still  ab 
sorbed  in  prayer.  He  refused  to  receive  the  horse  again,  and 
they  were  obliged  to  lift  him  by  force  upon  the  animal's  back, 
after  which  they  had  no  difficulty  in  fording  the  river.1  A 
more  pregnant  warning  was  given  at  Todi,  under  the  episco 
pate  of  Fortunatus,  when  some  Goths  stopping  there  on  their  way 
to  Ravenna  requited  the  hospitality  shown  them  by  seizing 
two  boys  from  a  farm  of  the  church  of  Todi.  Fortunatus  sent 
for  the  leader  and  offered  to  redeem  them  at  a  liberal  price, 
but  was  refused,  when  he  quietly  assured  the  barbarian  that 
it  would  prove  the  worse  for  him.  Disregarding  the  threat, 
the  Goths  set  out  with  their  captives,  but  before  they  had 
cleared  the  town,  while  passing  the  church  of  St.  Peter,  the 
horse  of  the  chief  fell,  and  his  rider  was  disabled  with  a  broken 
thigh.  Kecognixing  the  cause  of  this  mishap  to  be  the  curse 
of  the  bishop,  he  at  once  sent  him  the  two  boys  with  a  prayer 
for  mercy.  The  placable  Fortunatus  responded  with  some 
holy  water,  a  single  application  of  which  restored  the  Goth  to 
perfect  soundness,  and  lie  went  on  liis  way  rejoicing.2  But  it 
was  not  the  Barbarians  alone  who  had  cause  to  dread  the 
anger  of  these  holy  men,  so  peculiarly  befriended  of  heaven, 
as  was  shown  by  Boniface.  Bishop  of  Ferentino,  when,  after 
saying  mass,  he  had  gone  to  dine  at  the  house  of  a  noble.  As' 
he  sat  down  at  the  table,  a  strolling  minstrel  with  a  monkey 
came  to  the  door  and  began  striking  his  cymbals.  "  Alas, 
alas  !"  exclaimed  the  prelate,  u  that  miserable  wretch  is  dead. 
Here  have  I  seated  myself  at  table,  and  have  not  yet  opened 
my  mouth  in  the  praise  of  God,  and  lie  comes  with  his  monkey 
and  plays  with  his  cymbals.  For  mercy's  sake  give  him  meat 
and  drink,  but  I  tell  you  he  is  dead."  The  servants  hastened 
to  the  vagrant  with  bread  and  wine,  but,  as  he  turned  to  leave 
the  court-yard,  a  heavy  stone  fell  on  him  from  the  gateway, 
inflicting  on  him  a  mortal  injury  of  which  he  died  the  next 

1   Gregor.  Dialog-.  Lib.  I.  cap.  2.  *  Ejusd.  Lib.  r.  cap.  10. 


THE  CHURCH  AND  THE  BARBARIANS.    307 

day — giving,  as  Gregory  remarks,  a  fearful  warning  of  the 
dread  with  which  the  saints,  the  temples  of  God,  are  to  be  re 
garded.1  These  specimens  will  probably  suffice  as  examples 
of  innumerable  similar  teachings,  by  which  the  priest  was 
exalted  above  the  limits  of  humanity,  and  his  weakness  was 
rendered  a  tower  of  strength  by  the  direct  favor  of  God.2 

Turning  to  the  France  of  the  same  period,  we  find  there  no 
lack  of  miracles  of  the  same  kind,  the  very  homeliness  of  which 
shows  the  character  of  the  classes  whom  they  were  intended  to 
influence,  and  how  thoroughly  these  marvels  entered  into  the 
daily  life  of  the  people.3  That  the  lesson  was  sometimes 
effective  is  indicated  by  an  incident  in  the  life  of  St.  Sulpicius 
of  Bourges.  King  Dagobert  levied  an  unlawful  tax  on  the 
people  and  churches  of  Bourges,  and  deputed  a  certain  Lull  to 
collect  it.  Great  excitement  followed,  and  St.  Sulpicius  sent 
a  hermit  to  the  king  to  remonstrate  and  to  threaten  him  with 
speedy  death  if  he  did  not  recall  his  impious  edict.  Dagobert 
was  duly  frightened,  repealed  the  tax,  and  underwent  penance 
for  the  attempt ;  while  the  narrowness  of  his  escape  was  shown 
by  the  fate  of  Lull  who  persisted  in  endeavoring  to  exact  the 
tribute,  and  who  consequently  died  suddenly  and  miserably.4 

In  addition  to  the  possession  of  this  formidable  power,  the 
clergy  were  for  the  most  part  the  custodians  of  the  holy  relics 
of  martyrs,  which,  besides  curing  the  blind,  the  halt,  and  the 
possessed  of  devils,  could  protect  the  devout  believer  from  the 
malignity  of  evil  spirits,  the  enmity  of  man,  and  the  unforeseen 
accidents  of  nature.  Gregory  of  Tours  gravely  relates  that 
when  his  father,  then  a  young  man,  was  carried  off  from 

1  Gregor.  Dialog-.  Lib.  i.  cap.  9. 

2  The  reader  who  is' curious  to  trace  the  development  of  this  miraculous 
power,  which  was  so  efficient  during  the  middle  ages,  will  find  an  ample 
store  of  these  legends  in  the  Dialogues  of  Gregory.     See,  for  instance, 
Lib.  i.  cap.  3,  4,  9.—  Lib.  in.  cap.  12,  15,  2(5,  29,  37.— Lib.  iv.  cap.  21,  23. 

3  Gregor.    Turoii.    Miraeular.  Lib.   i.   cap.  59,  61,  66,  72,  78,  79,  80,  92, 
97,  105. 

4  Vit.  S.  Sulpio.   Bituric.   cap.  24,25   (Migne's  Patrol.  T.  LXXX.  pp. 
582-3). 


308  EXCOMMUNICATION. 

Anvergne  as  a  hostage  by  Theodebert  I.,  be  procured  from  a 
friendly  priest  some  unknown  relics,  which  he  thenceforth 
always  carried  about  him,  and  which  protected  him  through 
life  against  the  perils  of  flood  and  field,  the  assaults  of  his 
enemies,  and  the  temptations  of  the  flesh.  After  his  death 
they  passed  into  the  hands  of  Gregory's  mother,  and  their  value 
may  be  estimated  by  a  single  one  of  the  numerous  marvels  re 
lated  of  them  by  the  historian.  The  crops  had  been  gathered 
and  the  laborers  were  at  work  threshing  out  the  grain.  One 
day,  while  all  were  at  dinner,  a  pile  of  chaff  left  burning  by 
the  men  communicated  to  the  stacks  of  grain  ;  a  high  north 
wind  was  blowing ;  in  a  moment  the  stacks  were  ablaze,  and 
the  industry  of  the  year  seemed  doomed  to  inevitable  destruc 
tion,  when  his  mother  rushed  from  the  dinner-table  and  held 
np  the  relics  in  the  face  of  the  flames.  Instantly  the  fire  ex 
tinguished  itself,  and  not  a  grain  of  corn  was  found  damaged, 
even  though  the  chaff  was  burnt  off.1 

If  such  was  the  power  of  relics,  we  can  readily  understand 
the  reverence  inculcated  for  the  Eucharist,  the  body  and  blood 
of  the  Lord,  and  for  all  that  was  concerned  in  its  ministry. 
A  count  of  Britanny,  crippled  with  gout,  and  exhausting  his 
revenues  ineffectually  in  physicians  and  medicaments,  bethought 
him  that  if  he  could  lave  his  feet  in  one  of  the  sacred  vessels 
of  the  altar,  he  could  not  fail  of  a  cure.  His  rank  and  influ 
ence  procured  the  favor.  The  holy  vessel  was  brought,  but 
the  strength  of  his  faith  which  prompted  the  act  could  not 
palliate  the  prostitution  to  such  base  uses  of  the  vase  dedicated 
to  the  service  of  God.  The  malady  suddenly  increased,  and 
the  sick  man  never  again  was  able  to  use  his  feet.  The  belief 
recorded  in  this  story  must  have  been  wide-spread,  for  Gregory 
adds  that  a  similar  incident  occurred  to  a  chief  of  the  Lombards.2 

The  reverence  enjoined  for  the  Host  itself  is  illustrated  in  a 
judgment  which  befell  Epachius,  a  priest  of  Riom.  On  the  high 

1  Greg.  Turon.  Mirac.  Lib.  I.  cap.  84. 

2  Ibid.  cap.  85. 


THE  CHURCH  AND  THE  BARBARIANS.    309 

festival  of  Christmas  eve,  though  about  to  celebrate  the  holy 
mysteries,  he  could  not  refrain  from  drinking  deeply,  and,  full 
of  wine,  lie  dared  to  approach  the  Lord's  Table  which  is  spread 
only  for  the  fasting.  Breaking  the  Eucharist  and  distributing 
it  as  usual  among  the  faithful,  he  took  a  fragment.  No  sooner 
had  it  touched  his  lips  than  he  fell,  shrieking  and  foaming  at 
the  mouth,  in  a  fit  of  epilepsy  from  which  he  never  recovered.1 

When  the  sacred  mysteries  and  those  who  controlled  them 
were  invested  with  these  supernatural  attributes,  we  can  readily 
anticipate  the  fate  of  those  who,  professing  the  Catholic  faith, 
refused  obedience  to  the  warnings  or  the  sentence  of  the  min 
ister  of  God. 

It  was  a  lawless  time,  and  the  most  terrible  examples  were 
scarce  sufficient  to  influence  the  indomitable  ferocity  of  the  age. 
When  Maracharius,  Count  of  Angouleme,  resigned  his  dignity 
and  entered  the  church,  he  was  speedily  elevated  to  the  episco 
pate  of  the  city,  while  his  temporal  position  was  filled  by  his 
nephew  Nantinus.  Maracharius  was  soon  after  poisoned  by 
some  of  his  clerks,  one  of  whom  succeeded  him  in  the  bishopric, 
but  in  about  a  year  he  too  died,  and  Heraclius  was  consecrated 
in  the  perilous  dignity.  Nantinus  accused  Heraclius  of  being 
privy  to  the  death  of  his  uncle,  and  proceeded  to  exercise  his 
right  oi'faida  by  spoiling  the  church  and  maltreating  the  eccle 
siastics,  one  of  whom  lie  tortured  to  death.  Heraclius  duly 
excommunicated  him,  and  a  synod  being  held  at  Saintes  in  579, 
Nantinus  made  his  peace  and  was  absolved  on  promise  of 
amendment.  Still  incorrigible,  however,  before  he  restored 
to  the  bishop  the  lands  and  houses  which  he  had  seized,  he  de 
vastated  and  ruined  them,  for  which  he  was  again  deprived  of 
communion.  Heraclius  dying,  however,  he  purchased  restora 
tion  from  some  venal  bishops,  but  this  simoniacal  transaction 
availed  not  for  the  impenitent  sinner.  In  a  few  months  he  was 
prostrated  with  a  fearful  disease,  in  which  he  continually  ex 
claimed  that  his  vitals  were  tortured  and  burned  by  Heraclius, 

1  Greff.  Turon.  Mirac.  Lib.  r.  cap.  87. 


310  EXCOMMUNICATION. 

who  was  calling  him  to  judgment ;  and  after  his  deatii  his  body, 
burned  to  blackness  as  though  with  living  coals,  was  a  terrible 
witness  to  all  that  the  vengeance  of  the  church,  however  long 
delayed,  was  inevitable.1  Equally  signal  was  the  warning 
when  Charibert.  King  of  Paris,  a  year  or  two  before,  had  set 
aside  his  queen  Ingoberga,  and  had  married  first  Merofledis 
and  then  her  sister  Marcovefa.  This  latter  union  was  peculiarly 
abominable,  for  Marcovefa  was  a  nun.  St.  Germain,  Bishop 
of  Paris,  could  no  longer  dissemble  his  indignation,  and  he  ex 
communicated  the  guilty  pair.  Disregarding  the  awful  sen 
tence,  they  soon  felt  the  result,  Marcovefa  died  almost  imme 
diately,  and  Charibert  was  not  long  in  following  her.2 

It  will  be  seen  from  this  that  the  untamed  Merovingians  as 
yet  recked  little  of  the  censures  of  the  church,  and  at  the  same 
time  that  there  were  prelates  hardy  enough  to  brave  their  un 
bridled  anger,  and  to  seek  to  curb  in  the  name  of  God  those 
whom  no  human  laws  could  restrain.  St.  Nicetius  of  Treves 
was  one  of  these.  When  Thierry  I.  King  of  Metz  was  succeeded 
by  his  son  Theodebert,  who  surrounded  himself  with  licentious 
and  lawless  parasites,  Nicetius  strove  to  reform  the  disorders  of 
the  state  by  excommunicating  the  wicked  courtiers.  The  king, 
however,  still  kept  them  about  his  person,  till  one  day,  when 
they  attended  him  in  church,  the  courageous  bishop  refused  to 
consecrate  the  host  in  their  presence.  The  king  insisted,  when 
suddenly  a  youth  possessed  by  the  devil  commenced  crying 
out  in  a  loud  voice,  reciting  the  crimes  of  the  king  and  his 
followers,  and  lauding  the  virtues  of  the  bishop.  After  some 
further  strife,  the  king  dismissed  his  retinue,  and  then  the 
youth  whom  the  strength  of  a  dozen  men  had  not  sufficed  to 
drag  from  the  pillar  which  he  had  embraced,  suddenly  loosed 
his  hold  at  the  sign  of  the  cross  from  the  bishop,  and  disappeared 
to  be  seen  of  men  no  more.  This  warning  produced  some 
amendment  in  the  court ;  but  when  the  kingdom  passed  into 

1  Greg.  Turon.  Hist.  Franc.  Lib.  v.  cap.  37. 

2  Ejusd.  Lib.  iv.  cap.  20. 


THE  CHURCH  AND  THE  BARBARIANS.    311 

• 

the  hands  of  Clotair  I.,  and  the  fearless  bishop  dared  to  excom 
municate  that  terrible  monarch,  he  was  banished  and  was  not 
permitted  to  return  from  exile  until  after  the  death  of  his  per 
secutor.1 

The  church  evidently  had  no  easy  task  in  thus  endeavoring 
to  extend  its  prerogative  and  to  obtain  control  over  the  ungov 
ernable  passions  of  its  new  converts  ;  and  to  its  perplexities 
may  probably  be  attributed  the  introduction  of  a  new  practice, 
which  widened  the  influence  and  increased  the  force  of  excom 
munication.  We  have  seen  that  St.  Augustine  deprecated  the 
punishment  of  the  innocent  who  might  chance  to  be  connected 
with  the  guilty,  and  sharply  reproved  a  brother  prelate  for  de 
priving  of  communion  a  whole  family  of  which  the  head  had 
incurred  his  censure  ;2  and  Leo  the  Great  had  forbidden  that 
the  penalty  should  be  enforced  on  any  who  were  not  partners 
in  the  crime.3  Yet  when  the  church  came  to  deal  with  those  who 
too  often  mocked  her  thunders  and  only  responded  by  a  defiant 
aggravation  of  wickedness,  or  by  persecuting  those  who  sought 
to  restrain  them,  it  is  no  wonder  if  recourse  should  be  had  to 
a  device  by  which  public  indignation  might  be  brought  to  bear 
against  them,  and  the  community  at  large  be  interested  in  com 
pelling  their  submission.  This  would,  moreover,  be  suggested 
by  the  structure  of  society  among  the  Barbarian  tribes,  in 
which  the  responsibility  of  the  family  and  the  sept  for  the  of 
fences  of  its  individual  members  was  the  foundation  of  legal 

1  Greg.  Turon.  Vit.  Patrum,  cap.  17,  §§  2,  3.     About  the  same  period 
a  reference  to  excommunication  shows  the  influence  which  the  church  had 
acquired  in  the  older  Christianity  of  the  Spanish  Wisigoths.     The  fourth 
council  of  Toledo  in  633  (can.  75)  denounces  excommunication  against 
those  who  should  oppose  rebellious  resistance  to  the  king,  and  against 
the  king  who  should  oppress  the  people.     These  councils  were  the  parlia 
ments  of  the  nation,  and  this  canon  was  evidently  an  agreement  between 
the  monarch  and  his  subjects  by  which  the  sanction  of  the  church  was 
invoked  for  the  enforcement  of  their  respective  duties. 

2  Augustin.  Epist.  250  §  1.— Cf.  Contra  Epist.  Parmenian.  Lib.  III. 
cap.  2. 

"  Leon.  PP.  T.  Epi&t.  x.  cap.  8. 


312  EXCOMMJJNICATION. 

procedure.  Under  such  a  system,  the  injustice  which  was  re 
proved  by  St.  Augustine  and  St.  Leo  was  no  longer  apparent, 
and  accordingly  we  find  the  Interdict  beginning  to  make  its 
appearance  among  those  who  little  thought  how  irresistible  a 
weapon  they  were  forging  for  the  overthrow  of  inonarchs.  Tims 
when  in  f)8G  Fredegonda  caused  Pretextatus,  Bishop  of  Rouen, 
to  be  assassinated  at  the  altar,  and  a  noble  Frank  who  re 
proached  her  with  the  crime  to  be  poisoned,  it  was  evidently 
useless  to  assail  the  royal  Jezebel  and  to  stimulate  her  to  fresh 
outrages.  Accordingly  Leudovald,  Bishop  of  Bayeux,  after 
consultation  with  his  brother  prelates,  ordered  all  the  churches 
of  Rouen  to  be  closed,  and  the  population  to  be  deprived  of 
the  consolations  of  religion,  until  a  general  search  should  result 
in  the  discovery  of  the  guilty  participators  in  the  crime.1 

The  church  thus  with  little  effect  exhausted  the  resources  of 
her  authority  in  the  effort  to  maintain  order  and  to  preserve 
the  inviolability  of  the  persons  and  property  of  her  ministers. 
In  the  early  period  of  the  Frankish  conquest,  so  little  could  she 
rely  upon  the  control  of  the  sacraments  to  insuiv  even  the  safety 
of  the  hierarchy  that  in  517  the  first  council  of  Lyons  adopted 
a  canon  providing  that  whenever  the  king  should  withdraw 
himself  from  communion  all  the  bishops  of  the  province  should 
at  once  take  refuge  in  monasteries,  where  they  should  remain 
ensconced  until  it  might  please  the  monarch  to  promise  peace 
to  all.2  Christianity,  it  is  evident,  had  as  yet  been  able  to 
instil  but  little  reverence  in  the  Merovingian  heart  for  the  sac 
raments  of  the  altar  or  for  the  venerable  men  who  administered 
them,  and  the  process  of  educating  the  wild  Teutonic  races  was 

1  Gregor.  Turon.  Hist.  Franc.  Lib.  vin.  cap.  :•>!. — St.  Basil  of  Cyesarea 
is  sometimes  quoted  as  the  inventor  of  the  interdict,  towards  the  close  of 
the  fourth  century,  because  in  a  case  wherein  a  young  girl  was  carried  off 
he  not  only  excommunicated  the  immediate  actors  but  also  the  inhabi 
tants  of  a  town  where  they  had  taken  refuge  (Basil  Epist.  144,  ap.  Heri- 
court,  Loix  Eccles.  E.  178).     In   this  case,  however,  all  were  guilty,  di 
rectly  or  indirectly,  though  the  transaction  was  not  in  strict  accordance 
with  the  ecclesiastical  law  of  the  period, 

2  Condi.   Lugdun.  I.  ann.  51  7  can.  •'->. 


THE  CHURCH  AND  THE  BARBARIANS.    313 

slow.  Still,  the  assiduous  teachings  to  which  I  have  alluded 
gradually  produced  their  effect,  and  the  kings  came  to  under 
stand  that,  however  they  might  hold  themselves  above  the 
obedience  claimed  by  the  church,  still  the  traditions  of  Roman 
subordination  which  she  cherished  might  render  her  a  useful 
ally  in  establishing  their  own  supremacy  over  the  native  inde 
pendence  of  their  subjects. 

In  the  scantv  fragments  which  remain  to  us  of  the  legislation 

•/  O  C5 

of  that  age  we  may  therefore  find  some  indications  of  a  disposi 
tion  to  support  the  censures  of  the  church  by  the  secular  power. 
Slight  as  these  are,  they  possess  interest  as  the  first  indications 
of  the  long-existing  alliance  between  kingcraft  and  priestcraft, 
which  exercised  so  powerful  an  influence  over  the  development 
of  European  civilization,  and  which  eventually  enabled  the 
church  to  triumph  over  both  king  and  people. 

Thus,  in  080,  the  second  council  of  Macon  adopted  various 
canons  threatening  excommunication  for  sundry  offences,  such 
as  the  refusal  to  pay  tithes  and  the  oppression  of  -the  poor  by 
the  rich  ;  and,  more  significant  still,  it  commanded  under 
penalty  of  suspension  from  communion  that  no  mounted  lay 
man  should  meet  an  ecclesiastic  without  dismounting  and  hum 
bly  saluting  him.1  In  the  same  year  King  Gontran  issued  an 
edict  confirming  the  acts  of  this  council,  which  lie  asserts  to 
have  been  drawn  up  at  his  suggestion.  In  a  manner  some 
what  vague  he  threatens  that  those  who  could  not  be  corrected 
by  priestly  exhortations  should  be  coerced  by  legal  proceedings, 
and  he  confers  by  implication  great  power  on  his  bishops  when 
he  declares  that  they  share  in  the  sins  of  those  whose  evil  deeds 
they  dissemble  in  silence.2  Ten  years  later,  Childebert  II. 
manifested  a  similar  disposition.  In  a  decree  forbidding  mar 
riages  within  the  prohibited  degrees,  and  ordering  his  subjects 
to  obey  the  directions  of  their  bishops  with  regard  to  them,  he 
adds  that  if  any  one  should  be  excommunicated  for  disobedi- 

1  Concil.  Matisoon.  II.  ann.  585  can.  4,  5,  14,  15. 

2  Pnccept.  Guntramni  ann.  585  (Baluz.  I.  7'). 

27 


314  EXCOMMUNICATION. 

ence,  he  would  not  only  be  forever  condemned  in  the  sight  of 
God,  but  should  be  banished  from  the  royal  palace  and  his 
property  be  divided  among  his  heirs  as  a  punishment  for  refus 
ing  to  submit  to  the  remedial  measures  enjoined  by  the  church.1 
Among  the  Spanish  Wisigoths  the  same  tendency  is  observable, 
for  about  this  period  St.  Isidor  of  Seville  lays  it  down  as  a  gen 
eral  rule  that  where  the  ecclesiastical  authority  is  insufficient 
to  command  obedience,  it  is  the  duty  of  the  civil  power  to  inter 
fere  and  enforce  the  discipline  of  the  church.'2 

These  declarations,  however,  derive  their  only  importance 
from  their  significance  in  foreshadowing  the  distant  future. 
They  could  not,  at  the  time,  save  the  church  from  the  evils  to 
which  it  was  daily  exposed,  and  though  for  awhile  it  might  seem 
to  gain  in  power  and  influence,  the  development  of  events 
speedily  showed  the  unstable  foundations  upon  which  its  author 
ity  was  based.  As  the  house  of  Clovis  tore  itself  to  pieces  and 
gradually  passed  away  in  the  long  revolution  which  ended  in 
establishing  the  family  of  Pepin  on  the  tin-one,  the  church  almost 
disappeared  in  the  dismal  anarchy  of  the  period.  The  episco 
pates  became  filled  with  warlike  Franks  who  regarded  them 
merely  as  offices  of  secular  dignity  and  power,  while  the  char 
acter  of  the  clergy  may  be  imagined  from  the  denunciations  of 
Pope  Zachary  in  743,  when  he  describes  them  as  being  laymen 
in  all  but  the  right  to  administer  the  sacraments.3  He  espe 
cially  rebukes  the  martial  ardor  which  they  universally  dis 
played  ;  and  so  deeply  rooted  had  their  warlike  habits  become 
that  when,  after  many  attempts  to  eradicate  them,  Charlemagne 
in  803  made  a  most  solemn  and  impressive  effort  in  conjunction 
with  Pope  Leo  to  restrain  the  unclerical  military  aspirations  of 
the  church,  he  felt  obliged  to  accompany  the  prohibition  of 

1  Deeret.  Childebert.  circa  aim.  505  (Baluz.  I.  11).    The  text  as  given 
both  by  Baluze  and  Canciani  (II.  11<>)  by  the  use  of  the  word  "  crinosis" 
would  seem  to  restrict  to  the  royal  line  the  application  of  this  decree  ;  but 
Canciani  mentions  the    reading  "  criminosis"  as  given  by  another  MS. 
which  would  render  its  application  general. 

2  Isidor.  Hispalens.  Sentent.  Lib.  III.  cap.  51  §§  4,  5. 
:1  Bonifacii  Epist.  l.°>r. 


CARLOVINGIAN    RECONSTRUCTION.  315 

bearing  arms  with  an  assurance  to  the  people  that  this  measure 
was  not  intended  as  preliminary  to  despoiling  the  clergy  ot 
their  possessions — a  rumor  to  this  effect  having  apparently  found 
ready  believers.1 


CARLOVINGIAN  RECONSTRUCTION. 

In  a  state  of  society  so  lawless,  and  with  a  church  so  profaned, 
ecclesiastical  censures  could  have  been  little  employed  and  less 
regarded.  When,  however,  the  sons  of  Charles  Martel  endeav 
ored  to  establish  the  new  dynasty  on  a  firm  foundation,  the 
piety  of  Carloman  soon  recognized  that  the  reformation  and 
rebuilding  of  the  church  was  the  surest  basis  on  which  to  estab 
lish  power  ;  while  Pepin  le  Bref,  as  soon  as  he  had  seized  the 
crown  under  papal  authority,  felt  that  the  fortunes  of  his  house 
were  indissolubly  united  with  those  of  the  hierarchy.  The  saga 
city  of  Charlemagne  recognized  not  only  this,  but  also  that  the 
church  was  the  most  efficient  instrument  that  he  could  use  in 
civilizing  the  motley  aggregation  of  races  which  constituted 
his  empire.  Thus  the  first  practical  step  taken  by  Carloman 
in  the  reconstruction  of  society  was  the  assembling  of  a  council 
in  742,  where  he  appointed  St.  Boniface  to  the  primacy  of  his 
church,  and  ordered  the  convention  of  a  yearly  synod  to  reform 
the  ecclesiastical  disorders  which  seemed  to  defy  all  hope  of 
improvement.2  The  same  spirit  is  shown  throughout  all  the 
legislation  of  Charlemagne,  as,  for  instance,  in  the  organization 
of  his  Saxon  conquests  in  789.  His  first  act  is  to  divide  his 
newly-acquired  territory  into  eight  dioceses,  for  which  he  at 

1  Capit..  Carol.  Mag,  vni.  arm.  803.  Cf.  Capit.  inccrti  anni  cap.  1 
(Baluz.  I.  288,  357).  How  little  this  accomplished  in  repressing  the 
martial  tendencies  of  the  clergy  is  seen  by  a  similar  prohibition  as  late  as 
846.— Capit.  Carol.  Calvi  Tit.  vn.  cap.  37  (Baluz.  II.  24). 

'2  Karolomanni  Capit.  i.  ami.  742  cap.   1  (Bain/.  I.  103). 


316  EXCOMMUNICATION. 

once  appoints  bishops;  and  while  he  declares  his  new  subjects 
to  be  free  and  not  liable  to  taxation,  he  orders  the  strict  pay 
ment  of  tithes  for  the  support  of  the  churches.  So,  while  he 
decrees  the  penalty  of  death  for  a  number  of  offences,  from 
conspiring  to  rebel  or  refusing  baptism,  down  to  eating  meat 
in  Lent  without  a  dispensation,  he  adds  that  in  all  these  cases, 
if  the  offender  shall  voluntarily  confess  to  a  priest  and  submit 
to  penance,  the  evidence  of  the  ecclesiastic  shall  save  his  life.1 

As  Charlemagne  never  for  a  moment  abandoned  the  control 
which  he  exercised  over  every  ecclesiastic,  from  the  pope  to 
the  monk,  he  might  thus  safely  make  use  of  the  clergy  in  the 
task  of  reducing  his  rugged  subjects  to  order.  When  he  could 
command  them  never  to  refuse  the  viaticum  to  the  dying  sin 
ner,-  he  could  safely  delegate  to  them  a  part  of  his  authority  ; 
and  to  render  that  authority  more  efficient,  that  he  might  use 
them  to  greater  advantage,  he  could  enjoin  implicit  obedience 
to  them  on  the  part  of  his  subjects,  from  the  lowest  to  the  high 
est.  "  In  truth,  he  is  more  to  be  feared  who  can  plunge  body 
and  soul  into  hell  than  he  who  can  merely  torture  the  body," 
and  as  these  spiritual  and  distant  terrors  were  not  likely  to  be 
efficient,  he  adds  that  those  who  prove  incorrigibly  disobedient, 
even  if  they  be  his  own  sons,  shall  be  proclaimed  infamous, 
their  property  be  confiscated,  and  themselves  be  driven  into 
exile.15 

When  such  was  the  recognized  Carlovingian  policy,  it  is  not 
surprising  that  the  assistance  of  the  state  was  lent  to  the  en 
forcement  of  ecclesiastical  censures,  and  that  those  who  were 
not  to  be  daunted  with  threats  of  spiritual  punishment  should 

1  Carol.  Mag.  Praecept.  de  Episc.  per  Saxon.— Proecept.  pro  Trutmanuo 
Coraite.— Capit.  de  Part.  Saxon,  cap.  iii.-xiv.     (Baluz.  I.  179-83.) 

2  Carol.  Mag.  Capit.  Episcopor.  ami.  801.     (Baluz.  I.  258.) 

3  Carol.  Mag.  Capit.  ap.  Theodonis  Villam  (Baluz.  I.  305).     The  terms 
in  which  this  capitulary  is  drawn  are  so  extreme  that  I  am  strongly  in 
clined  to  suspect  its  genuineness.     Its  general  spirit,  however,  is  amply 
confirmed  by  others.     Cf.  Edict.  Domin.  c.  ami.  800;  Capitul.  Ad.  in. 
cap.  97  (Baluz.  I.  236,  587).     Also,  Concil.  Arelatens.  VI.  ami.  813  can. 
13  (Harduin.  IV.  1005). 


CARLO VING1AN     RECONSTRUCTION.  317 

be  brought  to  reason  with  more  substantial  penalties.  The 
policy  doubtless  served  its  purpose  for  the  moment,  nor  could 
the  early  Carlovingians,  struggling  with  the  gigantic  barbarism 
of'  the  age,  see  into  the  future  when  the  secular  inflictions 
affixed  to  excommunication  should  become  the  most  efficient 
weapon  of  oppression  in  the  armory  of  the  hierarchy  ;  or  that 
the  alliance  which  they  now  formed  between  the  church  and 
state  would  enable  the  former  through  centuries  to  dominate 
the  latter  with  a  despotism  unparalleled.  It  is  these  results 
in  the  far  distant  future,  of  tremendous  import  in  the  history 
of  civilization,  that  impart  interest  to  the  obscure  and  appa 
rently  trivial  details  of  the  legislation  by  which  the  church 
gradually  acquired  the  right  to  call  upon  the  civil  power  to 
execute  her  decrees  without  appeal  and  without  examination. 

So  completely  had  ecclesiastical  discipline  been  relaxed 
during  the  later  Merovingian  period  that  even  the  meaning 
and  purport  of  excommunication  had  become  well-nigh  for 
gotten.  In  755,  Pepin  le  Bref,  at  the  assembly  of  Verneuil, 
was  obliged  to  explain  to  the  people  what  were  the  rules  to  be 
enforced  on  excommunicates,  and  even  in  802  Charlemagne 
felt  called  upon  to  proclaim  that  the  kingdom  of  God  was  re 
served  for  those  who  lived  and  died  in  the  communion  of  the 
church.  By  successive  edicts  thus  the  old  canons  of  the  church 
were  revived — the  strict  segregation  of  the  impenitent  from 
all  intercourse  with  Christians,  the  prohibition  to  receive  him 
until  reconciled  by  the  one  who  had  ejected  him,  and  the 
necessity  of  commendatory  letters  for  those  who  travelled  or 
changed  their  residence.1  Yet  the  forgotten  discipline  thus 
resuscitated  was  changed  in  character,  for  it  was  no  longer  the 
simple  expression  of  the  internal  regulations  of  the  church,  but 
as  proclaimed  by  the  monarch  it  became  the  law  of  the  land. 
Formerly  it  could  only  be  enforced  by  the  moral  power  of  the 

1  Synod.  Vernens.  aim.  755  cap.  9. — Capit.  Aquisgranens.ann.  789cap. 
1,  3.— Carol.  Mag.  Capit.  i.  ami.  802  cap.  4-1  (Baluz.  I.  122,  155-6,  208). 
Also  Capitul.  Lib.  v.  cap.  02.— Carol.  Mag.  Capit,  in  LI.  Longobard.  u. 
20,  1  (Baluz.  I.  254.— Canciani  I.  166). 

27* 


318  EXCOMMUNICATION. 

church  ;  now  it  could  call  upon  the  irresistible  authority  of  the 
state,  and  the  canons  of  Niccea,  of  Sardica,  of  Antioch,  of 
Carthage,  and  of  Chalcedon,  when  quoted  and  explained  in 
the  capitularies  of  the  sovereign  of  Western  Europe,  acquired 
a  new  significance  of  which  the  ultimate  development  was  not 
to  be  realized  for  five  hundred  years. 

There  were  two  subjects  which  attracted  particular  attention 
in  the  civilizing  efforts  of  the  Carlovingians,  affording  at  once 
special  incitement  in  urging  the  revival  of  excommunication 
and  in  enforcing  its  penalties  by  the  secular  power.  These 
were  the  marriage  of  persons  within  the  prohibited  degrees, 
and  the  spoliation  to  which  the  church  was  exposed  in  the 
general  lawlessness  of  society. 

Without  entering  into  the  polemical  questions  respecting 
the  .sacramental  nature  of  the  marriage  ceremony,  it  is  easy  to 
understand  why  the  early  Christians,  in  their  horror  of  the 
laxity  prevailing  among  the  Gentiles,  invested  the  marriage 
rite  with  peculiar  sanctity,  and  confided  its  performance  to  the 
priest.1  Those  who  endeavored  to  render  every  act  of  life  an 
expression  of  pious  fervor  were  not  likely  to  allow  so  solemn 
an  occasion  to  be  divested  of  religious  ceremony,  and  accord 
ingly  the  sarcedotal  benediction  was  esteemed  an  essential  part 
of  the  nuptial  celebration  at  a  comparatively  early  period.2 

1  The  Encyclical  of  Leo  XIII.  on  Christian  Marriage  (Feb.  10th  1S80) 
quotes  the  various  admonitions  given  in  the  New  Testament,  whence  it 
is  assumed,  with  the  ordinary  theological  logic,  that  the  church  "has 
exercised  authority  over  the  marriage  of  Christians  at  every  time  and  in 
every  place,  and  has  so  exercised  it  as  to  show  that  it  was  her  own  inhe 
rent  right,  not  obtained  by  the  conception  of  men,  but  divinely  bestowed 
by  the  will  of  the  Author." 

2  Innocent.  PP.  I.  Epist.  TI.  cap.  f>.— Synesius  (Epist,  105)  speaks  of 
receiving  his  wife  from  the  holy  hands  of  Theophilus,  Archbishop  of  Alex 
andria.     An  allusion  of  Clement  of  Alexandria  (Stromat.  Lib.  iv.  Ed. 
1629,  p.  524-),  and  of  Tertullian  (Ad  Uxor.  Lib.  n.  cap.  ix.)  would  seem 
to  indicate  that  religious  observances  formed  part  of  the  nuptial  ceremony 
as  early  as  the  second  century,  and  even  in  the  times  of  St.  Ignatius  some 
clerical  supervision  was  exercised  over  the  unions  of  the  faithful  (Epist. 


CARLOVINGIAN     RECONSTRUCTION.  319 

Not  only  this,  but  the  supervision  exercised  by  the  church 
over  the  morality  of  the  faithful  aided  in  giving  it  especial 
control  over  the  delicate  questions  connected  with  matrimony, 
and  accordingly  some  of  the  earliest  canons  which  have  reached 
us  relate  to  regulations  adopted  to  prevent  what  were  regarded 
as  improper  marriages  ;*  while  the  prohibition  of  incest  in  the 
Mosaic  law  seemed  to  render  this  a  matter  of  which  the  church 
ought  to  assume  the  special  guardianship.  Therefore  when,  in 
601,  St.  Augustine  of  Canterbury  applied  to  Gregory  I.  for 
instructions  regarding  the  prohibited  degrees,  the  latter,  while 
deprecating,  on  account  of  its  effect  on  posterity,  the  marriages 
of  first  cousins  permitted  by  the  Roman  law,  had  no  hesitation 
in  prescribing  for  the  Barbarians  rules  which  he  had  no  power 
to  enforce  at  home.  He  accordingly  directed  that  among  the 
Saxon  converts  marriage  should  not  be  permitted  between 
parties  related  more  closely  than  the  third  or  fourth  degree.2 
By  this  time  also  the  church  was  acquiring  fresh  authority  in 
these  matters  by  the  doctrine  of  spiritual  affinity,  preventing 
or  rendering  null  the  marriage  of  those  who  had  connected 
themselves  as  sponsors  in  baptism,  and  the  shrewd  device  is 
well  known  by  which  Fredegonda  succeeded  in  getting  rid  of 
Audovera,  the  queen  of  Chilperic,  when  she  desired  to  marry 
him  for  the  second  time.  A  daughter  was  born  to  Audovera 
during  the  king's  absence  on  a  military  expedition,  and  the 

ad  Polycarp.  cap.  v.)-  Many  matters  connected  with  marriage  neces 
sarily  came  under  the  care  of  the  church  as  the  guardian  of  faith  and 
morals. 

1  Condi.  Eliberit.  ami.  :*05  can.  8,  9,  10,  14,  15,  1(5,  17. 

-  Gregor.  PP.  I.  Regist.  Lib.  xi.  Epist.  64,  Interrog.  6.— This  decree 
was  of  course  a  stumbling-block  to  the  zealous  churchmen  who  subse 
quently  extended  the  prohibition  so  much  further,  and  it  was  neutralized 
by  the  usual  expedient  of  forgery.  Two  epistles  were  fabricated — one 
from  Felix,  Bishop  of  Messina,  to  Gregory,  expressing  his  surprise  at  a 
decision  so  contrary  to  all  the  customs  of  the  fathers  from  the  time  of  the 
Niceue  Council,  and  the  other  a  reply  from  Gregory  explaining  that  he 
had  relaxed  the  rules  temporarily  for  the  benefit  of  the  rude  and  bar 
barous  converts  of  Augustine,  without  any  intention  of  introducing  this 
laxity  into  the  church  at  large.— RegiM.  Lib.  XTV.  Epist.  Hi,  IT. 


320  EXCOMMUNICATION. 

cunning  Fredegonda  persuaded  her  that  it  would  be  an  agree 
able  surprise  to  Chilperic  to  find  on  his  return  the  infant  bap 
tized,  and  that  their  union  would  be  rendered  dearer  and  more 
sacred  if  she  herself  would  hold  the  child  at  the  font.  Ando- 
vera  consented,  and  thus  contracted  a  spiritual  affinity  with 
her  husband  which  rendered  separation  obligatory  ;  she  was 
promptly  relegated  to  a  convent,  and  Fredegonda  triumphed 
in  the  success  of  her  audacious  scheme.1 

We  have  seen  how  Gregory  the  Great  prescribed  for  the 
ignorance  of  the  Saxons  restrictions  which  were  not  submitted 
to  in  Rome  ;  and  however  diificult  it  might  be  to  enforce  such 
regulations,  it  was  easy  to  decree  them.  Gregory's  example, 
therefore,  did  not  lack  imitators,  and  in  the  eighth  century  we 
find  his  successor  Gregory  III.  instructing  Boniface  to  pro 
hibit  all  marriages  as  far  as  the  seventh  degree.2  By  this  time 
the  right  of  the  church  to  control  such  matters  was  acknowl 
edged,  but  these  instructions  fell  upon  a  hardened  and  stiff- 
necked  generation.  Even  the  thunders  of  the  church  had  not 
prevented  the  Merovingians  from  surrounding  themselves  with 
harems,  and  it  mattered  little  whether  the  inmates  bore  the 
title  of  concubines  or  wives.  At  a  comparatively  early  period, 
the  Salic  Law  and  the  other  Barbarian  codes  forbade  inces 
tuous  unions  under  various  severe  penalties,3  but  the  holy  St. 
Nicetius,  when  he  ventured  to  excommunicate  some  of  his 
unruly  flock  for  transgressions  of  this  nature,  was  met  with 

1  Aimoini  Hist.  Francor.  Lib.  in.  cap.  vi. — In  the  Icelandic  church, 
which  differed  in  so  many  respects  from  that  of  the  rest  of  Europe,  this 
rule  seems  to  have  been  disregarded.     The  code  of  ecclesiastical  law  in 
force  from  1122  to  1275  expressly  declares  that  a  father  who  under  stress 
of  necessity  baptizes  his  own  child  is  not  therefore  required  to  separate 
from  his  wife. — Kristinrettr  Thorlaks  oc  Ketils,  cap.  in.  (Havniae  1776, 
p. 13). 

2  Gregor.  PP.  III.  Epist.  1  cap.  5. 

3  L.  Salic.  Text.  Herold.   Tit.  xiv.   §  xii.— Text.  Emend.  Tit.  xiv.  § 
xvi. — This  provision,  however,  is  not  to  be  found  in  the  earliest  texts,  such 
as  that  of  the  MS.  Guelferbyt. — See  also  L.  Alamann.  Tit.  xxxix. — L. 
Baioar.  Tit.  vi.  S  1. 


CARLOVINGIAN  RECONSTRUCTION.      321 

obloquy  and  persecution.1  Charlemagne's  laxity  with  respect 
to  the  marriage  tie  is  notorious,  and  so  late  as  the  ninth  cen 
tury  we  find  the  Emperor  Lothair  issuing  a  law  which  formally 
forbids  any  one  to  have  two  wives  at  once.2  Men  who  cared 
so  little  for  the  plainest  precepts  of  the  law  regulating  matri 
mony,  were  not  likely  to  regard  a  rule  which  was  so  difficult 
of  observance,  and  which  required  so  nice  an  acquaintance 
with  genealogy  as  was  necessary  to  ascertain  the  shadow  ot 
relationship  expressed  by  the  seventh  degree  of  kinship  ;  and 
accordingly  the  enforcement  of  the  restriction  was  tacitly  ad 
mitted  to  be  impossible.  Strenuous  efforts,  however,  were  made 
unceasingly  to  bring  under  some  sort  of  control  the  rebellious 
natures  of  the  Franks,  and  in  these  we  find  the  earliest  traces 
of  the  aid  lent  by  the  State  to  cause  the  censures  of  the  church 
to  be  respected.  These  efforts,  moreover,  are  of  interest,  as 
they  are  the  source  of  the  ecclesiastical  jurisdiction  over  all 
questions  connected  with  marriage  which  subsequently  enured 
so  much  to  the  power  and  profit  of  the  church. 

Thus  already,  in  75*2,  Pepin  le  Bref  issued  a  capitulary  for 
bidding  marriages  as  far  as  the  fourth  grade,  although  parties 
related  to  the  fourth  degree,  if  married,  were  not  to  be  sepa 
rated.  Even  in  this  modified  form,  obedience,  apparently,  was 
not  expected,  for  the  bishops  were  instructed  to  look  sharply 
after  such  incestuous  unions;  if  the  sinners  were  obdurate, 
they  were  to  be  expelled  from  the  church,  and  if  this  did  not 
succeed  in  bringing  them  to  submission,  there  was  a  vague  in 
timation  that  secular  force  would  be  employed.3  How  little 
success  attended  this  legislation  is  shown  by  the  decrees  of  755 
and  757,  in  which  persons  guilty  of  these  incestuous  marriages 
were  threatened  with  purely  temporal  penalties,  such  as  fines, 
imprisonment,  etc.  ;4  while  another  of  755,  after  denouncing 

1  Epist.  Francor.  xi.  (Frcher.  Corp.  Hist.  Francor.  p.  194). 

2  LI.  Longobard.  n.  13,  7. 

3  Synod.  Vermeriens.  ami.  752  cap.  1,  9  (Baluz.  I.  118).     Cf.  Capitul. 
Lib.  v.  c.  165. 

4  Capit.  Metens.  ami.  755  cap.  1.— Capit.  Compendious,  ami.  757  cap. 
1,  2,  1.9  (Baluz.  T.  125,  129). 


322  EXCOMMUNICATION. 

excommunication  as  the  punishment,  adds  that  if  any  one  dis 
regards  it,  and  proves  too  stubborn  for  his  bishop,  he  shall  be 
exiled  by  the  royal  power.1 

One  of  the  earliest  laws  of  Charlemagne  enjoins  on  the  priest 
hood  especial  watchfulness  with  respect  to  these  prohibited 
marriages;  and  ten  years  later,  in  779,  he  specifically  con 
ferred  upon  the  bishops  the  power  to  coerce  all  incestuous 
persons.2  Not  long  afterwards  he  decreed  confiscation  as  a 
punishment  for  those  who  refused  obedience  to  their  bishops  in 
this  matter.3  These  efforts  were  ineffectual,  and  in  802  he 
commanded  that  no  marriage  should  be  celebrated  until  the 
bishop,  priest,  and  elders  had  carefully  examined  into  the  pos 
sible  consanguinity  of  the  spouses.  If,  in  spite  of  these  pre 
cautions,  such  unions  took  place,  the  bishop  was  directed  to 
separate  the  parties,  and  those  who  should  refuse  obedience 
were  to  be  brought  before  the  emperor  himself,  as  in  the  case 
of  a  certain  Fricco,  who  had  not  long  before  committed  incest 
by  marrying  a  nun.4 

It  was  an  evil  generation,  and  hard  to  bring  into  subjec 
tion.  As  Charlemagne's  career  as  a  lawgiver  had  opened,  so 
it  may  he  said  to  have  closed,  with  an  attempt  to  enforce  the 
canon.  In  813  the  bishops  assembled  at  Tours  deplored  the 
multitude  of  incestuous  marriages  which  no  ecclesiastical  cen 
sures  could  prevent,  as  the  sinners  made  light  of  excommuni 
cation,  and  could  only  be  coerced  by  the  secular  power.5  A 
council  held  at  the  same  time  at  Mainz  renewed  the  prohibi 
tion  of  marriage  to  the  fourth  degree,  and  ordered  all  persons 
so  united  to  be  separated  ;  due  penance  was  also  enjoined,  with 
a  threat  of  expulsion  from  the  church  for  those  who  refused  to 

1  Synod.  Vernens.  aim.  755  cap.  0.— Cf.  Capital.  Lib.  v.  cap.  62. 

2  Carol.  Mag.  Capit.  anu.  7(39  cap.  10.     Ejusd.  aim.  779  cap.  5  (Baluz. 
I.  137,  141). 

3  Capit.  Caroli  Magni  incerti  anni  c.  v.  (Martene  Auipl.  Coll.  VII.  6). 

4  Carol.  Mag.  Capit.  i.  aim.  802  cap.  33,  35,  38  (Baluz.  I.  265-60).     Cf. 
Capital.  Lib.  vn.  cap.  4-32. 

5  Concil.  Turon.  III.  aim.  813  can.  41  (Harduin.  IV.  1028).— Capital. 
Lib.  ir.  cap.  43. 


CARLOVINGIAN     RECONSTRUCTION.  323 

undergo  it.1  Charlemagne  responded  but  feebly  to  these  ap 
peals.  He  contented  himself  with  ordering  increased  watch 
fulness  on  the  subject,  and  the  expulsion  from  the  church  of 
those  who  refused  the  performance  of  due  penitence.2 

It  is  not  to  be  supposed  that  the  manufacturers  of  the  False 
Decretals  neglected  this  matter.  An  epistle  attributed  to  Ca- 
lixtus  I.  argues  at  much  length  against  the  legality  of  marriages 
between  kindred,  showing  how  little  had  been  accomplished 
by  previous  efforts.3  The  correspondence  forged  between  Gre 
gory  the  Great  arid  Felix  of  Messina  extended  the  prohibition 
to  the  seventh  degree  ;4  and  a  canon  attributed  to  Pope  Julius 
gave  increased  antiquity  to  this  rule.5  At  the  same  time  an 
other,  to  which  the  name  of  Pope  Fabian  was  attached,  shows 
the  confusion  which  existed,  by  reducing  the  prohibition  to  the 
fourth  degree,  and  forbidding  the  separation  of  those  already 
married,  being  substantially  a  repetition  of  the  Carlovingian 
rule.6  Benedict  the  Levite  was  bolder,  and  in  transferring  to 
his  collection  of  capitularies  the  canon  of  the  council  of  Mainz 
of  813,  he  adroitly  extended  the  prohibition  from  the  fourth 
degree  to  the  fifth  and  sixth  ;Y  and  subsequently  he  fabricated 
others  which  carried  it  to  the  seventh.8  These  being  copied 
by  Hincmar,  Burchardt,  Ivo,  and  Gratian,  it  was  rendered 
difficult  for  any  man  to  know  whether  he  was  properly  married 
or  not,  and,  as  we  shall  see  hereafter,  there  was  afforded  to  the 

1  Coneil.  Mogunt.  ann.  813  can.  54  (Harduin.  IV.  1016). 

2  Carol.  Mag.  Capit.  i.  ami.  813  cap.  8  (Balux.  I.  343). 

3  Pseudo  Calixt.   Epist.   n. — quoted  in  Gratian  P.   n.   cans.  35  q.   ii. 
can.  2. 

4  Pseudo-Felicis    ct   Pseudo-Gregor.   Epist.   (Regist.    Lib.   xiv.  Epist. 
16,17). 

5  Pseudo-Julian,  in  Gratian.  P.  IT.  caus.  35  q.  ii.  can.  7. 

6  Pseudo-Fabian,  in  Gratian.  P.  n.  caus.  35  q.  ii.  can.  3. 
1  Capitul.  Lib.  v.  cap.  1(56. 

8  Ibid.  Lib.  vi.  cap.  209.  The  importance  attached  to  this  subject,  and 
the  difficulty  of  enforcing  the  rule,  are  attested  by  Benedict's  endless  re 
currence  to  it.  See,  for  instance,  Capitul.  Lib.  v.  cap.  9,  91,  165,  304; 
Lib.  vi.  cap.  76,  106,  410  ;  Lib.  VII.  cap.  257,  356,  377,  432,  433,  431,  435; 
Addit.  m.  cap.  121,  etc. 


324  EXCOMMUNICATION. 

church,  the  opportunity  of  intervening  effectually  in  the  affairs 
of  princes  and  kingdoms. 

The  other  subject  which  seemed  to  call  especially  for  the 
intervention  of  the  secular  power  in  support  of  spiritual  cen 
sures  was  the  oppression  and  spoliation  to  which  the  church 
was  exposed  as  soon  as  its  ministers  had  been  deprived  of  the 
opportunity  of  self-defence  by  prohibiting  them  from  bearing 
arms.  At  the  same  assembly  of  Worms  in  803  which  asked 
for  this  restriction,  the  nobles  petitioned  the  emperor  to  im 
prison  all  who  might  invade  the  rights  of  the  church  until  they 
should  perform  public  and  canonical  penance.  As  all  such 
offenders  were  excommunicate,  the  petitioners  pledged  them 
selves  to  hold  them  as  infamous,  and  not  to  associate  with  them 
in  war  or  in  peace,  in  the  church,  in  the  court,  or  on  the  road  ; 
to  forbid  their  retainers  from  consorting  with  those  of  the  sin 
ners  thus  proscribed,  and  even  to  keep  their  horses  and  cattle 
separate,  for  fear  of  contamination.  To  this  request  the  em 
peror  assented,  and,  with  the  approval  of  the  estates  of  his 
empire,  he  issued  a  decree,  which  the  judges  were  specially 
ordered  to  enforce,  denouncing  all  invasion  of  church  property 
as  liable  to  the  punishments  of  sacrilege,  theft,  and  murder. 
lie  also  ordered  the  bishops  to  anathematize  the  guilty,  so  that 
they  might  lack  Christian  burial  and  be  deprived  of  the  prayers 
and  sacrifices  of  the  church.1  In  another  capitulary  he  de 
nounced  the  spoilers  of  the  church  as  men  anathematized,  de 
prived  of  legal  protection  and  of  association  with  the  faithful — 
\vlio  were  forbidden  to  give  them  bread  or  water — and,  more 
over,  cut  off  from  the  kingdom  of  God  if  they  should  die  with 
out  rendering  full  satisfaction  to  the  church  which  they  had 
wronged.2 

In  all  this  Charlemagne  never  abated  a  jot  of  his  control 
over  the  church,  which  he  strengthened  that  it  might  be  a  more 

1  Carol.  Mag.  Capit,  vnr.  ami.  803  (Baluz.  I.  285-90).— Cf.  Capital. 
Lib.  vi.  cap.  370;  Lib.  vn.  rap.  142.  143. 

1  Carol.  Mas:.  Capit.  TTT.  inrerti  anni  rap.  ",  4,  o  (Baluz.  I.  359). 


CARLOVINGIAN     RECONSTRUCTION.  325 

useful  instrument  in  his  hands.  In  this  same  year,  803,  in  a 
capitulary  addressed  to  his  Missi,  or  Imperial  Commissioners, 
containing  a  brief  summary  of  matters  requiring  their  atten 
tion,  he  orders  them  to  check  the  abuse  of  the  powers  thus 
confided  to  ecclesiastics,  by  preventing  excommunications  from 
being  resorted  to  everywhere  and  without  cause.1  In  811  he 
issued  another  capitulary,  which  is  a  series  of  sharp  and 
searching  questions,  probing  to  the  quick  the  excesses  and 
crimes  of  the  church,  and  among  them  we  find  that  the  dele 
gated  power  over  heaven  and  hell  was  already  used  with  effect 
on  the  minds  of  dying  and  despairing  sinners  for  the  purpose 
of  swelling  the  possessions  and  revenues  of  the  establishment. 
He  asks  whether  the  world  is  relinquished  by  those  who  seek 
wealth  through  every  cunning  art,  by  promising  happiness  in 
heaven  and  threatening  eternal  torture  in  hell,  thus  playing  on 
the  ignorance  of  rich  and  poor  alike  to  gain  possession  of 
their  estates,  to  the  exclusion  of  the  rightful  heirs,  causing  a 
notable  increase  of  crime  by  forcing  to  a  life  of  robbery  and 
plunder  those  who  were  thus  disinherited.2  This  was  not  the 
only  way  in  which  the  money  value  of  the  Eucharist  was 
speculated  on,  for  other  modes  were  speedily  discovered  and 
industriously  exploited.  By  this  time,  in  the  stricter  kinds  of 
pentinence  enjoined,  the  penitent  was  obliged  to  live  on  bread 
and  water.3  A  regulation  accordingly  was  introduced  by  which 

1  Carol.  Mag.  Capit.  in.  ann.  803  cap.  2  (Baluz.  I.  277). 

2  Carol.  Mag.  Capit.  n.  ami.  811  cap.  5  (Baluz.  I.  329-30).     This  in 
quisition  of  the  emperor  into  the  shortcomings  of  the  church  led  to  the 
assembling  of  five  councils  in  813.     Two  of  these  (Concil.  Arelatens.  VI., 
Remens.  II.)  pay  no  attention  to  this  special  question.     That  of  Tours 
(C.  Turonens.  III.  can.  51,  Harduin.  IV.  1030)  states  that  it  has  made  in 
quiry,  and  can  find  no  one  complaining  of  being  disinherited.     That  of 
Chalons  (C.  Cabillonens.  II.  can.  6,  Ibid.  p.  1033)  contents  itself  with  a 
general  reproof  of  such  practices,  without  indicating  any  special  penalty 
for  them  ;  and  that  of  Mainz  (C.  Mogunt.  can.  6,  Ibid.  p.  1010)  promises 
to  amend  anything  of  the  kind  that  might  come  to  the  knowledge  of  its 
members.    The  church  evidently  was  not  disposed  to  relax  its  pious  efforts 
to  increase  the  patrimony  of  Christ. 

3  Capitul.  Add.  IV.  cap.  83.     In  813  the  second  council  of  Chalons  eorn- 

28 


326  EXCOMMUNICATION. 

no  one  was  allowed  to  invite  a  penitent  to  eat  flesh  or  to  drink 
wine  without  immediately  paying  a  fine  of  one  or  two  deniers, 

according  to   the  severity  of  the  penitence   thus  infringed1 . 

which  was,  apparently,  an  indirect  way  of  allowing  a  rich 
penitent  to  purchase  exemption  from  the  rules.  A  similar 
abuse  is  revealed  by  the  complaint  of  the  council  of  Chalons, 
in  813,  that  a  spurious  charity  was  encouraged  in  those  who 
desired  to  sin  without  incurring  the  penalty  of  their  trans 
gressions.2 


CHURCH  AND  STATE. 

The  death  of  Charlemagne  marks  a  new  era  in  the  history 
of  the  church.  His  support  had  awakened  its  ambition,  and 
had  armed  it  with  new  weapons  ;  while  the  piety  of  Louis  le 
Debonnaire  rendered  him  apt  to  yield  to  the  pretensions  winch 
it  was  prompt  to  put  forward.  Charlemagne  controlled  the 
thunders  of  the  church  ;  Louis  was  their  slave,  and,  it  is  hard 
to  overestimate  the  effect  of  the  spectacle  which  he  offered  to 
an  astonished  world  when,  in  remorse  for  the  severity  with 
which  lie  had  crushed  the  rebellion  of  his  nephew.  Bernard, 
King  of  Italy,  the  master  of  Europe  in  822  appeared  before 
the  prelates  assembled  at  the  council  of  Attigny,  confessed  his 
sins,  asked  for  absolution  through  penance,  and  duly  fulfilled 
the  judgment  rendered  by  appearing  in  public  as  a  penitent.*! 

The  triumph  of  the  spiritual  power  was  thus  foreshadowed, 
and  under  the  auspices  of  such  a  monarch  its  progress  towards 

plains  that  penitents  evaded  the  prohibition  of  wine  and  flesh  by  con 
triving  dainties  agreeable  to  the  palate. — Concil.  Cabillonens.  II.  can.  35 
(Harduin.  IV.  1037)  ;  Cf.  Capitul.  Add.  III.  cap.  60. 

1  Capitul.  Lib.  I.  cap.  151. — Reginon.  Eccles.  Discip.  Lib.  i.  cap.  259. 

2  Concil.   Cabillonens.   II.  ami.  813  can.  30   (Harduin.   IV.    1038).— 
Capitul.  Add.  III.  cap.  01. 

3  Thegan.  de  Gcsl.  Ludewici  Imp.  cap.  23.— Eginhart.  Vit.  Ludov.  Pii 
ami.  822.— Astron.  Vit.  Ludov.  Pii  cap.  xi. 


CHURCH    AND     STATE.  327 

domination  was  rapid.  As  yet  the  fierce  warriors  of  the  age 
were  little  disposed  to  respect  the  spiritual  thunders  of  the 
church,  and  a  contemporary  ecclesiastic  deplores  the  fact  that  a 
large  portion  of  the  laity  made  it  a  rule  to  disregard  excom 
munication  as  utterly  as  though  the  priest  were  a  layman.1 
His  laborious  logic  to  prove  the  blindness  of  this  perversity 
was  little  adapted  to  overcome  the  prevailing  hardness  of 
heart,  and  the  power  of  the  state  was  gradually  invoked  to 
lend  force  to  the  terrors  of  spiritual  censures.  In  SlJMjQiiis 
sought  to  lead  his  subjects  to  submit  to  episcopal  sentences  by 
guarding  with  a  triple  fine  the  life  of  a  man  during  the  per 
formance  of  penitence2 — evidently  because  during  that  period 
of  probation  he  was  prohibited  from  bearing  arms,  and  could 
not  protect  himself.  In  82G,  also,  he  published  a  capitulary 
which  greatly  extended  the  sphere  of  spiritual  jurisdiction,  and 
pledged  to  it  the  support  of  the  secular  power.  For  rapine  and 
robbery  he  decreed  not  only  the  temporal  punishment  of  heavy 
fines  and  restitution,  but  added  the  enforcement  of  canonical 
penitence  to  be  publicly  performed ;  while  the  act,  if  it  had 
been  committed  on  church  property,  was  pronounced  to  be 
sacrilege,  and  the  offender  was  outlawed 'until  he  should  have 
made  amends  to  the  satisfaction  of  the  injured  church.  For 
blasphemy,  the  penalty  threatened  was  imprisonment  by  the 
secular  judge,  and  public  penitence  until,  by  the  intercession 
of  the  bishop,  the  offender  should  be  publicly  reconciled  and 
readmitted  to  the  church.  The  lives  of  ecclesiastics,  moreover, 
were  protected  by  a  provision  that  for  a  homicide  committed 
on  a  clerk  the  criminal  was  to  undergo  penitence  of  the  severest 
character,  for  life,  in  a  monastery. :i  The  same  confusion  of 

1  Jonae  Aurelianens.  de  Institut.  Laicali  Lib.  TI.  cap.  xxi. 

2  Ludov.  Pii  Capit.  I.  arm.  819  cap.  5  (Baluz.  I.  406). 

3  Ludov.  Pii  Capit.  Ingilenheim.  arm.  826  cap.  1,  2,  5  (Baluz.  439-40)  . 
— To  show  the  change  thus  wrought,  it  may  be  worth  while  to  allude  to 
a  judgment  of  Pope  Gelasius  (492-496),  by  which  a  priest  who  had  killed 
his  bishop  was  only  excommunicated  for  a  year  and  deprived  of  the  min 
istry  of  the  altar.      He  persisted  in  performing  his  priestly  functions, 
however,  and  was  thereupon  degraded  for  disobedience. — Gelasii  PP.  I. 
Epist,  Philippo  et  Cassiodoro  ;  Ejusd.  Majorico  et  Joanni. 


328  EXCOMMUNICATION. 

civil  and  ecclesiastical  jurisdiction  is  shown  in  a  law  of  829, 
by  which  a  man  putting  away  or  killing  his  wife  without  cause 
was  condemned  to  undergo  public  penance,  for  refusal  of  which 
the  count  of  his  district  was  ordered  to  imprison  him  in  chains 
until  the  imperial  pleasure  could  be  ascertained.1 

About  this  time,  also,  Lothair  I.,  Louis's  eldest  son,  gave  a 
fresh  impulsion  to  the  progress  of  priestly  control  over  the 
secular  power.  Sent  in  82o  to  Italy  by  his  father,  he  went  to 
Rome,  and  there  Paschal  I.  solemnly  crowned  him  as  emperor, 
without  the  knowledge  or  assent  of  Louis.  This,  we  may 
assume,  threw  him  to  some  extent  into  the  hands  of  the  clerical 
party,  and  w<>  therefore  need  not  be  surprised  to  find  him,  in 
H24,  issuing  the  first  general  command  to  the  counts  and  min 
isters  of  justice  to  enforce  by  secular  proceedings  all  sentences 
of  excommunication.  This  decree  provides  that  if  any  one, 
for  any  crimes  or  offences,  shall  disregard  admonition  until  he 
incurs  the  liability  to  excommunication,  then  the  bishop  shall 
call  to  his  aid  the  count  of  the  district,  and  in  their  joint  names 
the  offender  shall  be  summoned  to  submit  to  the  bishop.  Jf 
this  is  ineffectual,  then  the  royal  ban  or  fine  shall  be  inflicted 
on  him  ;  and  if  still  contumacious,  he  shall  at  last  be  excom 
municated.  In  case  the  hardened  criminal  defies  this,  the 
count  shall  seize  him  and  throw  him  in  chains  in  a  dungeon, 
where  he  shall  lie  until  he  receives  the  imperial  sentence  ; 
while,  if  the  offender  is  the  count  himself,  the  bishop  shall 
report  him  for  judgment  to  the  emperor.'2  Thus  the  thunders 

1  Capit.  pro  lege  habenda  ami.  829  cap.  :>   (Buluz.  I.  452).— Capitul. 
Addit.  iv.  cap.  118,  161. 

2  Lothar.  I.  Capit.  Tit.   n.   cap.  15  (Baluz.  II.  219).— LI.  Longobard, 
ii.  54,  1,  s.  Lothar.  xv.  (Georgiech,  1218-19;  Canciani,  I.  1%).    This  was, 
in  another  section,  applied  especially  to  usurers  (Cap.  19 — LI.  Longobard. 
n.54,2). 

Abuses,  apparently,  were  not  long  in  making  themselves  felt,  for 
another  capitulary  of  Lothair  alludes  to  bishops  and  counts  who  were  in 
the  habit  of  taking  bail  from  persons  accused  of  incest  or  of  withholding 
their  tithes,  and  then  dividing  the  spoils  between  them.— Lothar.  I.  Capit. 
Tit.  v.  cap.  41  (Baluz.  TI.  282).— LI.  Longobard.  iv.  3,  10,  s.  Lothar.  II. 
cap.  1  (Georgisch.  1247-S). 


CHURCH    AND    STATE.  329 

of  the  church  were  adopted  by  the  state  as  part  of  its  ordinary 
criminal  machinery,  and  all  the  powers  of  the  state  were 
pledged  to  support  the  sentence  of  the  spiritual  tribunals. 

The  scope  and  the  danger  of  the  authority  thus  successively 
conferred  upon  the  church  were  most  impressively  manifested 
when  Louis  was  deposed  by  his  sons,  after  the  fatal  Field  of 
Falsehood  in  833,  and  Lothair  desired  to  render  impossible  the 
restoration  of  his  father  to  the  throne.  The  sins  imputable  to 
Louis  were  not  such  as  the  secular  law  of  that  turbulent  age 
could  take  cognizance  of,  but  the  spiritual  tribunal  could  impose 
penitence  for  any  infraction  of  moral  obligation  ;  the  people  had 
been  invited  by  Louis  himself,  eleven  years  before,  at  Attigny, 
to  see  the  bishops  sit  in  judgment  on  their  monarch  ;  and  the 
decretals  of  Siricius  and  Leo  I.,  forbidding  secular  employment 
and  the  bearing  of  arms  to  any  one  who  had  undergone  public 
penance,  were  not  so  entirely  forgotten  but  that  they  might  be 
revived.1  Accordingly,  when  Lothair  returned  to  France,  drag 
ging  his  captive  father  in  his  train,  he  halted  at  Compiegne, 
and  summoned  a  council  of  his  prelates  to  accomplish  the  work 
from  which  his  savage  nobles  shrank.  With  unfaltering  will 
ingness  they  undertook  the  odious  task,  declaring  their  com 
petency  through  the  power  to  bind  and  to  loose  conferred  upon 
their  order  as  the  vicars  of  Christ  and  the  turnkeys  of  heaven. 
They  held  the  wretched  prisoner  accountable  for  the  evils  which 
the  empire  had  suffered  since  the  death  of  Charlemagne,  and 
summoned  him  at  least  to  save  his  soul  by  prompt  confession 
and  penitence,  now  that  his  earthly  dignity  was  lost  beyond 
redemption.  Louis  submitted — he  could  not  do  otherwise — 
and  accepted  and  signed  the  confession  which  they  thrust  into 
his  hands,  the  articles  of  which  show  the  dangerous  confusion 
between  moral  offences  and  temporal  crimes,  so  sedulously  in 
culcated  by  the  mediaeval  casuists,  to  the  immense  extension  of 
spiritual  jurisdiction,  lie  was  guilty  of  sacrilege  because  he 

1  Capitul.  Lib.  vr.  cap.  :$38 ;  Lib.  vn.  cap,  (51,  G2. 
28* 


330  EXCOMMUNICATION. 

had  not  fulfilled  the  promise  of  his  coronation  oath  ;  he  was  a 
perjurer  and  suborner  of  perjury  because,  after  having  parcelled 
out  his  empire  between  his  three  sons,  he  had,  after  the  birth 
of  a  fourth,  made  another  allotment ;  he  had  violated  his  vows 
and  despised  religion  because  he  had  once  undertaken  a  military 
expedition  during  Lent,  and  had  held  a  council  on  Maundy 
Thursday  ;  and  he  was  morally  accountable  for  all  the  crimes 
and  devastation  committed  throughout  the  empire  in  the  civil 
dissensions  excited  by  his  turbulent  soi.s.  With  that  overflowing 
hypocritical  unction  which  is  the  most  disgusting  exhibition  of 
clerical  craft,  the  bishops  labored  with  him  for  his  own  sal 
vation,  until,  overcome  by  their  eloquent  exhortations,  he  threw 
himself  at  their  feet,  begged  the  pardon  of  his  sins,  implored 
their  prayers  in  his  behalf,  and  eagerly  demanded  the  imposition 
of  such  penance  as  would  merit  absolution.  The  request  was 
not  denied.  In  the  church  of  St.  Mary,  before  the  tombs  of  the 
holy  St.  Medard  and  St.  Sebastian,  the  discrowned  monarch 
was  brought  into  the  presence  of  his  son,  and  surrounded  by  a 
gaping  crowd.  There  he  threw  himself  upon  a  sackcloth  and 
lour  times  confessed  his  sins  with  abundant  tears,  accusing 
himself  of  offending  God,  scandalizing  the  church,  and  bringing 
destruction  upon  his  people,  for  the  expiation  of  which  he  de 
manded  penance  and  absolution  by  the  imposition  of  those  holy 
hands  to  which  had  been  confided  the  [tower  to  bind  and  to 
loose.  Then,  handing  his  written  confession  to  the  bishops,  he 
took  off  sword  and  belt  and  laid  them  at  the  foot  of  the  altar, 
where  his  confession  had  already  been  placed.  Throwing  off 
his  secular  garments,  he  put  on  the  white  robe  of  the  penitent, 
and  accepted  from  his  ghostly  advisers  a  penance  which  should 
inhibit  him  during  life  from  again  bearing  arms.1  The  world, 
however,  was  not  as  yet  quite  prepared  lor  this  spectacle  of 
priestly  arrogance  and  royal  degradation.  The  disgust  which 
it  excited  hastened  a  counter-revolution,  and  when  Louis  was 

1  Epise.  Relat.  de  Exauctor.  Hhulow.   (Migne's  Pat.rolog.  T.  XC.'VTI. 
pp.  05JMH).—  Affobsinli  Opp.  pp.  :-tt<M>S  (Ed.  Mi«rm>). 


CHURCH     AND     STATE.  331 

restored  to  the  throne,  Ebbo  of  Rheims  and  St.  Agobard  of 
Lyons,  the  leaders  in  the  solemn  pantomime,  were  promptly 
punished  and  degraded.  Yet  the  piety  of  Louis  held  that  the 
very  sentence  for  the  imposition  of  which  they  incurred  this 
penalty  was  valid  until  abrogated  by  equal  authority,  and  ac 
cordingly  he  caused  himself  to  be  formally  reconciled  to  the 
church  before  the  altar  of  St.  Denis,  and  abstained  from  resum 
ing  his  sword  until  it  was  again  belted  on  him  by  the  hand  of 
a  bishop.1 

During  the  dreary  period  of  anarchy  which  filled  the  re 
maining  years  of  Louis's  disastrous  reign,  and  which  was 
prolonged  by  the  ceaseless  dissensions  of  his  descendants,  ag 
gravated  by  the  ravages  of  the  Northmen  and  Saracens,  the 
church  had  to  endure  evils  uncounted  and  indescribable.  It  is 
no  wonder,  therefore,  that  in  her  defenceless  state  she  sought 
protection  in  exaggerating  her  claims  to  spiritual  dominion, 
and  that  she  endeavored  to  awe  the  lawless  nobles,  who  scoffed 
at  her  censures,  by  claiming  more  and  more  the  right  to  in 
voke  the  temporal  power  for  their  enforcement.  Already,  in 
789,  the  canons  of  Ingilram  had  proclaimed  that  any  monarch 
or  potentate  was  anathema  and  accursed  in  the  sight  of  God 
who  permitted  the  censures  of  the  canons  to  be  disregarded;2 
and  those  who  were  so  busy  in  fabricating  the  Isidorian  forge 
ries  were  not  likely  to  lose  sight  of  the  importance  of  thus 
strengthening  themselves  by  what  was  left  of  the  central  autho- 
rity.  In  the  capitularies  of  Benedict  the  Levite,  we  therefore 
find  abundant  traces  of  the  evils  of  the  time  and  of  the  means 
by  which  a  remedy  was  sought.  As  might  be  expected,  the 
most  prominent  position  is  accorded  to  the  wrongs  inflicted  on 
the  church  when  her  rich  and  extensive  possessions  lay  ex 
posed  defenceless  to  the  cupidity  of  every  petty  chieftain  who 
might  choose  to  occupy  her  lands  or  gather  her  harvests.  Ac- 

1  Astron.  Vit.  Ludov.  Pii  ami.  834. 

2  Ingilramni  cap.  SO  (TTart/heitn  Ponc.il.  (Jcnnan.  T.  258).— Cf. Capital. 
Li  h   vi.  c.  321. 


332  EXCOMMUNICATION. 

cordingly  this  sacrilege  is  denounced  with  an  endless  iteration 
which  shows  at  once  the  extent  of  the  evil  and  the  inefficacy 
of  the  remedy ;  and  the  manner  in  which  the  royal  power  is 
constantly  evoked  to  enforce  respect  for  the  anathema  which 
was  the  church's  only  weapon  of  defence,  proves  how  little  it 
was  regarded  by  the  rude  warriors  trained  in  the  bloody  civil 
wars  of  the  period,  when  any  lingering  reverence  for  holy 
things  must  ha-ve  been  sadly  shaken  by  witnessing  the  success 
of  the  pagan  and  infidel  invaders,  whose  blows  ever  fell  heaviest 
on  monastery  and  cathedral.1 

The  less  the  church  was  respected,  therefore,  the  more  clam 
orous  became  her  demands  for  respect.  All  who  refused  canoni 
cal  obedience  to  their  bishops  were  declared  excommunicate  ;2 
no  one  while  under  the  ban  was  to  be  allowed  to  appear  before 
a  secular  tribunal  either  as  a  witness  or  party  to  a  suit ;  and  if 
he  made  light  of  the  anathema  he  was  to  be  exiled,  that  he 
might  be  powerless  to  harass  the  ministers  of  God.3  Another 
passage  declares,  in  the  name  of  the  monarch,  that  if  any 
criminal  is  contumacious  or  disobedient  to  the  sentence  of  his 
bishop,  or  priest,  or  archdeacon,  all  his  property  shall  be  seized 
by  the  count  and  the  agent  of  the  bishop,  until  he  submits  to 
canonical  penance.  If  still  obstinate,  the  count  shall  throw 
him  into  a  dungeon  and  keep  him  in  the  sternest  imprisonment 
until  the  bishop  orders  his  release  ;  while  if  the  count  neglect 
or  refuse  this  duty,  he  shall  be  excommunicated  until  he  per 
forms  it;  and  if  this  is  insufficient,  he  shall  be  deprived  of  both 
station  and  communion,  and  be  brought  before  the  emperor, 
whose  power,  conjoined  with  the  episcopal  authority,  shall  in- 

1  See  Capitul.  Lib.  vi.  cap.  370,  381,  390,  392,  394,  395,  403,  404,  405, 
406,  407,  427,  428,  431 ;  Lib.  vn.  cap.  275,  409,  411,  420,  421 ;  Addit.  IT. 
cap.  84,  etc.     For  an  account  of  the  unbridled  rapine  to  which  the  church 
was  subjected,  see  the  piteous  supplication  of  the  bishops  to  Charles  le 
Chauve  at  the  council  of  Verneuil,  in  844.— Carol.  Calvi  Capit.  Tit.  in. 
cap.  12  (Baluz.  II.  13-14). 

2  Capitul.  Lib.  vi.  cap.  78. 

3  Capitul.  Lib.  vn.  cap.  213. — Baluze  cites  Pope  Stephen  in  support  of 
this,  but  I  can  find  no  parallel  passage  in  the  Pseudo-Stephani  Epist. 


CHURCri     AND     STATE.  333 

fiict  such  exemplary  chastisement  that  none  shall  hereafter  dare 
to  commit  such  offences.1 

It  is  evident,  indeed,  that  something  besides  the  terrors  of 
mere  spiritual  censures  were  requisite,  when  even  ecclesiastics 
came  to  disregard  them,  and  they  had  to  be  supplemented  or 
supplanted  by  punishments  which  appealed  to  the  senses. 
Thus  drunken  clerks  were  ordered  to  be  coerced  either  by 
excommunication  for  forty  days  or  by  corporal  chastisement; 
those  who  wandered  over  the  country  without  commendatory 
letters  were  to  be  excommunicated,  and,  if  insensible  to  this, 
were  to  be  whipped  ;  and  the  lazy  ones  who  were  tardy  in  per 
forming  their  sacred  functions  had  the  alternative  of  excommu 
nication  or  a  beating.2  A  shrewder  penalty  for  such  contempt 
is  to  be  found  in  a  decree  which  apparently  relates  to  a  case  in 
which  a  man  produced  a  title  to  some  lands  claimed  by  the 
church.  As  he  disregarded  the  excommunication  launched  at 
him  it  is  declared  that  he  shall  forfeit  the  deed  under  which 
he  holds,  and  that  any  ecclesiastic  may  appear  against  him  in 
court  and  reclaim  the  lands  with  all  the  mesne  profits.3  In 
fact,  amid  the  turbulence  of  the  period,  excommunications 
were  becoming  so  common  that  they  inevitably  lost  at  least  a 
portion  of  their  moral  influence.  Thus  John  VIII.,  whose 
pontificate  extended  from  872  to  882,  has  left  on  record  382 
epistles,  and  of  these  no  less  than  one  hundred  and  fifty  allude 
with  more  or  less  directness  to  the  anathema  which  they  inflict, 
threaten,  or  refer  to.  Very  few  of  these  exertions  of  the  su 
preme  authority  of  the  Vicar  of  Christ  have  any  bearing  on 
the  interests  of  religion.  The  political  intrigues  of  the  day, 
the  temporal  possessions  of  the  church,  or  the  subordination  of 
the  hierarchy  are  in  almost  all  instances  the  objects  of  the 

1  Capitul.  Lib.  vn.  cap.  432;  Addit.  in.  cap.  123. 

2  Capitul.  Lib.  vn.  cap.  218,  269.— Capit.  Ilerard.  Archiepisc.  Turon. 
cap.  131  (Baluz.  1.685). 

3  Capitul.  Addit.  iv.  cap.  59.— This  is  attributed  in  the  text  to  Gelasius, 
but  such  a  passage  may  be  looked  for  in  vain  among  the  epistles  of  that 
pope. 


334  EXCOMMUNICATION. 

anathema.  How  the  awful  authority  over  the  souls  of  men  was 
degraded  to  the  level  of  the  pettiest  interests  is  seen  when  some 
audacious  scoundrels  stole  the  horses  of  the  same  pope  during 
his  progress  through  France.  He  promptly  excommunicates 
the  unknown  thieves  unless  the  beasts  shall  be  returned  within 
three  days,  and  he  takes  advantage  of  the  opportunity  to  in 
clude  in  the  curse  some  knaves  who  had  previously  pilfered 
his  plate  while  staying  [it  the  abbey  of  Flavigny — as  he 
shrewdly  suspects  with  the  connivance  of  the  holy  monks 
there.1  That  bishops  were  not  disinclined  to  follow  the  ex 
ample  of  their  chief  and  to  use  their  control  over  salvation  for 
their  personal  benefit  is  apparent  from  the  treatment  of  royalty 
in  Wales  about  this  time.  Tewdwr,  King  of  Brecknock,  pro 
fanely  stole  Bishop  Libiau's  dinner  from  the  abbey  of  Llancore, 
when  the  angry  prelate  excommunicated  him  and  exacted  an 
enormous  fine  as  the  price  of  reconciliation  ;  and  when  Broch- 
mael,  King  of  Gwent,  and  his  family  were  anathematized  by 
Bishop  Cyfeiliawg  for  some  personal  offence,  the  fee  for  re 
moving  the  censure  was  a  plate  of  pure  gold  the  size  of  the 
bishop's  face.2  A  power  so  persistently  and  so  ignobly  abused 
requires  something  more  than  merely  moral  force  to  insure 
respect  and  obedience. 

While,  in  the  Carlovingian  Empire,  the  church  clamored  to 
the  state  for  support  and  protection,  the  monarchy,  in  even 
worse  plight,  clung  closer  to  the  church,  in  the  vain  hope  of 
preserving  its  rapidly  ebbing  strength  by  a  union  with  the 
spiritual  power.  Its  inevitable  policy  under  the  circumstances 
was  to  enhance  that  power  as  far  as  possible  with  a  view  to 
curb  the  rising  independence  of  the  nobles.  In  the  wild 
struggle  of  contending  forces  the  monarchy  virtually  dis 
appeared  to  emerge  again  in  the  form  of  a  feudal  lord  para 
mount.  The  church  maintained  its  organization  ;  the  powers 
conferred  on  it,  however  useless  at  the  moment,  were  jealously 

1  Johann.  PP.  VIII.  Epist.  127. 

2  Iladdan  and  Stubb's  Councils  of  Gr.  Britain,  I.  207-8. 


CHURCH     AND     STATE.  335 

treasured  in  its  archives  and  became  its  imprescriptible  rights, 
so  that  when  the  reconstruction  of  society  began  they  were  its 
most  efficient  weapons  in  controlling  feudal  noble  and  feudal 
king — a  result,  unexpected  by  either  party,  which  lends  an 
interest  to  the  apparently  fruitless  struggles  of  the  descendants 
of  Charlemagne. 

With  the  partition  of  the  empire  there  arose  a  new  necessity 
which  soon  made  itself  felt,  of  guarding  against  the  immunity 
of  criminals  who  might  escape  from  one  kingdom  to  another. 
Accordingly,  the  sons  of  Louis  le  Debonnaire  entered  into 
conventions  providing  for  the  extradition  of  fugitive  male 
factors,  and  in  these  the  spiritual  tribunals  were  amply  taken 
care  of.  If  any  one  guilty  of  public  crime  took  refuge  in 
another  state  to  avoid  excommunication,  or  after  excommuni 
cation  to  avoid  penitence,  his  bishop  was  empowered  to  make 
direct  application  to  the  king  of  the  refugee's  new  country, 
who  was  thereupon  bound  to  make  search  for  him  diligently, 
and  when  found  to  deliver  him  to  his  bishop  that  the  penitence 
might  be  enforced.1  The  bishops  thus  were  recognized  by  in 
ternational  law  as  possessed  of  an  independent  jurisdiction, 
which  was  bounded  only  by  the  limits  of  Catholic  Christendom, 
and  they  were  elevated  to  the  position  of  public  officers  whose 
writs  were  to  be  respected  abroad  as  well  as  at  home,  without 
the  intervention  of  the  representative  of  the  state.  The  im 
portance  of  such  a  concession  to  the  independence  of  the 
hierarchical  organization  can  hardly  be  overestimated  in  its 
results. 

When  a  serf  refused  to  undergo  penitence,  the  bishop  was 
empowered  to  beat  him  with  rods  until  he  should  submit,  and 
his  master,  if  he  interfered,  incurred  not  only  excommunica 
tion  but  heavy  fines  to  the  royal  fisc.2 

1  Conventus  apud  Marsnam  arm.  851  cap.  5   (Baluz.  II.   32). — Con- 
ventus   apud   Conflueutes  aim.  860  cap.   5    (Ibid.    p.    95). — Cf.  Synod. 
Ravennat.  aim.  877  can.  xi.  (Harduin.  T.  VI.  P.  i.  p.  187). 

2  Carol.  Calvi  Capit.  aim.  858  Tit.  xr.  cap.  9  (Baluz.  II.  39).— Ejusd. 
aim.  868  Tit.  xxxvin.  cap.  9  (Ibid.  p.  Ul). 


336  EXCOMMUNICATION. 

The  counts  and  other  public  officers  were  directed  every 
where  to  accompany  the  bishops  in  their  diocesan  visitations, 
and  when  the  prelates  were  unable  to  correct  offences  by  ex 
communication,  the  civil  officials  were  ordered  to  exercise  the 
plenitude  of  the  royal  authority  to  reduce  the  offenders  to 
penitence  and  satisfaction.1  So  clearly  did  the  duty  of  the 
state  to  enforce  excommunication  become  recognized  under  the 
operation  of  these  and  similar  enactments  that,  in  the  sharp 
letter  addressed  in  858  by  the  Neustrian  Bishops  to  Louis  le 
Germanique  during  his  brief  usurpation  of  France,  they  re 
quest  him  to  order  the  nobles,  who  by  their  crimes  have  in 
curred  excommunication,  to  render  due  satisfaction  to  the 
churches  where  they  have  sinned,  so  that  the  bishops  may 
absolve  them  ;  and  if  he  or  his  courtiers  have  been  infected  by 
communing  with  these  criminals,  due  penitence  is  indicated 
for  the  monarch  and  his  folio wers.'2 

Year  by  year  the  royal  power  grew  less  able  to  control  the 
anarchical  elements  of  society,  and,  as  the  strength  to  enforce 
the  secular  law  declined,  it  relied  more  and  more  on  what  little 
respect  remained  for  the  censures  of  the  church.  In  the  Capi 
tulary  of  Pistes,  issued  in  8G2,  Charles  le  Chauve  draws  a 
fearful  picture  of  the  rapine  and  desolation  which  pervaded 
every  quarter  of  his  dominions,  and  with  a  brave  assertion  of 
the  authority  which  he  knew  was  contemned  by  every  petty 
chieftain,  he  ordered  that  by  the  first  clay  of  the  following 
October  all  spoliation  and  robbery  and  murder  should  cease. 
Such  malefactors  as  did  not  by  that  time  reform  and  undergo 
the  penitence  due  for  their  past  misdeeds  he  commanded  to  be 
brought  before  him,  or  their  possessions  to  be  seized  and  them 
selves  to  be  excommunicated  by  the  bishops.  Pie  recognized 
the  rising  strength  of  feudalism  by  holding  the  nobles  respon 
sible  for  the  submission  of  their  vassals  and  retainers  to  the 
penitence  to  be  imposed  on  them,  and  if  they  did  not  bring 

1  Loc.  eit.  cap.  10  (Baluz.  II.  40,  142). 

2  Carol.  Calvi  Capit.  aim.  858  Tit,  xxvu.  cap.  13-  (Baluz.  II.  78). 


CHURCH    AND    STATE.  337 

their  men  to  the  bishops  for  that  purpose  they  were  themselves 
to  be  excommunicated.  Moreover,  if  any  should  prove  so 
hardened  as  to  be  insensible  to  the  fear  of  God,  contemning 
the  authority  of  the  church  and  the  power  of  the  crown,  he 
proclaimed  that  they  were  by  the  sacred  canons  cut  off  from 
the  society  of  Christians  and  from  the  church  on  earth  and  in 
heaven,  and  that,  as  enemies  of  God  and  the  church,  they 
should  be  persecuted  by  the  royal  authority  and  by  all  good 
subjects  until  driven  from  the  kingdom.1 

This  curious  commingling  of  secular  and  spiritual  punish 
ments,  and  the  prominence  accorded  to  the  latter,  show  the 
fearful  perplexities  of  the  monarch  and  the  desperation  with 
which  he  sought  the  aid  of  the  church  in  the  impossible 
task  of  resisting  the  inevitable  tendencies  of  the  age.  The 
crown  and  the  mitre  had  alike  proved  false  to  the  trust  con 
fided  to  them.  They  had  been  weighed  and  found  wanting, 
and  the  closest  alliance  they  might  form  could  no  longer 
control  the  la wless Terocjty  wTiTch  tBelFleTJdshne^lmcri .greecT 
had  allowed  to  become  the  jdojminaiit_^lem_ent  of  the  time. 
Stilfthey  fought  the  losing  battle  as  gallantly  as  though  they 
could  expect  to  win,  and  year  by  year  Charles  leaned  more 
upon  his  clergy  for  the  support  which  he  could  look  for  nowhere 
else.  In  the  Edict  of  Pistes,  for  instance,  in  864,  in  issuing  a 
new  coinage  and  threatening  punishment  for  its  rejection,  he 
instructs  his  bishops  to  watch,  through  their  priests,  that  the 
penalty  is  duly  inflicted,  and  to  report  to  him  all  cases  of  non- 
compliance.  In  renewing,  also,  the  laws  against  the  use  of 
false  measures,  he  adds  that  offenders,  after  undergoing  the 
legal  punishment,  shall  be  subjected  to  the  further  sentence  of 
their  bishops,  as  it  is  a  crime  equivalent  to  usury  and  de 
nounced  by  God  and  the  church.2 

All  this  proves  that  the  administration  of  the  secular  law- 
was  becoming  so  disorganized  that  Charles  could  rely  upon  it 

1  Carol.  Calvi  Capit.  anu.  802,  Tit.  xxxiv.  cap.  3,  4  (Baluz.  II.  109- 
12).     Cf.  Capit,  Tit.  xxm.  cap.  7  aim.  857  (p.  01). 

2  Ejusd.  Capit.  Tit.  xxxvi.  cap.  15,  20.   (Baluz.  II.  122-1). 

29 


338  EXCOMMUNICATION. 

no  longer,  and  that  he  vainly  endeavored  to  supplement  it  by 
means  of  the  clergy.  This  tendency  continued  to  increase, 
and  twenty  years  later  an  edict  of  his  grandson,  Carloman,  in 
dicates  that  the  hierarchy  had  become  almost  the  only  instru 
ment  through  which  the  nominal  ruler  could  hope  to  influence 
his  subjects.  As  a  preventive  of  robbery  it  is  ordered  that  all 
priests  shall  offer  free  hospitality  to  wayfarers,  and  shall 
instruct  their  parishioners  to  do  likewise,  and  that  supplies 
shall  not  be  charged  to  travellers  at  more  than  the  market 
price — the  priests  again  being  the  inspectors  to  see  that  the 
law  is  obeyed,  and  to  entertain  all  appeals  from  travellers  com 
plaining  of  extortion.  The  same  edict  contains  an  eloquent 
description  of  the  all-pervading  rapine  and  spoliation  which 
devastated  the  country,  and  now  at  length  the  royal  power 
confesses  its  utter  impotence.  The  bishops  alone  are  relied 
upon  to  cure  the  incurable  by  summoning  the  offenders  to  re 
pentance  and  punishing  the  contumacious  by  excommunication. 
There  is  scarcely  a  pretence  of  threatening  the  incorrigible 
with  the  king's  authority,  but  the  laity  and  the  public  officials 
are  conjured,  by  the  love  of  God  and  their  fidelity  to  the 
throne,  to  support  the  bishops  when  called  upon.1  The  rapid 
progress  of  decentralization  had  disintegrated  the  work  of 
Charlemagne,  and  his  descendant  was  a  king  only  in  name. 
As  the  sovereign  disappeared,  feudalism  and  the  church  were 
left  face  to  face. 

Yet  to  the  last  the  crown  asserted  its  traditional  control 
over  the  mitre.  In  860  Charles  le  Chauve  still  undertook  to 
regulate  the  use  of  excommunication  by  forbidding  his  bishops 
from  employing  it  without  first  summoning  the  offender  to  re 
pentance  and  amendment,  and  calling  upon  the  civil  power  to 
enforce  the  summons.  It  was  only  after  these  formalities  had 
been  resorted  to  and  found  insufficient  that  the  prelate  was  at 
liberty  to  eject  the  obdurate  sinner  from  the  church.2  Nine 

1  Carolomanni  Capit.  aim.  884  Tit.  in.  cap.  4,  5,  6,  7,  8,  9,  12,  13 
(Baluz.  II.  195-8). 

2  Carol.  Calvi  Capit.  aim.  860  Tit.  xxxi.  cap.  6  (Baluz.  II.  95). 


CHURCH     AND     STATE.  339 

years  later  lie  repeated  these  commands  with  additional  de 
tails  ;  and  he  ordered  further  that  those  who  were  unjustly 
condemned  by  their  bishops  should  appeal  to  him,  when  if  in 
justice  were  proved,  the  prelate  should  be  amerced  according 
to  the  laws  of  Charlemagne  and  Louis  le  Debonnaire.1 

This  right  of  appeal  was  the  necessary  consequence  of  the 
intervention  of  the  secular  power,  for  the  church  was  as  yet 
not  so  absolute  as  to  be  able  to  call  upon  the  state  for  assist 
ance  without  thereby  authorizing  the  state  to  investigate  the 
cases  for  which  its  aid  was  invoked.  In  a  modified  form,  in 
deed,  the  royal  prerogative  had  long  been  held  to  possess  the 
power  of  annulling  excommunication.  In  681,  the  twelfth 
council  of  Toledo  deprecates  the  incongruity  of  seeing  those 
with  whom  the  king  was  pleased  to  associate  remain  under  the 
ban  of  the  church.  It  therefore  orders  that  whoever  is  received 
and  pardoned  by  the' king,  and  admitted  to  his  table,  shall  not 
be  refused  communion  by  the  church.2  This  rule  prevailed 
extensively  and  long  remained  in  force.  At  the  close  of  the 
eleventh  century,  Ivo  of  Chartres  includes  it  in  his  Decretum 
as  borrow7 e'd  from  the  Capitularies  (Lib.  v.  cap.  383),  though 
it  is  not  to  be  found  there.  He  considers  it  good  law,  submits 
to  it  himself  in  one  case,  and  counsels  submission  to  it  in  an 
other  ;3  and  a  century  earlier  Gerbert  of  Aurillac  alludes  to  its 
being  invoked  by  Arnoul  of  Rheims.4 

If,  during  these  civil  dissensions  and  their  attendant  anarchy, 
the  church  suffered  fearfully  in  person  and  property,  it  yet  had 
ample  opportunity  of  storing  up  precedents  of  the  gravest  mo 
ment  for  its  future  supremacy.  Its  alliance  with  the  state  was 
to  enure  solely  to  its  own  advantage,  and  its  gifts,  like  the 
poisoned  shirt  of  Nessus,  were  destined  to  plague  the  receiver. 

1  Carol.  Calvi  Capit.  ann.  869  Tit.  XL.  cap.  7,  10  (Baluz.  II.  144-5). 

2  Concil.  Toletan.  XII.  ami.  681  can.  3. 

3  Ivon.  Decret.  P.  xvi.  cap.  344.— Epist.  63,  171.      That  the  custom 
should  remain  in  force  at  this  period  shows  that  it  could  coexist  with  the 
wildest  pretensions  of  theocratic  supremacy. 

4  Gerberti  Epist.  Supplem.  Epist.  1  (Migne's  Patrolog.  T.  139  p.  265). 


340  EXCOMMUNICATION. 

Thus,  when  in  87(5  John  VIII.  assumed  the  prerogative  of 
bestowing  the  imperial  crown  on  Charles  le  Chauve,  in  return 
for  the  perilous  and  delusive  honor  which  he  granted,  he  re 
ceived  a  most  substantial  advantage,  for  Charles  proclaimed 
the  supremacy  of  the  See  of  Rome,  acknowledged  its  right  to 
exercise  pastoral  care  over  all  the  churches,  and  pledged  him 
self  that  it  should  be  obeyed  by  them  in  all  things.1  John  was 
not  long  in  stretching  to  the  utmost  this  indefinite  authority, 
for  in  878,  when  he  presided  over  the  synod  of  Troyes,  Sigebod, 
Archbishop  of  Narbonne,  called  his  attention  to  the  Wisigothic 
code,  which  omitted  to  provide  any  special  penalty  for  the  sac 
rilege  of  spoiling  the  church,  and  which,  moreover,  declared 
that  no  court  should  entertain  a  complaint  for  offences  not 
therein  enumerated,  the  consequence  of  which  was  that  the 
church  was  left  to  the  ordinary  protection  of  the  law.  To  re 
move  this  incongruity,  the  pope  thereupon  issued  in  his  own 
name  an  order  extending  over  the  Gothic  races  in  Aquitaine 
and  Spain  the  Carlovingian  penalty  of  thirty  pounds  of  pure 
silver  for  all  offences  of  this  kind.'2  Yet  the  man  who  thus  as 
sumed  this  enormous  power  over  Christendom,  had  so  little 
real  independence  at  home,  that  in  this  same  year,  878,  we  find 
Lambert,  Duke  of  Spoleto,  asserting  that  the  papacy  had  no 
right  to  send  envoys  abroad  without  his  permission.3 

From  the  same  transaction  between  Charles  le  Chauve  and 
John  VIII.,  there  arose  another  novel  precedent,  which  fore 
boded  the  ultimate  triumph  of  the  church  over  the  state. 
Seven  years  before,  when  the  miserable  Lothair  of  Lotharingia 
died,  in  8G9,  without  legitimate  issue,  his  uncles  Charles  le 
Chauve  and  Louis  le  Germanique  had  made  haste  to  divide 
his  spoils.  His  brother,  the  Emperor  Louis  II.,  however, 
claimed  that  the  kingdom  had  been  bequeathed  to  him,  and 
his  power  in  Italy  made  it  not  difficult  for  him  to  secure  for 
his  pretensions  the  support  of  the  papacy.  Adrian  II.  accord- 

1  Synod.  Ticincns.  aim.  870  cap.  1,  2  (Baluz.  II.  103). 

2  Confirmat.  Legis  Carol!  (Baluz.  II.  190). 
*  Johann.  PP.  VIII.  Epist.  10-t. 


CHURCH     AND     STATE.  341 

ingly  interfered,  threatened  with  excommunication  all  who 
should  lay  hands  on  the  heritage,  or  should  render  allegiance 
to  the  usurpers,  and  wrote  to  Hincmar  of  Rheims,  ordering 
him  to  excommunicate  his  sovereign  if  he  should  dare  to  dis 
obey  the  mandate.  Hincmar's  reply  to  this  assumption  of 
supremacy  is  couched  in  terms  of  scantiest  courtesy.  The 
kingdoms  of  earth,  he  reminds  the  pope,  are  obtained  by  bat 
tle,  and  not  by  the  excommunications  of  pope  or  bishop  ;  the 
Frankish  warriors  are  not  disposed  to  regard  the  successor  of 
St.  Peter  as  both  king  and  pontiff,  or  to  admit  that  he  has  any 
control  over  their  allegiance,  nor  do  they  believe  that  their 
chances  of  heaven  depend  upon  their  selecting  their  king  at 
his  bidding,  for  an  illegal  excommunication  injures  only  him 
who  utters  it,  and  it  is  unseemly  in  a  bishop  to  deprive  a 
Christian  of  the  sacraments  for  the  purpose  of  transferring  a 
kingdom  from  one  monarch  to  another.1  This  was  good  ca 
nonical  doctrine,  but  when  Charles,  at  the  death  of  Louis  II., 
sought  the  imperial  crown,  which  chanced  to  be  virtually  at 
the  disposal  of  the  pope,  he  was  willing  to  admit  all  the  claims 
of  the  church,  in  the  vain  hope  of  acquiring  additional  support 
for  the  precarious  dignity ;  and  with  blind  infatuation  he 
sought  and  obtained  the  interference  of  the  papacy  in  the  rela 
tions  between  sovereign  and  subject.  In  the  Roman  synod  of 
877,  which  confirmed  his  election  as  emperor,  Pope  John  VJII. 
gratified  him  by  anathematizing  with  a  perpetual  curse  all 
who  should  dare  to  resist  his  authority  or  dispute  his  title, 
and  the  synod  unanimously  responded  "  So  be  it  !"2  Charles 
gained  nothing  by  thus  inviting  and  acknowledging  the  su 
preme  jurisdiction  of  the  church  over  the  allegiance  of  nations, 
but  the  precedent  which  he  thus  established  held  good.  How 
ever  much  he  may  at  the  moment  have  rejoiced  in  the  addi 
tional  guarantee  of  the  imperial  crown,  he  found  that  in  effect 
it  availed  him  little,  when  the  approach  of  his  nephew  Carlo- 
man  at  the  head  of  a  German  army  sent  him  flying  homewards 

1  Ilincmari  Remens.  Epist.  27. 

2  Synod.  Roman,  ami.  877  (ITarduin.  T.  VI.  P.  i.  p.  18-4). 

29* 


342  EXCOMMUNICATION. 

to  perish  miserably  in  a  peasant's  hut  among  the  Alps,  almost 
before  the  echoes  of  the  clergy's  "  Fiat,  fiat,  fiat !"  had  died 
away.  For  five  hundred  years  afterwards,  however,  succeed 
ing  emperors  learned  the  full  significance  of  the  interference 
of  the  church  between  the  monarch  and  his  subjects,  when 
they  found  that  the  allegiance  which  could  be  enforced  by 
excommunication  could  be  abrogated  by  the  same  means. 
What  the  church  could  give,  the  church  could  take  away,  and 
the  heedless  recipients  of  her  gifts  could  only  hold  them  on  the 
tenure  of  obedience. 


THE  CHURCH  AND  FEUDALISM. 

As  the  royal  authority  crumbled  and  was  virtually  lost  in 
the  anarchy  which  gave  birth  to  feudalism,  the  cliureh  was 
left,  without  protection,  to  defend  itself  as  best  it  could  from 
tlie_  endless  and  aIHp'ervading  assaults  of  the  local  tyrants 
whose  power  was  the  rewa_rd_of  la wl  ess_au dac i ty .  At  the 
conncTToTTrTDlIrTTn  895,  there  appeared  an  unfortunate  priest 
whose  eyes  had  been  put  out  by  some  savage  layman.  The 
offender  was  summoned  to  make  amends  for  the  outrage,  but 
he  refused  even  to  come  before  the  council,  and  treated  the 
power  of  the  assembled  bishops  with  contemptuous  indifference. 
They  could  do  nothing  but  promulgate  a  canon  deploring  the 
neglect  with  which  the  censures  of  the  church  were  treated, 
and  calling  upon  the  counts  to  arrest  those  who  when  excom 
municated  disregarded  the  sentence.1  It  would  be  asking  too 
much  of  human  nature  to  expect  that  men  thus  subjected  to 
cruelty  and  wrong  should  retain  the  benignant  charity  of  the 
religion  which  they  professed  ;  and  however  much  their  own 
worldly  self-seeking  may  have  contributed  to  the  savage  an- 

1   C'oncil.  Trilmr.  aim.  805  can.  ii.  iii. 


THE     CHURCH     AND     FEUDALISM. 

archy  of  their  flocks,  yet  that  barbarism  could  not  but  react 
on  their  own  characters,  in  the  convulsive  efforts  which  they 
made  to  preserve  themselves  and  their  privileges.     This  life- 
and-death   struggle  and  its  influence  on  the  character  of  the 
ecclesiastical  body  are  fairly  illustrated  by  the  circumstances 
attending  the  murder  of  Fulk,  Archbishop  of  Rheims,  in  the 
year  900.     In  893,  Baudoin  le  Chauve  of  Flanders  had  en 
deavored  to  get  possession  of  the  celebrated  and  wealthy  abbey 
of  St.  Bertin,  but  Fulk  managed  to  forestall  him,  caused  him 
self  to   be  elected,  and   refused  to  surrender  it.      For  seven 
years  Baudoin  dissembled  his  disappointment,  and  at  length, 
in   the  year  900,  he  dispatched  a  knight  named  AVinemar  to 
Fulk   and   Charles  le  Simple  to  negotiate  for  the  abbey,  but 
Fulk   refused  to  listen  to  any  propositions,  and  Charles,  who 
owed   his   crown   to   Fulk,   declined    to    interfere.      Winemar, 
stung  by  his  ill  success,  lay  in  wait  for  Fulk  on  his  return  to 
Rheims,  June    17th,  and   slew   him.     His    successor   Ilervey 
was   consecrated  without  loss   of  time   on  July  Gth,  and  the 
bishops    assembled    at    the    ceremony    thus    excommunicated 
Winemar,  with  Everard,  Ratfrid,  and  his  other  accomplices 
in  the  bloody  sacrilege — 

"  In  the  name  of  God,  and  by  the  power  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  and 
the  authority  divinely  granted  to  bishops  by  Peter,  chief  of  the 
Apostles,  we  separate  them  from  the  bosom  of  holy  mother  church, 
and  condemn  them  with  the  anathema  of  the  eternal  curse,  that 
they  may  have  no  help  of  man  nor  any  converse  with  Christians. 
Let  them  be  accursed  in  the  city  and  accursed  in  the  country. 
Accursed  be  their  barns  and  accursed  their  bones  ;  accursed  be  the 
seed  of  their  loins  and  the  seed  of  their  lands,  their  flocks  of  sheep 
and  their  herds  of  cattle.  Accursed  be  they  in  their  entering  and 
in  their  outgoing.  Be  they  accursed  at  home  and  homeless  else 
where.  Let  them  strain  out  their  bowels  and  die  the  death  of  Arms. 
Upon  their  heads  fall  all  the  curses  with  which  God  through  His 
servant  Moses  threatened  the  transgressors  of  the  divine  law.  Let 
them  be  anathema  maranatha,  and  let  them  perish  in  the  second 
coming  of  the  Lord  ;  and  let  them  moreover  endure  whatever  of 
evil  is  provided  in  the  sacred  canons  and  the  apostolic  decrees  for 
murder  and  sacrilege.  Let  the  righteous  sentence  of  divine  con- 


344  EXCOMMUNICATION. 

damnation  consign  them  to  eternal  death.  Let  no  Christian  salute 
them.  Let  no  priest  say  Mass  for  them,  nor  in  sickness  receive 
their  confession,  nor,  unless  they  repent,  grant  them  the  sacrosanct 
communion  even  on  their  death-bed.  But  let  them  be  buried  in  the 
grave  of  an  ass,  and  rot  in  a  dunghill  on  the  face  of  the  earth,  that 
their  shame  and  malediction  may  be  a  warning  to  present  and 
future  generations.  And,  as  these  lights  which  we  now  cast  from 
our  hands  are  extinguished,  so  may  their  light  be  quenched  in 
eternal  darkness."1 

Before  we  utterly  condemn  the  hideous  ferocity  of  the  curse 
thus  belched  forth  in  the  name  of  the  Redeemer,  we  should 
give  fair  consideration  to  the  rage  and  fear  which  prompted  it, 
and  which  justified  it  as  fully  as  so  foul  an  abuse  of  powers 
assumed  from  God  could  be  justified.  That  the  church  was 
unarmed  and  defenceless,  except  in  so  far  as  it  could  by  means 
like  this  strike  terror  into  the  breasts  of  savages,  was  shown 
by  the  result.  The  bishops,  feeling  the  impotence  of  their 
own  wrath,  procured  in  addition  for  the  murderers  a  special 
excommunication  from  the  Holy  See  itself;  but  AVinemar 
laughed  both  to  scorn,  boasted  of  his  deed  as  a  proof  of  his 
fidelity  to  his  suzerain,  and  took  no  pains  to  procure  absolu 
tion,  which  shows  that  his  lord  and  his  associates  paid  no  heed 
to  the  injunctions  of  the  anathema.  Nay,  more;  Fulk  had 
been  the  tried  and  trusted  friend  of  Charles  le  Simple,  who 
owed  to  him  his  throne;  yet  when  Baldwin  of  Flanders 
claimed  of  him  the  coveted  abbey,  rendered  vacant  by  this 
murderous  deed,  Charles  dared  not  refuse  it  to  his  powerful 
vassal,  and  St.  Berlin  became  hereditary  in  the  House  of 
Flanders,  like  any  other  fief.2 

1  Baluz.  II.  403-4. 

2  Chron.  S.  Bertin.  cap.  xx.  pp.  1,3;  cap.  xxr.  p.  1  ;  Folquin.  Cartul. 

It  is  true  that  Richerus  (Lib.  i.  cap.  18)  chronicles  the 

terrible  death  of  Winemar  as  a  judgment  from  heaven  to  repair  the  injus- 

of  man ;  but  though  he  is  a  good  authority  for  the  events  of  the  end 

of  the  tenth  century,  the  silence  of  the  special  historians  of  the  abbey  is, 

think,  sufficient  evidence  that  his  story  is  merely  one  of  the  customary 

legends  so  numerous  at  that  period  when  spiritual  terrorism  was  the  only 

protection  to  which  the  church  could  look. 


THE    CHURCH    AND     FEUDALISM.  345 

Much  may  be  forgiven  to  men  whose  profession  forbade  re 
course  to  force  in  an  age  when  force  was  the  only  law  respected  ; 
and  yet  Charity  herself  might  well  stand  aghast  to  see  those 
who  represented  on  earth  the  Gospel  of  love  unpack  their 
hearts  with  curses  so  venomously  that  they  seem  enamored  of 
the  opportunity  to  consign  their  fellow-beings  to  ruin  in  this 
world  and  to  perdition  in  the  next.  The  clergy  themselves, 
indeed,  by  their  worldly  and  too  often  flagitious  lives  had  for 
feited  the  respect  of  their  nocks,1  and  when  their  censures  thus 
lost  effect,  it  was  but  natural  that  they  should  seek  to  impress 
upon  sinners  by  copiousness  of  malediction  the  salutary  fear 
which  the  sacredness  of  their  character  could  no  longer 
ensure.  In  the  following  formula,  for  instance,  there  is  a 
richness  of  imagination  and  a  particularity  of  detail  which 
show  that  its  author  fairly  revelled  in  his  power  of  malediction, 
and  rolled  as  a  sweet  morsel  under  his  tongue  every  torment 
which  he  invoked  upon  his  victim.  It  was  not  called  forth  by 
the  exigencies  of  a  supreme  occasion,  such  as  the  murder  of 
Fulk,  but  was  a  general  form  of  malediction  for  petty  thieves 
and  similar  malefactors. 

"  By  the  authority  of  God  the  omnipotent  Father',  and  of  the 
Son,  and  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  and  of  the  sacred  canons,  and  of  the 
holy  and  unsullied  Virgin  Mary  the  Mother  of  God,  and  of  all 
the  heavenly  Virtues,  Angels,  Archangels,  Thrones,  Dominations, 
Powers,  Cherubim  and  Seraphim,  and  of  the  holy  Patriarchs, 
Prophets,  and  all  the  Apostles  and  Evangelists,  and  of  the  holy  In 
nocents  wiio  alone  are  worthy  in  the  sight  of  the  Lamb  to  sing  the 
new  song,  and  of  the  holy  martyrs,  and  the  holy  confessors  and 
the  holy  virgins  and  of  all  the  saints  and  elect  of  God,  we  excom 
municate  and  anathematize  this  thief,  or  this  malefactor,  and  we 
expel  him  from  the  holy  church  of  God,  that  he  may  be  delivered 
over  to  eternal  torment  with  Dathan  and  Abiram  and  with  those 
who  cried  to  the  Lord  God,  '  Away  froinus,  we  wish  not  to  know 
Thy  ways.'  And  as  fire  is  quenched  with  water,  so  may  his 

i  Ratherius  of  Verona  thus  explains  the  habitual  disregard  of  excom 
munication  by  the  laity  of  the  period  .-Kathcr.  Veronens.  de  contemptu 
cauonum  Pars  i. 


346  EXCOMMUNICATION. 

be  quenched  for  ever  and  ever,  unless  he  repent  and  render  full 
satisfaction.  Amen.  Be  he  accursed  of  God  the  Father,  who 
created  man  ;  accursed  of  God  the  Son,  who  suffered  for  man  ; 
accursed  of  the  Holy  Ghost  which  cometh  in  baptism  ;  accursed  of 
the  Holy  Cross  which  the  triumphant  Christ  ascended  for  our 
salvation  ;  accursed  of  the  Holy  Virgin  Mary,  the  Mother  of  God  ; 
accursed  of  St.  Michael,  the  receiver  of  blessed  souls  ;  accursed  of 
the  angels  and  archangels,  the  princes  and  powers,  and  all  the 
hosts  of  heaven  ;  accursed  of  the  worthy  legion  of  Prophets  and 
Patriarchs  ;  accursed  of  St.  John,  the  forerunner  and  baptizer  of 
Christ ;  accursed  of  St.  Peter  and  St.  Paul  and  St.  Andrew,  and  all 
the  apostles  of  Christ,  and  the  other  disciples,  and  the  Four  Evan 
gelists  who  converted  the  world  ;  accursed  of  the  wonder-working 
band  of  martys  and  confessors  whose  good  works  have  been 
pleasing  to  God  ;  accursed  of  all  the  holy  virgins  who  have  shunned 
the  world  for  the  love  of  Christ;  accursed  of  all  the  Saints,  beloved 
of  (-Joel,  from  the  beginning  even  unto  the  end  of  the  world  ;  ac 
cursed  of  heaven  and  of  earth  and  of  all  that  is  holy  therein.  Let 
him  be  accursed  wherever  he  be,  whether  at  home  or  abroad,  in  the 
road  or  in  the  path,  or  in  the  wood,  or  in  the  water,  or  in  the  church. 
Let  him  be  accursed  living  and  dying,  eating,  drinking,  fasting  or 
athirst,  slumbering,  sleeping,  waking,  walking,  standing,  sitting, 
lying,  working,  idling,  -  — ,  and  bleeding.  Let  him  be  ac 

cursed  in  all  the  forces  of  his  body.  Let  him  be  accursed  outside 
and  inside;  accursed  in  his  hair  and  accursed  in  his  brain  ;  accursed 
in  the  crown  of  his  head,  in  his  temples,  in  his  forehead,  in  his  ears, 
in  his  brows,  in  his  eyes,  in  his  cheeks,  in  his  jaws,  in  his  nostrils, 
in  his  front  teeth,  in  his  back  teeth,  in  his  lips,  in  his  throat,  in  his 
shoulders,  in  his  upper  arms,  in  his  lower  arms,  in  his  hands,  in 
his  fingers,  in  his  breast,  in  his  heart,  in  his  stomach  and  liver,  in 

his  kidneys,  in  his  loins,  in  his  hips,  in  his ,  in  his  thighs,  in  his 

knees,  in  his  shins,  in  his  feet,  in  his  toes,  and  in  his  nails.  Let 
him  be  accursed  in  every  joint  of  his  body.  Let  there  be  no  health 
in  him,  from  the  crown  of  his  head  to  the  sole  of  his  foot.  May 
Christ,  the  Son  of  the  Living  God,  curse  him  throughout  His  king 
dom,  and  may  Heaven  with  all  its  Virtues  rise  up  against  him  to 
his  damnation,  unless  he  .repents  and  renders  due  satisfaction. 
Amen.  So  be  it.  So  be  it.  Amen!"1 


1  Baluz.  II.  469-70.— This  is  the  curse  of  Ernulphus,  well  known  to  all 
Shandeans.  Sterne  probably  obtained  it  from  Spelman  (Glossar.  s.  v. 
Excommunicatio) . 


THE  CHURCH  AND  FEUDALISM.        347 

This  would  seem  to  exhaust  every  possible  resource  of 
malediction,  and  yet  the  infinite  variety  with  which  the  church 
could  invoke  the  anger  of  Heaven  upon  her  oppressors  is  shown 
in  another  excommunication,  launched  about  the  year  1014, 
by  Benedict  VIII.  against  some  reckless  vassals  of  William  II. 
Count  of  Provence,  who  were  endeavoring  to  obtain  from  the 
latter  the  grant  of  certain  lands  claimed  by  the  celebrated 
monastery  of  St.  Gilles.  Without  being  quite  as  formal  and 
precise  in  its  details  of  cursing  as  the  foregoing,  there  is  a  bold 
comprehensiveness  of  imagination  about  it  which  befits  the 
supreme  head  of  Christianity,  while  it  is  by  no  means  lacking 
in  hearty  vigor  of  imprecation.  After  excommunicating  in 
general  terms  and  consigning  to  Satan  the  audacious  men  who 
thus  sought  to  lay  unhallowed  hands  upon  the  possessions  of 
the  church,  the  pope  proceeds — 

"  Let  them  be  accursed  in  their  bodies,  and  let  their  souls  be  de 
livered  to  destruction  and  perdition  and  torture.  Let  them  be 
darnncd  \vith  the  damned  :  let  them  be  scourged  with  the  ungrate 
ful  :  let  them  perish  with  the  proud.  Let  them  be  accursed  with 
the  Jews  who,  seeing  the  incarnate  Christ,  did  not  believe  but 
sought  to  crucify  Him.  Let  them  be  accursed  with  the  heretics 
who  labored  to  destroy  the  church.  Let  them  be  accursed  with 
those  who  blaspheme  the  name  or  God.  Let  them  be  accursed  with 
those  who  despair  of  the  mercy  of  God.  Let  them  be  accursed 
\vith  those  •vvho  lie  damned  in  hell.  Let  them  be  accursed  with 
the  impious  and  sinners  unless  the}7  amend  their  ways,  and  confess 
themselves  in  fault  towards  St.  Giles.  Let  them  be  accursed  in  the 
four  quarters  of  the  earth.  In  the  East  be  they  accursed,  and  in 
the  West  disinherited  ;  in  the  North  interdicted,  and  in  the  South 
excommunicate.  Be  they  accursed  in  the  day-time  and  excommu 
nicate  in  the  night-time.  Accursed  be  they  at  home  and  excommu 
nicate  abroad  ;  accursed  in  standing  and  excommunicate  in  sitting  ; 
accursed  in  eating,  accursed  in  drinking,  accursed  in  sleeping,  and 
excommunicate  in  waking  ;  accursed  when  they  work  and  excom 
municate  when  they  rest.  Let  them  be  accursed  in  the  spring  time 
and  excommunicate  in  the  summer  ;  accursed  in  the  autumn  and 
excommunicate  in  the  winter.  Let  them  be  accursed  in  this  world 
and  excommunicate  in  the  next.  Let  their  lands  pass  into  the  hands 
of  the  stranger,  their  wives  be  given  over  to  perdition,  and  their 


^COMMUNICATION. 

children  fall  before  the  edge  of  the  sword.  Lot  what  they  o,t  he 
accursed,  ami  accursed  be  what  (hey  leave,  so  that  he  who  ea  s  it 
sha  be  accursed.  Accursed  and  excommunicate  be  the  priest  who 
slmll  g,ve  then,  the  body  and  Wood  of  the  Lord,  or  who'  hi  V5 
them  ,„  stckness.  Accursed  and  excommunicate  be  he  who VhS 
carry  them  ,„  the  grave  and  shall  dare  to  bury  them.  Le  .,  be 
excommunicate  and  accursed  with  all  curses  if  they  do  lot  make 
amends  and  render  due  satisfaction.  And  know  this  for  truth  that 

« 17  ath  no  f  "op  uor  coimt' nor  a"y  **£*  Pow 's : 

P  the  se.gmory  of  the  blessed  St.  Giles.     And  if  any  presume 
to  a  temp,  „,  borne  down  by  all  the  foregoing  curses,  they  ne ™r 
shall  enter  the  kingdom  of  Heaven,  for  the  blessed  S.   Giles  cm 
nutted  h,s  monastery  to  the  lordship  of  the  blessed  Peter."' 

Hardened  sinners  might  milke  Iig!,t  of  ,,lese  imprecations, 
but  their  effect  on  believer.,  was  necessarily  unutterable,  when 
the  gorgeous  and  impressive  ceremonial  of  worship   the 
hop   surrounded  by  twelve  priests  bearing  flaming  candles, 
xdemnljr  recited  the  awful  words  which  consigned  the  evil-doer 
his  generation   to  eternal    torment  will,   s,,ch   fearful 
amplitude  and  reduplication  of  malediction,  and,  as  the  sen 
*  of  perdition  came  to  its  climax,  the  attemlin,  prfe.ts 
.multnneously  cast  their  candles  to  the  ground  and  trod  them 
•   as  «  symbol   of  the   ouencMng  of  a   human   soul   in  ,he 
eternal  night  of  l.ell.*     Still  greater,  of  course,  was  the  ertect 
the  ingenious  expedient  was  invented  of«o  preparin,  the 
candles  tlmt  they  would   spontaneously  go  out  at  the  p,™  er 
.omen,,   as  though  extinguished   by  heaven  itself?     To  this 
J  the  expectation,  amounting  almost  to  a,  certainty 
that  heaven  would  not  wait  for  the  natural  course  of  events  to 
confirm  the  judgment  thus  pronounced.  I,,,,  ,l,at  tlle  malc,dic 
'.ions  would  be  as  effective  in  this  worl.l  as  in  the  next.     Those 
•on.  spiritual  terrors  could  not  subdue  thus  were  daunted  by 

'  Benedict.  PP.  VIII.  Eptet  32  (Migne's  Patrol.  T.  130  pp.  l.BO-3) 
-  CamerariiHi8t.de  Fratrum.  Orthodox.  Ecclesiis  in  Bohemia  etc.  p.  71. 


THE  CHURCH  AND  FEUDALISM         349 

the  fearful  stories  of  the  judgment  overtaking  the  hardened 
sinner  who  dared  to  despise  the  dread  anathema.  Long  before 
Otho  the  Great  had  lain  in  his  grave  a  hundred  years,  after  a 
life  and  death  of  publicity  inseparable  from  his  position  as  the 
leading  character  of  the  tenth  century,  men  related  with  horror 
how  he  had  violated  the  laws  of  spiritual  affinity  by  marrying 
his  gossip,  Adelaide,  Queen  of  Italy  ;  how  his  natural  son, 
William,  Archbishop  of  Mainz,  had  boldly  taken  him  to  task 
for  this  incestuous  union  and  had  been  thrown  into  a  dungeon 
by  the  angry  father ;  how,  when  released,  the  son  had,  in 
obedience  to  his  duty,  excommunicated  that  father  at  Easter, 
and  solemnly  warned  him  that  by  Pentecost  God  should  judge 
between  them  ;  how  the  Emperor  disregarded  the  sentence, 
and  how,  on  the  high  feast  of  the  appointed  day,  in  his  im 
perial  robes  and  surrounded  by  his  splendid  court,  he  was 
assisting  at  mass,  when  the  avenging  Deity  summoned  him  to 
the  judgment-seat,  and  prelate  and  noble  stood  aghast  at  find 
ing  their  master  dead  without  a  sign.1  The  infallibility  of  a 
pope  declared  that  the  excommunicate  could  not  obtain  victory 
in  battle  or  prosperity  in  this  world  ;2  and  if  these  temporal 
visitations  were  insufficient  to  curb  a  hardened  generation, 
there  was  the  evidence  of  the  holy  virgin  Herluca,  to  whom 
the  secrets  of  this  world  and  the  next  were  freely  revealed, 
and  who  learned  in  one  of  her  visions  that  the  most  terrible 
fire  in  hell  was  reserved  for  those  who  died  unreconciled  of  ex 
communication.3 

It  was  not  difficult,  therefore,  to  add  the  spice  of  miracle  to 
the  celebrated  case  of  the  excommunication  of  Robert  the  Pious 
of  France,  who  committed,  in  995,  the  indiscretion,  attributed  to 
Otho  the  Great,  of  transgressing  the  limits  of  affinity,  spiritual 
and  carnal,  in  marrying  his  second  cousin  Bertha,  widow  of  Odo, 
Count  of  Blois,  whose  son  he  had  held  in  baptism.  Already  he 
was  regarded  in  Rome  with  little  favor,  for  one  of  the  incidents  of 

1  Pet.  Damiani  Opusc.  xxxiv.  cap.  vii. 

2  Gregor.  PP.  VII.  Regist.  Lib.  vr.  Epist.  xvi. 

3  Paul.  Berimed.  Vit.  Herlucre  Virgin,  cap.  25. 
30 


350  EXCOMMUNICATION. 

the  Capetian  revolution  had  been  the  deposition  and  incarcera 
tion,  in  901,  of  Arnoul,  Archbishop  of  Rheims,  half-brother  of 
Louis  le  Faineant,  the  last  Carlovingian,  for  assisting  his  uncle, 
Charles  of  Lorraine,  in  an  unsuccessful  attempt  to  resist  the 
usurpation.1  Although  the  proceedings  of  the  council  of  St. 
Baseul  had  been  nominally  regular,  they  were  somewhat  violent 
in  fact ;  the  immunity  of  the  ecclesiastical  body  had  been  vio 
lated,  but  the  new  dynasty  was  not  as  yet  secure  enough  to  be 
magnanimous,  and  Arnoul  languished  in  prison  for  six  years, 
while  Gerbert  of  Aurillac  occupied  his  primatial  seat  in  spite 
of  remonstrance.  The  prelates  concerned  were  summoned  to 
the  synod  of  Pavia  to  answer  for  their  conduct,  but  they  pru 
dently  held  aloof;  and  when  Gregory  V.  ascended  the  pontifical 
throne,  one  of  his  first  acts,  in  006,  was  to  suspend  them,  at  a 
synod  held  in  Home,  and  to  threaten  an  anathema  on  the  whole 
of  France.  Alarmed  at  these  demonstrations,  and  anxious 
about  the  objections  made  to  his  marriage  with  Bertha,  Robert 
dispatched  St.  Abbo  of  Fleury  to  the  pope,  in  the  hope  of  ob 
taining  terms.  Gregory  at  that  time  had  been  driven  out  of 
Rome  by  Crescentius,  and  the  excommunication  which  he  had 
launched  at  his  enemy  had  been  met  by  the  installation  of  an 
antipope  ;  but  the  little  consideration  which  he  enjoyed  at  home 
did  not  abate  his  tone  of  command  abroad.  lie  was  inflexible, 
and  Abbo  returned  without  accomplishing  the  object  of  his 
mission.  Hoping  to  obtain  the  confirmation  of  his  marriage, 
Robert  yielded.  The  dreaded  Carlovingian  was  transferred 
from  the  dungeon  of  Orleans  to  the  archiepiscopal  throne  of 
Rheims,  and  Gerbert  was  ejected,  to  be  gratified  with  the  see 
of  Ravenna,  from  which  in  a  lew  years  he  was  elevated  to  the 
papacy.2 

Robert's  submission  gained  him  little.     The  pope  who  in 
exile  found  his  thunders  so  effective  was  not  likely  to  be  less 

1  Acta  Concil.  Basoliens. 

2  Udalr.  Babeub.  Cod.  Lib.  n.  cap.  2.— Aimoiui  Vit.  S.  Abbon.  Floriac. 
cap.  11-12.— Muratori  Annal.  d'ltalia  ann.  997-8. 


THE     GIIUUCII     AND     FEUDALISM.  351 

aggressive  when  the  arms  of  Otho  III.  had  gratified  him  with 
the  sight  of  Crescentius'  headless  trunk,  and  of  his  rival,  the 
Antipope  John,  blinded,  tongueless,  and  noseless,  parading  his 
misery  through  the  streets  of  Rome,  seated  backwards  on  an 
ass,  with  its  tail  in  his  hands.1  Hardly  had  he  been  restored 
to  the  Vatican  when  he  summoned  another  synod,  in  998,  the 
first  act  of  which  ordered  the  separation  of  the  incestuous  couple, 
prescribed  for  them  seven  years  of  penitence,  and  threatened 
them  with  the  dread  anathema  if  they  should  dare  to  resist  the 
decree.  The  bishop  who  had  celebrated  the  marriage,  and  all 
the  prelates  who  had  consented  to  it,  were,  moreover,  suspended 
from  communion  until  they  should  appear  personally  at  Rome 
and  render  due  satisfaction  for  their  infraction  of  the  canons. 
At  the  same  time  there  was  no  pretence  of  dethroning  the  obsti 
nate  king.  It  was  reserved  for  another  Gregory  to  develop 
such  doctrines  into  practice;  and  a  request  from  the  synod  that 
Robert  should  not  aid  Stephen  of  Puy,  deposed  for  irregularity 
of  election,  shows  that  no  interference  was  contemplated  with 
the  allegiance  due  to  him  by  his  subjects.'-2 

Robert's  reverence  for  the  church,  his  zealous  performance 
of  all  his  religious  duties,  and  the  humility  and  generosity  of 
his  charity  gained  for  him,  even  during  his  lifetime,  if  we  may 
believe  his  biographer  Helgaldus,  the  power  of  working  miracles. 
Such  a  nature  could  not  but  be  powerfully  impressed  with  the 
awful  sentence  passed  upon  him  by  Rome,  and  the  fearful  al 
ternative  held  out  to  him.  Yet  his  love  for  Bertha  held  good 
against  it  all.  He  refused  to  part  with  her,  and  the  dread  ex 
communication  fell  upon  them  both.  Times  had  changed  since, 
a  hundred  years  before,  Knight  Winemar  and  his  master  Bald 
win  laughed  to  scorn  the  most  elaborate  cursing  that  France 


1  S.  Pet.  Damiani  Epist.  21,  Lib.  i.     In  these  movements  church  and 
state  were,  as  usual,  inextricably  mingled.      Gregory's   relationship  to 
Otho  III.,  and  the  audacious  design  of  Crescentius  to  restore  Italy  to  the 
domination  of  Constantinople,  lent  a  sharper  edge  to  the  vengeance  exacted 
by  the  spiritual  and  temporal  heads  of  Christendom. 

2  Concil.  Roman,  aim.  998  can.  1,  2,  8  (Harduin.  T.  VI.  P.  I.  p.  756). 


352  EXCOMMUNICATION. 

and  Rome  combined  could  pour  upon  them.  Robert's  bishops 
hurried  across  the  Alps  and  made  their  peace  as  best  they  might, 
and  tradition  relates  that  he  and  his  queen,  loving  not  wisely 
but  too  well,  stood  forth  as  lepers  upon  whom  the  curse  of  Heaven 
had  fallen.  Gratitude  for  past  favors,  hopes  of  future  benefits, 
were  as  nothing  when  the  church  had  decreed  the  segregation 
of  the  hardened  sinner  ;  and  courtier  and  parasite,  friend  and 
dependant,  fell  away  from  the  infected  presence  of  the  excom 
municate.  Two  humble  servants  alone  could  be  found  to  per 
form  the  most  menial  offices  bringing  them  into  contact  with 
their  master,  and  these  were  obliged  to  consign  to  the  flames  all 
the  dishes  used  by  the  royal  pair,  lest  contamination  should  be 
conveyed  to  the  other  members  of  the  household.1 

It  was  impossible  that  Robert  could  remain  indefinitely  under 
excommunication.  Under  the  second  of  the  House  of  Capet  the 
royal  supremacy  was  too  precarious  to  endure  a  violent  and  lono-. 
continued  strain,  and  every  motive  of  personal  ambition  and 
state  policy  counselled  submission.  Resistance,  indeed,  would 
be  fatal  to  all  hopes  of  founding  a  dynasty  ;  for  when,  to  insure 
the  fealty  of  the  great  barons,  it  was  necessary  for  each  king  to 
crown  his  son  during  his  own  lifetime,  there  could  be  little  hope 
of  transmitting  the  throne  to  the  offspring  of  a  marriage  thus 
condemned  as  null  and  void  ;  and,  according  to  the  manners  of 
the  age,  the  child  of  a  concubine  would  have  a  better  chance 
than  the  son  of  Queen  Bertha.  Yet  Robert  clung  to  his  wife 
with  wonderful  pertinacity,  and  he  remained  for  at  least  two 
years  under  the  ban  of  the  church  before  he  could  resolve  on  a 
separation.2  The  unanswerable  arguments  of  state  policy,  and 
the  gradually  increasing  conviction  of  the  hopelessness  of  pro- 

1  S.  Pet.  Damiani  Opusc.  xxxiv.  cap.  6.     It  is  of  course  impossible  not 
to  suspect  Damiani  of  a  little  righteous  exaggeration  in  describing  what 
ought  to  have  been,  rather  than  what  really  occurred. 

2  Some  authorities  have  assumed  that  the  divorce  took  place  almost  im 
mediately,  but  the  evidence  collected  by  Dom  Mabillon  (Bouquet,  Rec. 
des  Hist.  X.  568-9)  seems  to  me  to  justify  the  conclusion  that  it  occurred 
not  earlier  than  the  year  1000,  nor  later  than  1001. 


THE  CHURCH  AND  FEUDALISM.       353 

longed  resistance,  are  amply  sufficient  to  account  for  his  final 
submission,  though  his  biographer  assures  us  that  it  was  brought 
about  by  the  reckless  virtue  of  St.  Abbo  of  Fleury,  who,  at  the 
risk  of  his  life,  persisted  in  arraigning  the  wickedness  of  the 
king,  in  public  and  in  private,  until  the  sinner's  resolution  gave 
way,  and  lie  put  aside  the  fair  partner  of  his  guilt.1  So  simp.le 
an  explanation,  however,  of  a  perfectly  natural  result  was  not 
suited  to  the  purposes  of  the  church,  and  a  miracle  was  invoked 
to  manifest  the  anger  of  Heaven  at  the  incestuous  union  and 
at  the  obstinacy  of  disobedience  with  which  it  was  prolonged. 
Queen  Bertha  gave  birth  to  a  monster — a  boy  with  the  head 
and  neck  of  a  goose — and,  appalled  at  this  evidence  of  divine 
wrath,  the  unhappy  father  and  mother  submitted  to  the  decree 
of  separation,  underwent  penance,  and  were  reconciled  to  the 
triumphant  church.2  The  memory  of  this  prodigy  was  perpet 
uated  in  the  sight  of  the  people  by  the  statues  of  the  Reine  Pe- 

dauque the  queen  with  the  goose's  foot — which  embellished 

the  portals  of  so  many  of  the  churches  of  France.3 

Even  yet  the  watchful  care  of  Heaven  was  not  exhausted, 
and  for  many  years  it  kept  guard  over  the  results  of  the  vic 
tory.  About  fifteen  years  after  marriage  with  his  second  wife, 
Constance  of  Provence,  Robert  made  a  pilgrimage  to  Rome, 
and  was  followed  by  Bertha,  who  still  hoped  that  she  might 
persuade  the  successor  of  St.  Peter  to  restore  her  to  her  hus 
band.  When  Constance  heard  of  this  desperate  venture  of  her 
unhappy  rival,  she  was  consumed  with  anxiety  lest  it  should 
prove  successful,  till  at  length  in  a  vision  she  saw  a  man  of 
venerable  aspect,  who  assured  her  that  she  would  be  soon  re 
lieved  of  her  grief,  and,  in  answer  to  her  inquires,  informed  her 
that  he  was  a  bishop  named  Savinian.  Before  the  third  day 
was  over,  the  king  unexpectedly  returned,  as  loving  as  ever; 
St.  Savinian,  a  martyr  till  then  lying  unknown  and  unhonored 
in  the  cathedral  of  Sens,  was  gratified  with  a  splendid  shrine, 

1  Hclgaldi  Vit.  Robert!  Regis  cap.  xvn. 

2  S.  Pet.  Damiani  loc.  cit.— Frag.  Hist.  Franc.  (Bouquet,  X.  211). 

3  Dissert,  sur  la  Reine  PeJauque  (Bullet,  Mythologie  Frangaise). 

30* 


354  EXCOMMUNICATION. 

and  the  lucky  clerk  who  had  been  able  to  explain  her  dream, 
and  direct  her  to  the  relics  of  her  comforter,  in  due  time  be 
came  Bishop  of  Orleans.1 

A  cause  which  Heaven  thus  manifestly  made  its  own  could 
not  fail  to  prosper,  and  when  the  Franconian  emperors  had 
raised  the  papacy  out  of  the  mire  into  which  is  had  been 
plunged  by  the  House  of  Tusculum,  the  popes  were  prepared 
to  exert  their  supremacy  over  princis  and  peoples  with  more 
energy  than  ever.  For  this  they  had  full  opportunity  in  the 
growing  desire  for  law  and  order  developed  in  the  gradual  re 
construction  of  European  society  as  it  emerged  from  the  anarchy 
consequent  upon  the  fall  of  the  Carlovingian  system.  Chris 
tendom  was  no  longer  ravaged  by  the  Hun,  the  Saracen,  and 
the  Dane  ;  feudalism  was  establishing  a  recognized  code  of  ju 
risprudence,  which,  rude  as  it  was,  yet  gave  in  theory  to  every 
man  a  place  in  the  body  politic,  and  rights  which  might  be 
vindicated  according  to  a  settled  form  of  procedure  ;  and  some 
limitations  were  even  beginning  to  be  placed  on  the  perpetual 
scourge  of  the  petty  seigniorial  wars.  As  the  elements  of 
human  society  were  thus  painfully  developing  themselves  into 
an  organized  system,  the  vast  and  indefinite  claims  of  the 
church  presented  in  the  False  Decretals,  and  partially  recog 
nized  in  the  expiring  efforts  of  the  later  Carlovingian  legisla 
tion,  were  pressed  with  unfaltering  vigor  by  the  able  men  who 
occupied  the  pontifical  throne  after  the  middle  of  the  eleventh 
century.  It  is  no  wonder  that  in  such  a  state  of  things  the 
trained  and  disciplined  intellects  of  the  church  had  a  vast  ad 
vantage  over  the  rude  intelligence  of  the  feudal  nobles.  With 
a  u  n  Ujy_of^ni  r  pose_tliajuiiud^  to  .0.  corn  - 

jrion_end,  and  with  a  perseverance  that  no  di  sco  u  rage  me  nt 
could  baffle,  the  church  pursued  its  aims  undeviatingly.  Where 
so  many  rival  interests  were  ever  seeking  each  other's  destruc 
tion,  it  could  always  find  an  ally  whenever  it  met  with  serious 

'  Odorarmi  Chron.  Coiitimiat.  (Bouquet,  X.  16(5). 


THE     C  II  U  R  C  IT     AND     FEUDALISM.  355 

opposition  ;  and  that  ally  invariably  found,  sooner  or  later, 
that  implicit  obedience  to  its  pretensions  was  rigorously  ex 
acted  as  the  price  of  its  assistance.  Thus  skilfully  using  the 
antagonism  of  conflicting  interests  to  break  down  each  in  turn, 
it  succeeded  in  moulding  the  plastic  elements  of  civilization 
into  a  theocracy  such  as  the  world  had  never  before  witnessed. 

This  process  is  fairly  illustrated  by  the  vicissitudes  of  the 
protracted  quarrel  between  Henry  IV.  and  the  papacy,  which 
show  how  the  church  carried  on  the  apparently  unequal  con 
test,  how  it  made  use  of  the  passions  and  ambitions  of  that  tur 
bulent  time,  and  how  terribly  efficient  was  its  single  spiritual 
weapon — excommunication. 

The  vigilant  and  resolute  Emperor  Henry  III.  had  worn 
out  his  life  in  the  effort  to  enforce  order  among  his  savage 
feudatories.  His  early  death  left  his  son,  Henry  IV.,  an  in 
fant  five  years  old,  whom  the  wise  caution  of  the  father  had 
crowned  as  his  successor  a  year  previous.  Removed,  a  few 
years  later,  by  a  conspiracy  between  prelate  and  noble,  from 
the  tutelage  of  his  mother  Agnes  to  that  of  Albert  the  Mag 
nificent,  Archbishop  of  Bremen,  the  youth  grew  up  with  little 
training  in  wisdom  or  self-control,  even  if  his  passions  were 
not  purposely  led  astray  by  those  who  found  their  account  in 
rendering  him  unfit  for  his  lofty  station.1  The  plot,  moreover, 
which  had  displaced  the  Regent  Agnes,  revived  all  the  old 
ambitions  which  Henry  III.  had  so  sternly  repressed;  and 
when  the  young  monarch's  majority  was  declared,  in  his  six 
teenth  year,  he  found  himself  without  power  or  friends,  con 
fronted  by  a  horde  of  turbulent  princes  who  had  sedulously 
taught  him  to  regard  them  as  his  enemies.  Forced  by  them 
to  marry  Bertha  of  Susa,  he  not  unnaturally,  in  spite  of  her 

1  Anno,  Archbishop  of  Cologne,  was  canonized  for  the  leading  part 
which  he  took  in  the  abduction  of  Henry  IV.  from  his  mother,  but  it  was 
not  without  opposition  that  he  was  enrolled  in  the  catalogue  of  saints. 
He  was  regarded  by  many  as  simply  a  traitor,  until  the  miracles  which 
accompanied  the  translation  of  his  body  proved  his  sanctity. — Ca?sar. 
TTeisterbach.  Dial.  Mirac.  Dist.  vm.  c.  Ixix. 


356  EXCOMMUNICATION. 

beauty  and  virtues,  regarded  her  as  the  badge  of  his  dependent 
position,  and  three  years  later  he  essayed  to  repudiate  her. 
An  assembly  convened  at  Worms  in  1009  received  the  sugges 
tion  with  more  than  coldness,  and  postponed  its  discussion  for 
six  months.  When  the  adjourned  Diet  met  again  at  Mainz,  a 
legate  of  the  pope  was  already  there  to  prohibit  the  consumma 
tion  of  the  project,  and  that  legate  was  Peter  Damiani,  who 
was  not  likely  to  render  his  mission  more  acceptable  by  the 
manner  of  its  discharge.  We  have  seen  how  the  church  ac 
quired  jurisdiction  over  the  subject  of  marriage,  and  all  history, 
from  the  time  of  Lothair  and  Teutberga  to  that  of  Henry  VIII. 
and  Katharine  of  Arragon,  shows  the  immense  influence  which 
it  thus  obtained  over  the  affairs  of  nations  and  of  individuals. 
Damiani,  accordingly,  rebuked  Henry  without  ceremony  before 
the  princes  of  the  empire,  and  in  a  manner  the  most  insulting 
to  his  pride  as  a  man  and  his  dignity  as  a  monarch  pronounced 
his  project  inadmissible,  with  the  threat  that  if  he  persisted  in 
it,  he  should  vainly  ask  the  imperial  crown  at  the  hands  of  the 
pope,1  Thus  humiliated  and  defeated  in  his  dearest  aspirations, 
Henry  retired  with  rage  in  his  heart,  prepared  to  regard  the 
church  as  an  enemy  to  his  person,  as  he  had  long  found  it  an 
enemy  to  his  power. 

In  1073  the  stern  and  vigorous  Hildebrand  succeeded  to 
the  pontifical  throne,  and  lost  no  time  in  proclaiming  war  to 
the  knife  with  the  two  pervading  corruptions  of  the  church — 
simony  and  the  concubinage  of  the  clergy.  For  some  years 
Henry,  who  was  maintaining  a  desperate  struggle  for  life  with 
his  powerful  and  turbulent  vassals,  preserved  the  most  friendly 
relations  with  the  new  pontiff,  whose  moral  support  was  essen 
tial  almost  to  his  existence.  At  length,  however,  Gregory's 
reforming  energy  brought  the  two  into  unavoidable  collision. 
Simony  was  universal.  From  the  highest  to  the  lowest  eccle 
siastic,  every  piece  of  preferment,  and  almost  every  ministerial 
function,  was  bought  and  sold  more  or  less  openly.  Since  the 
death  of  Henry  III.  this  demoralizing  traffic  had  been  shame- 

*  Lambert.  IIei>M<l.  ami.  1069. 


THE  CHURCH  AND  FEUDALISM.        357 

lessly  prosecuted  throughout  Germany,  for  which  Henry  IV., 
as  monarch,  was  nominally  responsible,  though  in  his  utter 
powerlessness  he  had  been  helpless  to  prevent  it,  and  the  sordid 
gains  had  passed  into  other  hands.  Gregory  VII.,  who  for 
more  than  twenty  years  had  been  the  leading  spirit  in  the 
papal  court,  had  had  ample  opportunity  to  note  how  impotent 
were  the  ordinary  agencies  of  ecclesiastical  discipline  to  eradi 
cate  this  consuming  evil,  and  he  apparently  arrived  at  the  con 
clusion  that,  so  long  as  the  secular  authorities  enjoyed  the 
privilege  of  conferring  ecclesiastical  benefices,  it  would  be  im 
possible  to  prevent  their  sale,  direct  or  indirect.  Having  once 
reached  this  conviction  he  was  not  the  man  to  shrink  from  the 
means,  however  violent,  that  seemed  likely  to  effect  a  radical 
cure.  In  a  preceding  essay  we  have  seen  how  this  right  of  in 
vestiture  had  for  five  hundred  years  been  claimed  and  exercised 
by  the  sovereign  with  scarcely  a  question  ;  and  the  immense 
extension  of  church  property  had  by  this  time  rendered  the 
hierarchy  an  important  portion  of  the  feudal  system,  which 
could  not  be  rendered  independent  of  the  lord  paramount  with 
out  striking  an  almost  fatal  blow  at  his  power.  Yet  Gregory 
did  not  hesitate  abruptly  to  abrogate  the  royal  authority  over 
the  fiefs  of  the  hierarchy  without  consultation  or  negotiation 
with  those  whose  time- honored  rights  he  abolished  by  a  single 
word.  That  they  did  not  submit  without  a  contest  was  natural, 
and  the  portentous  question  of  the  investitures  which  he  thus 
aroused  filled  Christendom  with  turmoil  and  bloodshed  for  many 
long  and  weary  years. 

In  February,  107o,  Gregory  assembled  a  synod  in  Rome, 
which  adopted  a  canon  forbidding  for  the  future  any  eccle 
siastic  from  receiving  a  bishopric,  abbacy,  or  other  preferment 
from  the  hands  of  a  layman.  All  investitures  thus  conferred 
were  declared  null  and  void  ;  the  recipient  was  excommuni 
cated,  arid  the  donor,  whether  emperor,  duke,  marquis,  count, 
or  other  potentate,  was  involved  in  the  same  punishment.1 

1  Hugon.Flaviniacens.  Chron.  Lib.  n.  ami.  1074.— Cf.  Pagi  Critica  aim. 
1075,  No.  1. 


358  EXCOMMUNICATION. 

By  this  one  audacious  stroke  Gregory  hoped  to  secure  the 
independence  of  the  church,  so  necessary  to  its  unity  and 
purity ;  and  having  once  advanced  the  claim  as  an  impre 
scriptible  right,  he  was  prepared  to  stand  by  it  with  all  his 
indomitable  pertinacity,  regardless  of  opposition  arid  careless 
of  consequences. 

This  defiance  of  the  temporal  power  chanced  to  occur  at  a 
singularly  inopportune  moment.  During  the  spring  and  sum 
mer  of  that  year  Henry  succeeded  in  uniting  under  his  banner 
enough  princes  to  undertake  a  campaign  against  the  chronic 
revolt  of  the  Saxons,  and  die  bloody  victory  of  Hohenberg 
enabled  him  to  feel  for  the  first  time  that  he  was  really  a  king. 
In  the  flush  of  his  successes,  with  the  Saxon  princes,  who  had 
so  long  bearded  him,  confined  in  his  dungeons,  the  support  of 
the  papacy  seemed  no  longer  necessary  to  save  him  from  de 
struction,  and  he  was  little  disposed  to  submit  to  these  new 
pretensions,  so  arrogantly  claiming  to  despoil  him  of  the  rights 
uninterruptedly  enjoyed  by  all  his  predecessors.  Still  he 
shrank  from  an  open  rupture,  and  contented  himself  with 
quietly  disregarding  the  papal  edict.  To  gain  the  support  of 
Gozelo,  Duke  of  Lower  Lorraine,  he  gave  the  bishopric  of 
Liege  to  Henry,  a  canon  of  Verdun,  and  a  near  relation  to  the 
duke  ;!  and  his  conduct  with  regard  to  the  bishoprics  of  Italy 
was  destructive  to  a  cause  dearer  than  perhaps  any  other  to 
the  heart  of  Gregory.  For  nearly  twenty  years  the  Milanese 
church  had  been  distracted  with  bloodv  factions  arising  from 
the  papal  efforts  to  deprive  its  clergy  of  the  privilege  of  mar 
riage  ;  and  at  this  moment  Azzo,  the  archbishop  recognized  by 
the  popes,  was  a  refugee  in  Rome,  while  a  rival  archbishop, 
Gotefrido,  also  shut  out  from  Milan,  was  carrying  on  a  desul 
tory  warfare  in  the  neighborhood.  The  city,  moreover,  lay 
under  an  interdict  launched  by  Gregory  himself  in  1074.  The 
effort  to  enforce  this  interdict  at  Easter,  1075,  led  to  a  bloody 
battle  in  the  streets,  in  which  the  military  leader  of  the 

1  Lambert.  ITersfeld.  ann.  1075. 


THE     CHURCH     AND     FEUDALISM.  359 

papalists  was  slain  ;  whereupon  the  people,  tired  of  the  cease 
less  broil,  and  disregarding  both  their  archbishops,  sent  a 
deputation  to  Henry,  asking  him  to  appoint  a  third.  This  he 
promptly  did,  in  the  person  of  Tedaldo,  who  maintained  pos 
session  of  the  see  until  his  death,  in  10«5,  exchanging  excom 
munications  with  Gregory,  and  proving  the  most  dangerous 
opponent  to  his  enterprises.1  Henry  could  have  done  nothing 
more  aggravating  than  this  to  the  personal  pride  or  more 
damaging  to  the  politico-religious  aspirations  of  the  pontiff. 
The  bishoprics  of  Fermo  and  Spoleto,  moreover,  becoming 
vacant,  Henry  filled  them,  as  a  matter  of  course,  without  even 
asking  the  assent  of  Rome  ;  while  the  rich  German  abbeys  and 
prelacies  which  fell  in  were  occupied  by  his  nominees,  accord 
ing  to  ancient  usage. 

These  irreconcilable  pretensions  could  have  but  one  result, 
and  Gregory  was  not  backward  in  provoking  the  inevitable 
conflict.  Hardly  able  to  maintain  himself  in  Rome  amid  the 
agitations  which  pervaded  the  whole  of  Italy,  he  yet  felt 
serenely  secure  in  the  protection  of  Heaven  and  the  possession 
of  irresistible  power  over  the  souls  and  consciences  of  men. 
Towards  the  close  of  the  year  1075  he  therefore  addressed  an 
epistle  to  Henry  which  is  a  masterpiece  of  the  peculiarly  ex 
asperating  style  in  which  the  church  was  wont  to  inflict  the 
crudest  blows  in  the  guise  of  the  most  paternal  care  for  the 
salvation  of  a  sinner.  Henry  was  informed  that  he  had  in 
curred  excommunication  for  not  removing  excommunicates 
from  his  court,  but  that  he  could  still  obtain  pardon  by  obe 
dience  and  by  the  performance  of  such  penance  as  might  be 
prescribed  for  him.  His  promises  of  filial  respect  for  the 
church  were  contrasted  with  his  action  in  the  cases  of  Milan, 
Fermo,  and  Spoleto,  which  was  pronounced  illegal  and  void  ; 
the  decree  of  the  recent  council  respecting  investitures  was 
referred  to  and  declared  to  be  unalterable,  but  he  was  invited 
to  send  envoys  to  Rome,  to  see  whether  some  device  could  be 

1  Arnulf.  Gest.  Episc.  Mecliol.  Lib.  in.  cap.  23  ;  Lib.  iv.  cap.  3,  3,  4,  5, 
9.— Landulf.. Senior,  Lib.  in.  cap.  29  ;  Lib.  iv.  cap.  2. 


300  EXCOMMUNICATION. 

adopted  to  render  its  enforcement  less  unpalatable;  and,  finally, 
he  was  warned  to  compare  his  own  transient  glory  with  the 
infinite  power  of  Heaven,  and  cautioned  not  to  allow  his  pride 
at  his  victory  over  the  Saxons  to  blind  him  to  the  duty  which 
he  owed  to  God,  lest,  like  Saul,  he  might  rind  it  to  cost  him 
his  throne.1 

Henry  was  holding  his  splendid  Christmas  court  at  Goslar, 
after  the  ancient  fashion  of  the  emperors,  when  Gregory's 
legates  presented  to  him  this  portentous  missive.  It  could 
only  seem  to  him  a  piece  of  insane  and  gratuitous  insolence. 
In  Germany  he  knew  that  the  clergy,  from  the  lowest  to  the 
highest,  were  in  a  state  of  almost  open  hostility  to  Rome  on 
account  of  Gregory's  determined  efforts  to  deprive  them  of 
their  wives  and  of  the  illicit  gains  of  simony.  In  Italy  he  saw 
that,  to  the  South,  Robert  Guiscard,  being  under  excommu 
nication,  was  apparently  a  mortal  foe  to  the  pope  ;  in  Rome 
itself  Gregory's  life  had  only  been  preserved  as  by  a  miracle 
from  the  audacious  attempt  of  Ceneio  ;2  while  to  the  North 
the  Lombard  clergy,  headed  by  Tedaldo  of  Milan,  the  second 
prelate  of  Christendom,  were  arrayed  in  open  schism,  and 
treated  repeated  excommunications  with  contempt.  Himself, 
on  the  contrary,  he  believed  to  have  at  length  overcome  the 
enemies  who  had  so  long  baffled  him.  He  was  at  last  a  king, 
not  only  in  name  but  in  reality,  with  all  Germany  submissive 
at  his  feet,  When  therefore  the  legates  pursued  their  mission 
by  summoning  him  to  trial  at  a  council  to  be  held  in  Rome  on 
the  22d  of  the  approaching  February,  with  the  threat  that  if 
he  failed  to  appear  he  should  be  cut  off  from  the  church  with 
the  dread  anathema,  his  indignation  knew  no  bounds  at  so 
novel  a  pretension  of  supremacy.  The  legates  were  driven 
from  the  royal  presence  with  insult  and  contumely;  and  Henry 
hastily  summoned  all  the  prelates  of  Germany  to  meet  in 
council  at  Worms  on  the  1st  of  February,  to  consult  as  to  the 

1  Gre^or.  PP.  VII.  Rcgist.  Lib.  in.  Epist.  10. 

2  Paul.  Bernried.  Vit.  Gregor.  VII.  cap.  5. 


THE  CHURCH  AND  FEUDALISM.     '   361 

deposition  of  a  pope  who  could  so  mistake  his  position  and  ex 
ceed  his  powers.1 

The  assembly  met  at  the  appointed  time,  and  adopted  a  letter 
addressed  to  Gregory,  stigmatizing  his  election  to  the  papacy 
as  irregular  and  illegal,  and  recounting  the  various  ill-deeds 
and  arbitrary  usurpations  by  which  he  was  endeavoring  to 
reduce  the  church  to  slavery  and  had  succeeded  in  filling  it 
with  confusion  and  revolution.  It  is  curious  to  observe  that, 
in  thus  formally  withdrawing  from  his  obedience,  no  mention 
is  make  of  his  attack  upon  the  king,  all  the  reasons  alleged 
being  purely  the  griefs  of  the  church  and  the  scandals  imputed 
to  his  daily  life.2  This  letter  was  signed  individually  by  all 
the  prelates,  although  it  is  impossible  to  tell  how  many  did  so 
willingly,  and  how  many  under  compulsion  ;  certain  it  is  that 
not  a  few  lost  no  time  in  secretly  communicating  with  the 
pontiff,  assuring  him  of  their  unalterable  fidelity  and  asserting 
that  the  fear  of  imminent  death  alone  had  forced  their  assent 
to  a  document  so  abominable.3 

Ignorant  or  unmindful  of  this  hidden  disaffection,  Henry 
rushed  forward  to  the  conflict.  In  an  angry  letter  to  Gregory, 
he  called  upon  the  pope  to  come  down  from  the  sacred  throne 
which  he  defiled,  and  promised  that  shortly  lie  would  preside 
over  the  election  of  another  pontiff  who  would  fitly  represent 
the  church.  Envoys  were  sent  with  copies  of  this  to  the 
schismatic  prelates  of  Lombardy,  who  eagerly  subscribed  to 
them  ;  but  the  messenger  sent  in  the  name  of  all  to  lay  these 
documents  before  the  synod  of  Rome  and  to  summon  the  pre 
lates  there  assembled  to  wait  until  Pentecost  for  the  new  pope 

1  Lambert.  Hcrsfeld.  aim.  1076.— Goldast.  Const.  Imp.  I.  285-6. 

2  Goldast.  I.  237. 

3  Annalista  Saxo  ann.  1076. — Paul  of  Bernried  (Vit.  Gregor.  cap.  vii. 
No.  56)  declares  positively  that  all  who  hesitated  were  threatened  with 
death  ;  while  Lambert  of  Hirschfeld  (Aimal.  ann.  1076)   asserts  that  all 
signed  willingly,  except  Adalbero  of  Wurzburg  and  Hermann  of  Metz— 
whose  names  however  are  appended   to  the  document  as   printed   by 
Goldast. 

31 


302  EXCOMMUNICATION. 

to  be  nominated  by  Henry,  barely  escaped  with  his  life,  at  the 
earnest  interposition  of  Gregory  himself.1 

While  Henry,  in  the  fancied  plenitude  of  his  power,  was 
thus  disposing  of  the  pontifical  throne  in  anticipation,  Gregory 
felt  sure  of  his  game.  Far  better  than  the  king  he  knew  the  mad 
ambitions  and  the  sullen  hate  which  devoured  the  princes  of 
the  empire,  and  which  a  word  from  him  could  rouse*  to  destruc 
tive  activity.  That  word  \vas  spoken.  After  excommuni 
cating  again  all  the  schismatic  bishops  of  Lornbardy  and 
significantly  selecting  Siegfrid  of  Mainz  as  the  only  German 
prelate  to  be  assailed,  the  Roman  synod  culled  upon  the  pope 
not  only  to  cut  off  the  impious  Henry  from  the  church,  but 
also  to  deprive  him  of  his  kingdom.2  Nothing  loth,  Gregory 
promptly  fulminated  the  sentence  which  marks  a  new  era  in 
the  relations  between  church  and  state.  In  its  calm  and  self- 
reliant  dignity  it  affords  an  instructive  contrast  to  the  ferocious 
maledictions  of  Hervey  of  Rheiins  and  Benedict  VII. 

"  O  blessed  Peter,  prince  of  Apostles,  we  pray  thee  bend  thy 
holy  ears  to  us  and  hear  me  thy  servant  whom  tliou  hast  nourished 
from  infancy  and  to  this  day  hast  preserved  from  the  wicked  who 
have  hated  and  hate  me  for  my  fidelity  to  thec.  Thou  art  my  witness, 
and  my  lady  the  Mother  of  God,  and  the  blessed  Paul  thy  brother, 
and  all  the  saints,  that  tliou  didst  place  the  government  of  thy  holy 
Roman  church  in  my  unwilling  hands,  and  that  I  did  not  force 
myself  into  thy  seat,  but  rather  wished  to  end  my  clays  in  pilgrim 
age  than  by  worldly  means  to  seize  thy  place.  Therefore  1  believe 
that  it  has  pleased  and  still  pleases  thee,  through  thy  grace  and  not 
through  my  works,  that  the  Christian  people  specially  committed 
to  thy  care  shall  obey  me  in  thy  stead,  and  by  thy  grace  the  power 
is  granted  to  me  by  God  of  binding  and  of  loosing  in  heaven  and 
on  earth.  Strengthened  with  this  faith,  for  the  honor  and  defence 


1  Annalista  Saxo  ann.  1076. — At  the  council  of  Worms,  Cardinal  Hugo, 
then  under  papal  excommunication,  was  present,  as  the  representative  of 
the  Italian  church,  and  assured  the  German  prelates  that  all  Italy  was 
anxiously  awaiting  the  expected  signal  to  throw  off' Gregory's  hateful  yoke. 
—Paul.  Bernried.  Vit.  Gregor.  VII.  cap.  vii.  Xo.  56-9.— Lambert.  Hersfeld. 
ann.  1076. 

2  Paul.  Bernried.  op.  cit.  cap.  vii.  No.  62. 


THE  CHURCH  AND  FEUDALISM.       363 

of  thy  church,  in  the  name  of  the  omnipotent  God  the  Father,  and 
of  the  Son,  and  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  and  by  thy  power  and  authority, 
I  remove  from  Henry  the  King,  son  of  Henry  the  Emperor,  who 
with  unheard-of  pride  has  risen  against  thy  church,  all  the  govern 
ment  of  Germany  and  Italy,  and  I  absolve  all  Christians  from  the 
oath  which  they  have  taken  or  may  take  to  him,  and  I  prohibit  them 
from  obeying  him  as  king.  For  it  is  proper  that  he  who  seeks  to 
diminish  the  honor  of  thy  church  should  himself  lose  the  honor 
which  he  seems  to  possess.  And  since  he,  as  a  Christian,  has  dis 
dained  to  obey  the  Lord  and  to  return  to  Him,  whom  he  has  aban 
doned  by  communing  with  excommunicates  and  by  despising  the 
warnings  which,  as  thou  knowest,  I  have  given  him  for  his  own 
benefit,  and  by  separating  himself  from  thy  church  in  the  vain  at 
tempt  to  divide  it,  in  thy  name  I  bind  him  in  the  bonds  of  the 
anathema,  that  all  the  nations  may  know  and  learn  that  thou  art 
Peter,  the  corner-stone  on  which  the  Son  of  the  living  God  hath 
built  His  church,  and  that  the  gates  of  hell  shall  not  prevail  against 
thee  !'" 

The  power  of  dethroning  a  king,  thus  for  the  first  time  as 
sumed  and  exercised,  was  founded  upon  some  conveniently 
interpolated  epistles  of  Gregory  the  Great,  apparently  manu 
factured  in  the  time  of  Charles  le  Chauvc,  in  which,  granting 
privileges  to  various  religious  and  charitable  foundations  in 
France,  he  is  made  to  threaten  with  the  loss  of  dignity  and 
power  any  monarch  or  potentate  who  may  presume  to  infringe 
their  rights.2  And  here  another  of  the  forgeries  came  in  with 
singular  efficacy,  for  a  capitulary  of  Louis  le  Debonnaire  had 
been  fabricated  at  some  unknown  period,  decreeing  that  any 
one  incurring  excommunication  should  be  placed  under  ban, 
and  that  if  he  remained  unreconciled  for  a  year  and  a  day,  his 
possessions  should  all  be  confiscated  and  himself  exiled  or  im 
prisoned.3  This  the  piety  of  succeeding  ages  had  accepted  and 
erected  into  a  law  imposing  outlawry  on  any  one  remaining 

1  Coneil.  Roman.  ITT.  ann.  1076  (Harcluin.  T.  VI.  P.  I.  p.  1566). 

2  Grcgor.  PP.  I.  Regist.  Lib.  xnr.  Epist.  8,  9,  10  ;  Append.  Epist.  4 
(Ed.  Benedict.).     Cf.  Gregor.  PP.  VII.  Regist.  Lib.  iv.  Epist.  23.— Ber- 
thold.  Constant.  Annal.  ann.  107(3. — Annalista  Saxo  ann.  1076. 

3  Ludov.  Pii  Capit.  Tribur.  ann.  822  cap.  6  (Baluz.  I.  42<V7). 


364  EXCOMMUNICATION. 

thus  cut  off  from  the  church  for  a  twelvemonth  and  a  day.1 
The  practical  application  of  this  rule  gave  enormous  power  to 
the  church,  and  its  bearing  on  the  case  of  Henry  was  not  long 
in  becoming  manifest. 

In  Italy,  the  effect  of  Gregory's  fulminations  was  imper 
ceptible.  The  bishops  whom  he  anathematized  quietly  as 
sembled  at  Pavia,  soon  after  Easter,  under  the  leadership  of 
Wiberto,  Archbishop  of  Ravenna,  and  responded  by  a  counter 
excommunication.2  Familiarity  had  bred  contempt,  and  the 
Italians  knew  too  much  about  the  papacy  to  care  much  for  its 
censures,  unless  they  were  supported  by  a  secular  power  com 
petent  to  extort  respect.  When  even  St.  Peter  Damiani,  not 
long  before,  had  felt  himself  obliged  to  remonstrate  with  Alex 
ander  II.,  on  the  constant  abuse  of  the  anathema  by  the  papal 
court,3  it  was  not  likely  that  the  Lombard  schismatics  would 
pay  much  heed  to  the  new  fulmination  which  only  added  an 
other  to  its  innumerable  predecessors.  In  Germany,  how 
ever,  the  case  was  widely  different.  The  empire  was  a  tinder- 
box,  awaiting  only  a  spark  for  an  explosion,  and  that  spark 
Gregory  had  resolutely  applied.  Twice  before  the  powerful 
Rodolph  of  Suabia  had  deemed  himself  on  the  point  of  sup 
planting  Henry,  and  now,  at  last,  his  time  seemed  to  have 
come. 

The  honest  German  mind  regarded  a  papal  excommunication 
with  a  horror  very  far  removed  from  the  indifference  of  the 
Italians,  and  its  effect  throughout  the  empire  was  decided  and 
immediate.  Men  repeated  with  blanched  lips  how  William, 
Bishop  of  Utrecht,  the  trusted  adviser  of  Henry,  became  at 
once  an  awful  example  of  the  punishment  attendant  on  the 
sacrilege  of  which  he  was  guilty.  Some  related  that  when,  at 
Easter,  Henry  had  ordered  him  to  retort  upon  Gregory  the 
excommunication,  and  he  had  obeyed,  the  Host  which  he  took 
during  the  impious  ceremony  turned  to  fire  within  him,  and  he 

1  Bonizo.  Lib.  ad  Amicum  Lib.  vin.  2  Bonizo.  loc.  cit. 

3  S.  Pet.  Damiani  Lib.  I.  Epist.  12. 


THE  CHURCH  AND  FEUDALISM.       365 

expired  with  a  foretaste  of  the  endless  torments  awaiting  him. 
Others  declared  that  he  had  only  derided  publicly  the  excom 
munication  under  which  both  he  and  Henry  labored,  but  that 
this  was  sufficient  to  call  down  upon  him  a  mortal  disease,  dur 
ing  which  visions  of  devils  extorted  from  him  a  confession  of 
his  unpardonable  sin,  and  lie  miserably  perished,  unhouselled 
and  hopeless  of  salvation.  It  chanced  that  a  number  of  Henry's 
supporters  died  within  a  short  time,  and  similarly  exaggerated 
accounts  of  their  deaths  were  industriously  circulated.1  Stories 
such  as  these,  however  lacking  in  proof,  exercised  a  powerful 
influence  over  the  popular  feelings,  of  which  Henry's  enemies 
and  he  had  few  friends — were  not  slow  in  taking  advantage. 

Suddenly  the  Saxons  arose  in  a  fresh  rebellion,  and  Henry 
found  that  the  princes  of  Southern  Germany,  far  from  aiding 
him,  were  weaving  new  conspiracies.  Udo  of  Treves,  fresh 
from  Italy,  set  the  example  of  avoiding  the  contamination  of 
associating  with  an  excommunicate,  arid  his  example  was  con 
tagious.  One  after  another  the  king's  friends  fell  away,  de 
claring  that  they  could  not  risk  their  salvation  by  intercourse 
with  him.  His  summons  to  the  princes  and  prelates  of  the 
empire  to  meet  him  in  council  were  disregarded,  and  threats 
and  entreaties  were  alike  powerless.2 

A  despairing  and  fruitless  expedition  against  the  Saxons 
brought  on  him  new  humiliations,  while  the  princes  of  the  em 
pire  counselled  together  as  to  the  speediest  and  most  effectual 
plan  for  his  removal.  A  diet  was  agreed  upon  to  be  held  at 
Tribur,  October  IGth.  under  the  presidency  of  papal  legates,  to 
arrange  for  his  formal  deposition  and  the  election  of  a  successor. 
When  the  assembly  met,  the  legates  produced  a  profound  im 
pression  by  refusing  to  commune  with  any  one  wrho  had  com 
municated  with  Henry,  until  they  should  undergo  penance  and 
receive  absolution.  Meanwhile  Henry,  from  Oppenheim  on 
the  opposite  bank  of  the  Rhine,  sent  propositions  of  submission, 

1  Hugo.  Flaviniac.  Chron.  Lib.  n.  ami.  1080.— Lambert.  Ilersl'eld.  aim. 
1076.— Annalista  Saxo  aim.  1076. 

2  Lambert.  TIersf'eld.  arm.  107(5. 

31* 


306  EXCOMMUNICATION. 

each  more  self-abasing  than  the  other,  but  they  were  coldly 
rejected,  the  princes  replying  that,  bound  by  their  oaths  of  al 
legiance,  they  had  borne  with  his  crimes  until  released  by  the 
action  of  the  pope,  and  that  now  they  no  longer  regarded  him 
as  their  sovereign.  Hastily  collecting  some  troops,  he  medi 
tated  casting  all  on  the  hazard  of  an  attack,  when  terms  were 
offered  which  he  eagerly  accepted.  He  was  to  abandon  his  few 
remaining  friends  and  live  privately  at  Speyer,  abstaining  from 
entering  a  church,  until  another  assembly,  to  be  held  at  Augs 
burg,  February  2d,  1077,  under  the  presidency  of  Gregory 
himself,  should  try  him  for  the  offences  whereof  he  was  ac 
cused,  lie  was  warned,  moreover,  to  procure  the  removal  of 
the  excommunication,  for  if  he  allowed  the  twelvemonth  from 
Frebruary,  107G,  to  expire,  he  would  fall  under  the  operation 
of  the  law.1 

Gregory,  meanwhile,  had  admirably  played  his  part.  In 
dignified  silence  he  allowed  the  tempestuous  elements  which 
he  had  let  loose  throughout  Germany  to  do  their  inevitable 
work.  lie  desired  the  abasement  of  Henry,  but  it  was  no  part 
of  his  plans  that  the  monarch  already  powerless  should  be  suc 
ceeded,  without  his  intervention,  by  one  who  might  be  able  to 
maintain  the  supremacy  of  the  empire.  With  consummate  art, 
therefore,  on  September  3d  he  had  addressed  an  epistle  to  the 
Germans,  commanding  them  to  show  mercy  rather  than  strict 
justice  to  the  sinner.  If  he  manifested  sincere  repentance  and 
willingness  to  amend  his  ways,  they  were  to  smooth  his  path. 
If,  on  the  other  hand,  he  proved  obdurate,  then  might  they 
proceed  to  elect  another  in  his  place,  who,  it  was  to  be  hoped, 
might  prove  worthy  of  recognition  by  the  Apostolic  See.2 
Gregory  thus,  by  a  single  stepT  placed  himself  as 
arbiter  of  the  two  factions,  assuming  over  both 
which  under  the  circumstances  neither  dared  dispute.  Dis 
tasteful  as  this" unquestionably  w^is~T6~The~ambition  of  the 


1  Annal.  Saxo  ami.  1070.— Lambert.  Hersfeld.  aim.  107'G. 

2  Gregor.  PP.  VII.  Resist.  Lib.  iv.  Epist.  ,'i. 


THE     CHURCH     AND     FEUDALISM.  367 

revolted  princes,  they  had  no  choice  but  submission,  and  it 
was  doubtless  owing  to  Gregory's  instructions  to  his  legates 
that  the  diet  of  Tribur,  in  place  of  electing  an  emperor,  was 
forced  to  content  itself  with  a  postponement  which  placed  the 
final  decision  in  the  hands  of  Gregory  himself. 

In  accepting  the  conditions  imposed  on  him,  it  became  of 
the  last  importance  to  Henry  to  obtain  absolution  in  advance 
of  the  assembly  of  Augsburg.  After  the  date  set  for  the  meet 
ing,  but  three  weeks  would  remain  to  him  of  the  year  of  grace, 
and  it  was  manifestly  within  the  power  of  the  insurgent  princes 
to  protract  the  proceedings  long  beyond  the  fatal  anniversary. 
His  decision  therefore  was  at  once  taken  to  hasten  himself  to 
Italy,  where,  face  to  face  with  his  excommunicator,  he  might 
hope  to  come  to  terms.  His  preparations  were  soon  made. 
His  wife,  the  faithful  Bertha  whom  he  had  sought  to  repudiate, 
with  their  infant  Conrad,  then  scarcely  in  his  third  year, 
joined  him  at  Speyer,  and  they  started  on  their  dangerous 
pilgrimage.  In  anticipation  of  such  an  enterprise,  Rodolph  of 
Suabia,  Welf  of  Bavaria,  and  Berthold  of  Carinthia  had  closed 
all  the  passes  of  the  Alps  through  their  territories,  and  he  was 
forced  to  take  the  longer  and  more  difficult  route  through 
Savoy  by  Mount  Cenis.  His  Christmas,  spent  at  BesanQon, 
was  in  gloomy  contrast  witli  that  of  the  previous  year.  Then, 
in  his  splendid  court  at  Goslar,  he  imagined  himself  the  un 
questioned  ruler  of  Germany,  and  meditated  revindicating  the 
rights  of  the  empire  over  the  haughty  theocracy  of  Rome. 
Nowr,  practically  throneless,  he  was  eagerly  seeking,  as  a  last 
chance  of  salvation,  to  move  the  pity  of  the  man  who  had  by 
a  single  word  caused  his  downfall.  But  one  noble,  and  he  of 
obscure  extraction,  attended  him  on  his  weary  pilgrimage,  and 
with  difficulty  had  he  collected  the  moderate  sum  requisite  for 
the  expenses  of  the  journey.  Reaching  the  territory  of  his 
wife's  mother,  Adelaide,  Marchioness  of  Ivrea,  a  new  difficulty 
awaited  him.  He  was  received  with  due  honor,  but  was  told 
that  he  would  not  be  allowed  to  pass  unless  he  ceded  five  con 
tiguous  bishoprics  to  the  cupidity  of  his  brother-in  law.  Time 


368  EXCOMMUNICATION. 

pressed,  January  was  already  upon  him,  and  after  a  hurried 
negotiation  lie  abandoned  a  valuable  territory  as  the  toll  of 
the  inhospitable  mountains.  Nature,  moreover,  seemed  to  vie 
with  man  in  closing  the  door  of  reconciliation  on  the  unfor 
tunate  excommunicate.  The  winter  was  severe  beyond  the 
memory  of  man.  From  Martinmas  till  April  the  frozen  Rhine 
could  bear  the  weight  of  horse  and  rider,  and  the  roots  of  the 
vines  were  killed  in  the  solid  ground.  Blockaded  with  snow 
and  ice,  the  pathless  mountains  seemed  to  offer  an  impenetrable 
barrier.  As  there  was  no  footing  for  beasts,  the  feet  of  the 
horses  were  tied,  and  they  were  dragged  over  the  snow,  a  pro 
cess  which  few  survived.  The  men  of  the  party,  supported 
by  hardy  mountaineers,  clambered  through  snow-drifts  and 
slipped  and  slid  down  fearful  declivities,  while  the  queen  and 
her  attendants  were  securely  wrapped  in  ox-hides,  and  were 
dragged  with  ropes  along  the  edge  of  precipices  and  over  rug 
ged  peaks.1 

Arrived  in  Italy,  all  was  changed  as  if  by  magic.  To  the 
Lombards,  Henry  was  not  the  discrowned  excommunicate,  but 
the  long-expected  monarch  under  whose  leadership  they  hoped 
for  domination  and  revenge  on  Rome.  Eagerly  they  flocked 
around  him  with  a  cordial  welcome,  and  in  a  few  days  he 
found  himself  at  the  head  of  a  formidable  army.  His  misfor 
tunes  were  too  recent,  however,  for  him  to  indulge  in  illusions, 
and  if  for  a  moment  he  dreamed  of  treating  with  Gregory  as  a 
sovereign,  he  promptly  dismissed  the  idle  notion.  Meanwhile 
the  pope  had  set  out  from  Rome  to  be  present  in  Augsburg  at 
the  appointed  day,  but  hearing  that  Henry  was  advancing 
with  a  considerable  force,  he  halted  and  threw  himself  into  the 
stronghold  of  Canosa,  with  the  friendly  Countess  Matilda. 
Thither  hastened  such  of  the  excommunicated  bishops  and 
nobles  of  Henry's  party  as  had  succeeded  in  penetrating 
through  the  guarded  passes  of  the  Alps,  and  were  admitted  to 
absolution  after  a  somewhat  severe  trial  of  the  sincerity  of 
their  repentance.2 

1  Lambert.  Hersield.  ami.  1077.  2  Ibid. 


THE     CHURCH     AND     FEUDALISM.  369 

Henry  himself  lost  no  time  in  sending  to  the  pope  such  me 
diators  as  seemed  likely  to  prove  most  efficient,  but  Gregory 
at  first  replied  coldly  that  he  would  only  adjudge  the  matter  at 
Augsburg,  as  had  been  agreed  upon.  After  much  persuasion, 
however,  he  relented  so  far  as  to  permit  the  king  to  come  to 
Canosa,  with  the  promise  that  if  he  showed  evidence  of  real 
contrition  he  might  be  admitted  to  expiate  his  sins  by  implicit 
obedience  to  the  church.  Eagerly  clutching  at  this  doubtful 
mercy,  Henry  appeared  before  the  triple  walls  of  the  castle  on 
January  25.  The  next  day  he  was  admitted  within  the  second 
wall,  and  there,  barefoot  and  fasting  as  a  penitent,  he  stood  in 
the  snow  from  morning  to  night.  A  second  and  a  third  day 
he  was  exposed  to  the  same  proof,  humbly  awaiting  the  mes 
sage  of  the  pontiff.  Admitted  to  the  presence  on  the  fourth 
day,  he  accepted  without  hesitation  the  terms  dictated  to  him, 
rigorous  as  they  were.  The  pope  was  to  convene  an  assembly 
of  the  German  princes,  and  there  hear  their  accusations  and 
Henry's  defence,  and  the  latter  was  to  be  restored  to  his  king 
dom,  or  be  declared  forever  incapable  of  the  crown,  according 
as  Gregory  might  decide  by  the  laws  of  the  church.  Mean 
while  he  was  not  to  wear  the  insignia,  or  to  claim  royal  honors, 
or  execute  any  functions  whatever  of  government ;  he  was  to 
dismiss  the  faithful  followers  whose  evil  counsel  had  led  him 
into  crime  ;  and  if  he  should  justify  himself  sufficiently  to  be 
restored  to  the  throne,  he  pledged  himself  to  be  thereafter  in 
all  things  obedient  to  the  Holy  See.  Finally,  the  absolution 
thus  obtained  was  merely  provisional,  and  a  failure  strictly  to 
observe  any  of  the  conditions  imposed  would  ipso  facto  renew 
the  excommunication.1  Such  were  the  terms  on  which  Henry 
at  last  was  admitted  to  the  sacrament. 

It  would  be  wearying  to  follow  out  the  details  of  the  struggle 
which  for  thirty  years  longer  Henry  maintained  with  such 
varying  fortune,  nor  would  we  learn  therefrom  the  develop 
ment  of  any  new  principles.  At  a  single  bound  Gregory,  with 

1  Lambert.  Hcrsfeld.  ami.  1077. 


3YO  EXCOMMUNICATION. 

equal  skill  and  audacity,  bad  improved  his  opportunity  to 
elevate  himself  to  the  position  of  the  recognized  suzerain  of 
Christendom.  The  principles  which  he  advanced,  and  which 
both  parties  were  forced  to  admit,  gave  to  the  church  the  right 
to  intervene  between  the  monarch  and  his  lieges,  and  placed 
at  the  discretion  of  a  single  man  the  corner-stone  on  which  was 
based  the  whole  feudal  system — the  oath  of  allegiance  and 
fidelity.  The  simple  anathema  thus  had  become  as  potential 
in  this  world  as  it  was  held  to  be  in  the  next.  It  was  the 
most  formidable  engine  of  temporal  as  well  as  spiritual  power, 
and  no  claim  of  domination  would  seem  to  be  too  extravagant 
for  him  who  was  commissioned  from  on  high  to  control  it. 

It  is  true  that  these  results  were  not  practically  enforced 
without  further  resistance.  The  vicissitudes  of  Henry's  ad 
venturous  career  afford  ample  evidence  of  the  repugnance  with 
which  the  savage  feudal  noble  submitted  to  the  unarmed  priest ; 
but  the  precedent  was  made,  and  with  the  persistency  of  the 
church  its  final  triumph  was  only  a  matter  of  time.  In  March, 
1077,  Henry  saw  the  Diet  of  Forchheim  endeavor  to  supplant 
him  by  the  election  of  his  brother-in-law,  Rodolph  of  Suabia, 
who  had  long  been  intriguing  for  the  vain  honor;  and  Gre 
gory,  whom  Henry's  relations  with  the  Lombards  could  not 
fail  to  disgust,  lent  his  countenance  to  the  proceeding,  without 
absolutely  committing  himself.  Thus  balancing  between  the 
two  rivals,  Gregory  still  endeavored  to  hold  the  fate  of  the 
empire  in  his  hands,  while  Henry,  returning  across  the  Alps, 
found  no  difficulty  in  obtaining  possession  of  all  Southern  Ger 
many,  and  driving  his  competitor  into  Saxony.  The  partisans 
of  Rodolph  were  bitterly  disappointed  at  this  exhibition  of 
papal  policy,  and  addressed  to  Gregory  a  letter  expressing, 
with  scant  respect,  their  surprise  at  his  tergiversations,  and 
holding  him  responsible,  as  in  truth  he  was,  for  the  ferocious 
war  which  ravaged  every  corner  of  their  country.1 

1  Saxonum  Epist.  in  Greg.  PP.  VII.  Epist.  Extrav.  (Migne's  Patrol.  T. 
148  p.  746). 


THE    CHURCH     AND     FEUDALISM.  371 

For  three  years  this  state  of  horrors  continued,  until  Gre 
gory's  position  became  no  longer  tenable.  At  the  synod  of 
Home  in  1080  he  therefore  formally  renewed  the  excommuni 
cation  of  Henry,  and  graciously  bestowed  the  empire  on 
Rodolph,  who  had  obediently  renounced  all  claim  to  the  in 
vestitures.1  Henry  had  learned  much  during  his  sojourn  in 
Italy,  and  the  equivocal  policy  of  Rome  had  developed  the 
ideas  of  the  Teutonic  mind,  so  that  for  once  the  thunders  of 
the  church  proved  futile.  Henry  assembled  at  Mainz  the 
bishops  of  his  party,  and,  finding  that  he  could  rely  upon  them, 
let  loose  the  passions  of  the  Lombard  prelates,  who  promptly 
assembled  at  Brixen,  deposed  Gregory  with  a  declaration  that 
covered  him  with  scandalous  reproaches,  and  elected  Wiberto 
of  Ravenna  to  the  perilous  dignity  of  Antipope.2  The  death 
soon  after  of  Rodolph,  who  fell  in  the  victory  of  Yolcksheirn, 
seemed  to  render  the  verdict  of  heaven  against  Gregory,  and 
Henry  followed  it  up  by  an  Italian  expedition,  which  enabled 
him  to  receive  the  imperial  crown  at  the  hands  of  a  pope  who 
owed  everything  to  him,  even  to  his  installation  in  the  Vatican. 
As  for  the  unfortunate  Romans,  they  were  offered  up  as  a 
holocaust  for  the  greater  glory  of  God.  After  enduring  from 
Henry  the  severity  of  starvation  in  their  loyalty  to  Gregory, 
they  were  exposed  to  the  extremity  of  outrage — massacre, 
conflagration,  and  captivity — at  the  hands  of  Gregory's  ally, 
Robert  Guiscard.  Probably  to  avoid  dwelling  amid  the  misery 
and  desolation  which  he  had  caused.  Gregory  followed  Robert 
to  Salerno,  and  there  in  1085  he  died,  refusing  with  the  last 
beat  of  his  indomitable  heart  to  absolve  Henry  and  Wiberto, 
with  their  followers.3 

King  Hermann,  elected  by  the  papalists  as  successor  to 
Rodolph,  personally  gave  Henry  little  trouble,  though  the  long- 
continued  and  desolating  war  reduced  the  flourishing  provinces 
of  Germany  almost  to  a  desert,  and  retarded  fearfully  the  pro- 

1  Concil.  Roman.  V.  ann.  1080  (Harduin.  T.  VI.  P.  i.  p.  1587). 

2  Goldast.  Const.  Imp.  I.  236. 

3  Paul.  Berimed.  Vit.  Greg.  VII.  cap.  xn.  No.  102. 


372  EXCOMMUNICATION. 

gress  of  civilization.  After  an  inglorious  reign  of  six  years, 
disgusted  with  the  selfish  disloyalty  of  his  nominal  supporters, 
Hermann  in  1088  laid  down  his  shadowy  crown.  Anarchy 
had  progressed  so  far  that  his  abdication  made  little  practical 
difference,  and  Henry  with  varying  success  continued  his 
struggle  with  the  disaffected  princes  and  bishops.  His  gradu 
ally  increasing  strength,  however,  is  shown  by  the  fact  that  in 
1089  but  four  of  the  German  bishops  remained  in  communion 
with  the  legitimate  pope,  Urban  II. ;  and  the  Catholic  chronicler 
plaintively  remarks  that  it  was  almost  impossible  for  the  faith 
ful  to  preserve  themselves  from  the  contamination  of  associat 
ing  with  excommunicates.  Urban  had  lost  no  time  in  renewing 
the  censures  of  the  church  on  all  imperialists,  and,  in  fact,  the 
anathematized  were  gradually  becoming  the  majority  ;  con 
vinced  of  which  fact,  the  Catholic  leaders  offered  to  return  to 
their  allegiance  if  Henry  would  abandon  his  antipope,  Clement 
111.  ( Wiberto  of  Ravenna),  and  receive  absolution  from  Urban  ; 
but  Henry  declined,  apparently  not  caring  to  replace  upon  his 
neck  the  yoke  which  he  had  at  last  succeeded  in  shaking  off.1 

The  increasing  preponderance  of  the  imperial  cause  received 
a  serious  check  when,  in  1093,  Henry's  eldest  son,  Conrad, 
King  of  the  Romans,  was  seduced  or  terrified  into  a  rebellion 
against  his  father — seduced  by  the  promises  of  the  kingdom  of 
Italy,  or  terrified  by  the  prospects  of  eternal  perdition  if  he  per 
sisted  in  adhering  to  one  under  ecclesiastical  condemnation. 
The  phantom  crown  bestowed  upon  him,  however,  proved  illu 
sory  :  after  he  had  been  employed  to  work,  as  far  as  in  him  lay, 
his  father's  ruin,  he  was  contemptuously  cast  aside,  and  he  died 
in  1101,  in  Florence,  of  a  broken  heart.  Meanwhile  Henry, 
recovering  from  the  shock  which  had  nearly  prostrated  even  his 
well-tried  firmness,  returned  to  Germany  in  1097,  where  with 
skill  and  moderation  he  allayed  the  weakening  passions  of  revolt. 
One  after  another  his  old  enemies  died  or  submitted  to  him, 
and  at  length,  for  the  first  time  since  his  majority  was  proclaimed, 
he  could  truly  call  himself  emperor  of  all  Germany. 

1  Bernold.  Constant.  Chron.  ann.  1089. 


THE     CHURCH     AND     FEUDALISM.  373 

The  reckless  abuse  of  the  power  of  excommunication  seemed 
at  last  to  have  produced  its  natural  result  of  destroying  the  re 
spect  and  fear  entertained  for  the  censures  of  the  church — at 
least  among  the  Germans.  Elsewhere,  indeed,  its  prestige  had 
been  successfully  maintained.  When,  for  instance,  in  1095, 
the  crusade  was  resolved  upon  in  a  whirlwind  of  enthusiasm 
at  the  council  of  Clermont,  the  powerful  Hugh,  Count  of  Ga- 
pencais,  was  so  ill-advised  as  to  hold  aloof.  Urban  II.  conse 
quently  excommunicated  him,  laid  his  territories  under  inter 
dict,  and  released  his  subjects  from  their  allegiance  ;  whereupon 
the  Counts  of  Forcalquier  attacked  him,  and  succeeded  in  an 
nexing  the  Gapencais  to  their  possessions,  for  so  holy  a  cause 
could  not  fail  to  be  successful.1  The  miserable  Philip  I.  of 
France  had  likewise  no  cause  to  plume  himself  on  the  result 
of  his  resistance  to  the  church.  In  1091  he  repudiated  his 
wife  Bertha,  under  pretext  of  affinity,  imprisoning  her  in  the 
castle  of  Montreuil-sur-Mer,  and  replacing  her  with  Bertrade, 
wife  of  Foulques-Rechiri,  Count  of  Anjou.  The  church,  the 
only  guardian  of  morality  and  protector  of  the  weak,  could  not 
long  pass  unnoticed  this  double  adultery,  and,  finding  its  mo 
nitions  vain,  Hugh  of  Lyons,  the  papal  legate,  excommunicated 
him  at  the  synod  of  Autun,  in  1094.  The  next  year  Philip 
humbly  sent  envoys  to  the  council  of  Piacenza,  to  excuse  his 
non-attendance  and  to  beg  time  for  repentance,  shortly  after 
which  Urban  II.,  at  the  council  of  Clermont,  repeated  the  ex 
communication,  though  Lierthaby  this  time  was  dead.  In  109G 
Philip  yielded,  and  separated  himself  from  Bertrade  ;  but  his 
passion  was  unconquerable,  and  the  next  year  saw  them  again 
together,  and  Philip  affected  to  despise  the  anathema  which  he 
had  incurred.  Wherever  the  guilty  pair  resided,  all  the  churches 
were  instantly  closed  and  divine  service  ceased,  to  be  resumed 
only  on  their  departure  ;  and  it  is  related  that  when  they  were 
leaving  a  town,  and  the  church-bells  announced  the  resumption 
of  religious  rites  by  a  joyous  peal,  Philip  would  laugh,  and  say 

1  Gautier,  Hist,  do  la  Villo  lie  Gap,  p.  19. 
32 


374  EXCOMMUNICATION. 

to  his  paramour — "  Sweet  one,  do  you  bear  how  they  are  ring 
ing  us  out?"  He  was  not  abandoned  to  his  iniquity,  however, 
and  in  1100  the  council  of  Poitiers  again  placed  him  under 
the  ban,  for  which  the  venerable  fathers  were  cruelly  persecuted 
by  William  of  Aquitaine.  At  length  Philip  succumbed,  and 
at  the  council  of  Baugency,  in  1104,  he  appeared  with  his  guilty 
partner  before  the  papal  legate,  Richard  of  Albano,  and  they 
both  swore  on  the  Evangels  to  hold  no  further  intercourse  with 
each  other  ;  yet  even  this  did  not  suffice  to  remove  the  suspi 
cions  of  the  church,  and  they  were  not  absolved  until  the  next 
year,  at  the  council  of  Paris,  by  the  direct  command  of  Paschal 
II.  Two  years  later,  when  his  wretched  life  drew  to  its  end, 
Philip  showed  how  hollow  had  been  his  former  bravado,  for  he 
assumed  on  his  death-bed  the  garments  of  a  monk,  in  expiation 
of  his  sins;  while  Bertrade,  still  in  the  full  flush  of  her  beauty, 
hid  her  remorse  in  the  rigid  convent  of  Fontevraud,  where  the 
unaccustomed  austerities  soon  destroyed  her.1  Resistance 
might  be  prolonged,  but  the  church  eventually  triumphed  over 
the  souls  as  well  as  the  bodies  of  its  enemies. 

Meanwhile  the  increasing  indifference  manifested  in  Ger 
many  to  the  fearful  sentence  of  exclusion  from  salvation  began 
to  excite  the  liveliest  apprehension.  The  violence  of  Gregory 
and  Urban  met  by  the  tireless  energy  of  Henry,  had  resulted 
practically  in  a  schism.  Urban  died  in  1090,  and  was  suc 
ceeded  by  Paschal  II.  His  rival,  the  antipope  Clement  III., 
followed  him  in  1100,  and  was  succeeded  by  Albert,  and  then 
by  Theodoric.  Germany  was  independent  of  Rome,  and  when 
Paschal  II.,  in  1102,  assembled  an  imposing  council  in  the 
Lateran,  renewed  the  imprecations  against  Henry,  and  caused 

i  Urbani  PP.  II.  Epist.  68,  173,  187,  285.— Ivon.  Carnotens.  Epist.  13, 
14  19,  20,  21,  23, 144, 173.—  Grandes  Chroniques,  T.  III.  pp.  168,  204,  206. 
-Con'cil.  .Eduens.  (Harduin.  T.  VI.  P.  n.  p.  1711)  .-Synod.  Placentin. 
(Harduin.ibid.).— Gaufr.  Gross!  Vit.  Bernard.  Tiron.  cap.  vi.  { 
Iluo-on  Floriac.  Lib.  IT.  aim.  1100.— Conc-il.  Parisians  aim.  1105  (Harduin. 
T.  VI.  P.  ii.  p.  1875). -Pascal.  PP.  II.  Epist.  116.-Willelm.  Malmesb 
Gest.  Reg.  Angl.  Lib.  v.  §  404.—  D'Achery  Spicily.  III.  439. 


THE  CHURCH  AND  FEUDALISM.        375 

all  the  attending  bishops  to  subscribe  a  declaration  anathe 
matizing  the  new  heresy  of  disregarding  the  papal  excommuni 
cation,  he  merely  proclaimed  to  the  world  his  own  weakness, 
without  producing  a  ripple  on  the  surface  of  events.1 

Yet  the  apparent  acquiescence  of  the  Germans  in  this  un 
precedented  state  of  affairs  was  perhaps  less  the  result  of  con 
viction  than  of  the  apathy  and  exhaustion  consequent  on  the 
terrible  war  which  for  thirty  years  had  wrought  desolation  in 
every  corner  of  the  land.     Germany  was  not  as  yet  prepared 
for  permanent  isolation  from  the  rest  of  Christendom,  and  as 
the  ravages  of  war  became  gradually  effaced  in  the  years  of 
comparative    tranquillity   which  followed    the    recognition    of 
Henry's  supremacy,  there   arose   a   yearning  for  reunion.     It 
would  be  curious  to  speculate  as  to  the  result  on  the  progress 
of  civilization  had  the  schism  been  perpetuated.     On  the  one 
hand,  Germany  would  have  become  a  consolidated  hereditary 
empire,  and  the  energies  of  the  people,  no  longer  distracted  by 
the  ceaseless  commotions  incident  to  the  clumsy  federation  of 
independent  princes,  constantly  at  war  among  themselves  or 
with  their  nominal  sovereign,  would  have  doubtless  achieved 
triumphs  in   the   arts   of   peace   and   war   which   might   have 
changed  the  aspect  of  Europe.     On  the  other  hand,  the  de 
struction  of  the  unity  of  the  church  would  have  destroyed  the 
only  power  able  to  neutralize  the  inherent  barbaric  violence  of 
feudalism,   and   humanity   would  have  been   deprived  of   the 
countless    benefits  which   the   church,    despite  her  faults  and 
ambition,  alone  could  bestow.      In   Germany,   especially,  the 
ecclesiastical  body  must  shortly  have  become  entirely  secular 
ized,  for  already  her  prelates  were  rather  warlike  barons  than 
shepherds  of  men,  and,  released  from  the  only  spiritual  power 
which   could    control    them,   religion    itself,   confided  to  such 
hands,    might    speedily    have    become    discredited    among    a 
population  sedulously  imbruted. 

The  indisposition  to  remain  disunited  from  the  rest  of  the 

1  Concil.  Lateran.  ann.  1103  (Harduin.  T.  VI.  P.  n.  pp.  1861-3). 


316  EXCOMMUNICATION. 

church,  however,  renders  all  such  speculations  futile,  for  it 
speedily  became  intensified  to  the  point  of  action.  Recon 
ciliation  between  the  emperor  and  the  pope  was  impossible, 
for  the  one  could  not  forgive  or  forget  the  countless  ills  in 
flicted  on  him  in  the  name  of  Roman  supremacy,  and  the 
other  was  pledged,  by  tradition  and  by  conviction,  to  the  prin 
ciple  that  blind  obedience  was  due  to  the  imprescriptible  rights 
of  the  Apostolic  See,  and  that  while  the  church  might  pardon 
her  rebellious  children,  it  was  only  on  condition  of  uncondi 
tional  submission.  No  middle  term  was  possible.  Reunion 
could  be  purchased  only  by  subjugation,  and  this  was  a  truth 
patent  to  the  eyes  of  all. 

To  this  increasing  uneasiness  was  added  a  more  energetic 
source  of  disturbance  in  the  growing  dissatisfaction  of  the 
nobles.  The  canker  of  a  long  peace  was  beginning  to  grow 
insupportable  to  men  whose  ambition  could  be  gratified  only 
by  war  ;  and  the  emperor's  policy,  which  looked  to  the  eleva 
tion  and  protection  of  the  burghers  and  serfs— of  the  people,  in 
fact— was  peculiarly  distasteful  to  the  feudal  tyrants  whose 
very  existence  was  based  on  the  maintenance  of  class-privileges. 
There  can  be  no  doubt  that  the  existence  of  this  spreading 
dissatisfaction  was  known  to  Paschal  II.,  and  that  he  spared 
no  labor  to  foster  a  sentiment  which  promised  advantages  so 
incalculable  to  Rome  ;  nor  was  it  difficult  to  find  an  instrument 
by  which  these  pious  intrigues  could  be  developed  into  action 
with  the  most  effective  result.  There  are  some  crimes  over 
which,  for  the  sake  of  humanity,  it  would  be  well  to  draw  the 
veil  of  oblivion,  even  though  they  may  have  been  perpetrated 
in  the  name  of  Christ,  and  under  the  direct  supervision  of 
His  vicar.  Of  these  is  the  rebellion  of  Henry  V.  against  his 
father,  but  its  results  were  too  momentous  in  the  development 
of  our  subject  for  us  to  pass  it  over  in  silence. 

Henry  V.,  then  a  youth  of  twenty-three  years,  had  been 
crowned  some  time  previous  as  King  of  the  Romans  ;  and  his 
father,  with  that  mistrust  which  had  been  eaten  into  his  soul 
by  his  countless  experiences  of  treachery,  had  exacted  of  him 


THE     CHURCH     AND     FEUDALISM.  377 

a  solemn  oath  never  to  conspire  against  him.     The  way  to  his 
succession  seemed  open  and  assured,  yet  he  might  well  listen 
to  the  suggestion  that,  should  his  father  die  under  the   ban 
of  the  church,   the  heritage  was   liable  to  confiscation,  and 
any  able  and  powerful  prince   of  the  empire  might  prove  a 
dangerous  competitor  for  the   throne.     Bold,  ambitious,  and 
unscrupulous,  he  lent  but  too  ready  an  ear  to  such  promptings  ; 
nor  was  it  difficult  to  find,  among  the  turbulent  nobles,  chafing 
under  the  steady  rule  of  the  emperor,  enough  to  organize  a 
most  formidable  conspiracy.     Towards  the  close  of  1104,  there 
fore,  the  son  secretly  left  his  father,  and  hastened  into  Bavaria, 
where  his  friends  rapidly  gathered  around  him.     His  first  care 
was  to  dispatch  envoys  to  Rome  to  demand  whether,  without 
injury  to  his  soul,  he  could  break  the  oath  sworn  to  his  father. 
The  blessed  Urban  II.,  a  few  years  before,  had  proclaimed  to 
the   world   that  oaths  of  fidelity  given   to  an  excommunicate 
were  not  to  be  kept,1  so  there  was  small  scruple  at  Rome  in 
sending  to  the  young  parricide  all  the  assurances  of  which  his 
tender  conscience  stood  in   need  ;  and   he  was  speedily  com 
forted   with   the  presence  of  papal  legates,   who  gave   to  his 
unnatural  enterprise  all  the  sanctity  requisite  to  shield  it  from 
popular  abhorrence.     From  first  to  last  the  grovelling  ambitions 
and  pervading  selfishness  which  inspired  it  were  carefully  kept 
in  the  background,  and  zeal  for  religion  was  ostentatiously  put 
forward   as  its  sole  and  only  motive.     Funds  were  raised  by 
inflicting  heavy  fines  on  cathedral  chapters  for  their  intercourse 
with  excommunicated  bishops.     The  first  care  of  the  young 
king  was   to  expel   his   father's   bishops,  and  to  replace  them 
with  his  own  creatures  ;  he  sedulously  dug  up  the  bodies  of 
those  who  had  died  and  cast  them  out  of  consecrated  ground ; 
and  he  lost  no  opportunity  of  proclaiming  that  his  object  was, 
not  to  dethrone  his  father,  but  to  lead  him  to  the  reconciliation 
with  the  Apostolic  See,  necessary  to  his  own  salvation  and  to 
that  of  the  empire.     His  effrontery  of  hypocrisy  even  went  so 

*  Urluini  PP.  TT.  Epist.  250. 
32* 


378  EXCOMMUNICATION. 

far  as  to  repeat  this  to  the  face  of  his  wretched  parent  when 
the  latter,  abandoned  by  his  friends,  was  forced  to  surrender, 
and  clasped  the  knees  of  his  son  in  agonized  pleadings  for  his 
life.  So  the  assembly  which  was  convened  at  Nordhausen,  in 
June,  1105,  ostensibly  confined  itself  to  regulating  the  religious 
affairs  of  Germany,  with  a  view  to  removing  all  traces  of  the 
schism.1  In  the  manifesto  moreover,  which,  in  reply  to  the 
complaints  of  his  father,  the  son  published  to  the  world  through 
the  Archbishop  of  Magdeburg,  the  only  reasons  alleged  for 
the  movement  were  the  destruction  of  the  vineyard  of  the  Lord, 
and  the  reduplicated  crucifixion  of  Christ  wrought  by  the 
hardened  and  irreligious  heart  of  the  emperor.2 

When  Henry,  after  a  vain  show  of  resistance,  finding  nothing 
but  treachery  in  those  whom  most  lie  trusted,  gave  himself  up 
to  his  son,  it  was  under  a  pledge  that  life  and  dignity  should 
be  guaranteed  him,  and  the  opportunity  afforded  of  reconciling 
himself  with  the  church.  Yet  when  he  was  brought  before  the 
legates  at  Mainz,  and  lie  prostrated  himself  before  his  subjects, 
humbly  confessing  his  rebellious  disobedience,  and  only  deny 
ing  that  he  had  been  guilty  of  idolatry,  he  was  thrown  into 
close  confinement,  where,  denied  all  the  consolations  of  reli 
gion,  and  exposed  to  the  torment  of  cold  and  hunger,  he  daily 
trembled  for  his  life.  In  the  most  civilized  parts  of  his 

dominions — in  the  cities,  in  the  Rhinelands,  and  in  Lorraine 

Henry  had  ever  been  popular,  and  he  had  merited  the  affection 
of  those  whom  lie  had  endeavored  to  protect  from  the  scourge 
of  feudal  tyranny.  When,  therefore,  the  people  had  recovered 
somewhat  from  the  stupor  caused  by  the  sudden,  audacious, 
and  successful  rebellion  of  the  son,  they  rallied  around  the 
father,  in  whose  favor  all  human  instincts  cried  so  loudly. 
Henry  escaped  from  his  imprisonment,  and  soon  was  able  to 
make  a  show  of  strength  by  no  means  unimposing.  His  faith 
ful  citizens  of  Cologne  gallantly  resisted  a  protracted  siege, 
which  Henry  V.  was  obliged  to  raise  on  the  approach  of  his 

1  Goldast.  Const.  Imp.  I.  247-8.  2  Annalist*  Saxo  ann.  1106. 


THE     CHURCH     AND     FEUDALISM.  379 

father  with  a  heavy  force.  Fortune  seemed  to  incline  once 
more  in  favor  of  the  emperor,  and  the  son  sought  to  open  nego 
tiations  for  an  accommodation,  when  the  weary  monarch,  after 
a  few  days'  illness,  suddenly  died,  his  last  act  being  to  send 
the  crown  and  imperial  insignia  to  his  ungrateful  son,  with  the 
prayer  that  his  body  might  be  allowed  sepulture  at  Speyer, 
and  that  those  who  had  remained  faithful  to  him  might  be 
pardoned.1  For  the  sake  of  human  nature  we  may  well  hesi 
tate  to  credit  the  assertion  that  he  was  poisoned  with  the  cog 
nizance  of  his  son,  but  it  would  be  no  slander  to  attribute  his 
end  to  the  pious  zeal  of  some  enthusiastic  son  of  the  church. 
Urban  II.  had  not  long  before  declared  it  to  be  sound  doctrine 
that  the  slaying  of  an  excommunicate,  through  ardor  for  the 
church,  was  not  homicide.2  Excommunicates  had  no  rights 
which  the  orthodox  were  bound  to  respect,  and  in  an  age  so 
faithless,  turbulent,  and  ferocious,  it  was  not  easy,  even  were 
it  desired,  to  impose  limits  on  the  devotion  of  those  who  had 
staked  their  own  fortunes  on  the  overthrow  of  an  adversary  so 
formidable  to  the  custodian  of  the  keys  of  heaven. 

The  enmity  of  Rome  would  not  even  allow  Henry's  wearied 
bones  to  rest  quiet  in  the  tomb.  The  faithful  Liegeois  had 
buried  him  honorably  in  the  church  of  St.  Lambert,  but  he  had 
died  unreconciled,  and  his  son  was  warned  that  if  he  allowed 
the  body  of  his  excommunicated  father  to  lie  in  consecrated 
ground,  he  would  become  his  accomplice,  and  be  liable  to  the 
same  punishment.  The  young  king  was  in  the  hands  of  the 
church  ;  the  church  was  unforgiving,  and  exacted  of  him  the 

1  Anna!.  Hildesheim,  ann.  1104-5  ;  Annalista  Saxo  ann.  1104-0  ;  Chron. 
Andrens.  Monast.   (D'Achery  II.  792)  ;  Chron.  Reg.  Colon,  aim.  1105-6  ; 
Narrat.    Rcstaur.  Abbat.    S.  Martini  Tornaccns.     (D'Achery   II.   914)  ; 
Epistt.  Henrici  Imp.  ad  Hugon.  Cluniacens.  (D'Achery  III.  441-3).— All 
the  emperors  of  the  House  of  Franconia  were  buried  at  Speyer  in  obe 
dience  to  a  decree  of  Conrad   tbe  Salic  (Joh.  de  Muttcrstatt.   Chron. 
Spirens.  ap.  Senckenberg.  Selecta  Juris  T.  VI.  p.  159) ,  and  it  continued  to 
be  the  place  of  imperial  sepulture  until  tbe  commencement  of  the  four 
teenth  century — Gesta  Trevirorum  (Martonc  Ampliss.  Collect,  iv.  :»90). 

2  Urbani  PP.  II.  Epist.  122. 


380  EXCOMMUNICATION. 

final  act  of  parricide.  He  had  done  too  much  to  hesitate  now, 
and  unflinchingly  he  ordered  his  father's  corpse  to  be  dug  up 
and  thrust  into  the  earth  in  an  island  of  the  Rhine,  where  no 
religious  services  were  permitted,  save  that  a  wandering  pil 
grim  from  Jerusalem  lingered  at  the  spot,  and  chanted  a  psalm 
over  the  grave  of  the  once  mighty  kaiser,  who  had  dared  to 
defy  the  whole  power  of  the  church,  and  had  been  broken  in 
the  hour  of  his  triumph.1 

The  impatient  and  unscrupulous  ambition  of  Henry  V.  had 
thus  thrown  away  recklessly  all  the  fruits  of  his  father's  thirty 
years  of  labor  and  anguish.  Hailed  for  the  moment  as  the 
new  Maceabee,  and  as  the  deliverer  of  the  church,  he  had 
made  himself  of  necessity  the  slave  of  the  church.  It  was  in 
vain  that  by  personal  violence  he  extorted  from  his  accomplice 
Paschal  II.  the  abandonment  of  the  claim  to  the  investitures. 
To  save  himself  from  being  declared  a  heretic,  the  wretched 
pope  was  obliged  to  disown  his  own  agreement.  The  chronic 
rebellion  in  Germany,  revived  by  Henry,  and  carefully  fos 
tered  by  the  church,  rendered  his  excommunication  in  lllo  a 
fatal  entanglement,  from  which  he  failed  to  extricate  himself 
by  resorting  to  his  father's  expedient  of  setting  up  an  anti- 
pope.  His  tool,  the  unhappy  Martin  Burdinus,  paid  the 
penalty  of  his  perilous  dignity;  and  Henry,  after  prolonging  to 
the  last  the  fruitless  struggle,  was  finally  obliged  to  yield  in 
1122.  A  country  ruined  by  anarchy,  and  the  abandonment 
of  the  investitures,  were  the  natural  results  of  his  alliance 


1  Chron.  Hildosheim.  aim.  1106  (Leibnitz  Script.  Rer.  Brunswic,  I. 
736).  The  chronicler  of  Speyer  states  that  the  body  of  the  Emperor  was 
brought  to  that  city  and  lay  unburied  on  a  bier  in  the  chapel  of  St.  Afra 
for  seven  years.  At  length,  in  1111,  Henry  V.  procured  the  absolution 
of  his  father,  and  the  corpse  at  last  was  buried  with  those  of  Henry  III. 
and  Conrad  the  Salic.  Henry  V.  must  have  felt  some  remorse  for  his 
crime,  for  he  released  the  citizens  of  Speyer  from  certain  exactions  on  the 
condition  that  on  his  father's  anniversary  they  should  all  assemble  rever 
ently  at  vigils  and  at  mass,  holding  candles  in  their  hands,  and  that  each 
household  should  contribute  a  loaf  of  bread  for  the  poor. — Chron.  Spirens. 
(op.  cit.  pp.  169-7i>). 


THE     CHURCH     AND     FEUDALISM.  381 

with  the  church — the  inevitable  price  paid  for  its  assistance  in 
destroying  his  father.1 

The  church  had  thoroughly  won  the  victory,  and  thenceforth 
its  behests  were  to  be  obeyed  and  its  ministers  held  sacred,  for 
they  wielded  the  terrible  spiritual  sword,  always  unsheathed, 
and  always  ready  to  cut  off  the  contumacious  from  the  joys  ot 
earth  and  the  hopes  of  heaven.  Against  it  vainly  struggled 
powerful  monarchs  like  the  Hohenstauffens,  Henry,  and  John 
of  England,  Philip  Augustus,  and  Louis  of  Bavaria;  and  where 
these  were  obliged  to  yield,  what  chance  was  there  for  the 
humbler  sinner?  Not  only  did  it  protect  the  rights,  dignities, 
privileges,  and  possessions  of  the  ecclesiastic  from  open  vio 
lence  or  indiscreet  examination,  but  it  enabled  the  church  to 
intervene  decisively  in  the  politics  of  every  state  in  Christen 
dom,  and  thus  to  acquire  the  position  of  universal  arbiter  and 
suzerain.  When  John  of  England  succumbed  in  the  long 
struggle  with  Innocent  III.  and  yielded  up  to  St.  Peter  the 
suzerainty  of  his  kingdoms,  it  was  the  interdict  which  van 
quished  him,  nor  did  the  pope  consider  the  dominion  thus 
acquired  to  be  a  mere  honorary  title.  Failing  in  his  contest 
with  his  barons,  John  complained  to  Innocent  of  the  extortion 
of  Magna  Charta,  and  astutely  suggested  that  his  troubles 
with  his  rebellious  subjects  prevented  him  from  fulfilling  the 
vow  which  he  had  taken  to  enter  upon  a  crusade.  Innocent 
hastened  to  his  relief;  pronounced  the  charter  void,  forbade 
his  performing  its  promises,  and  threatened  excommunication 
against  all  who  should  insist  upon  its  execution.  In  the  same 
spirit  he  wrote  to  the  barons  reproaching  them  for  not  having 
referred  to  his  tribunal  their  differences  with  their  sovereign, 
revoking  the  charter,  and  commanding  them  to  abandon  it. 
His  mandate  being  unheeded,  he  proceeded  without  delay  to 
fulminate  an  excommunication  against  them  all,  denouncing 

1  Annal.  Saxo  ann.  1111-23.  The  documents  may  be  found  in  Hartz- 
licim  Concil.  German.  T.  III.  pp.  258  sqq.,  275  sqq.— Udalr.  Babenb.  Cod. 
Lib.  II.  cap.  259,  205  sqq.  295,  303. 


382  EXCOMMUNICATION. 

them  as  worse  than  Saracens,  and  offering  remission  of  sins  to 
all  who  should  attack  them.1  What  would  have  been  the 
result  of  the  conflict  had  the  resolute  pope  not  died  soon  after 
wards  it  is  impossible  to  say  ;  and  it  is  not  a  little  curious  to 
observe  that  in  time  the  very  instrumentality  used  by  Inno 
cent  to  annul  the  transaction  of  Runnymede  was  invoked  for  its 
protection.  When,  in  1253,  it  was  desired  to  invest  the  great 
charters  of  English  liberty  with  the  most  solemn  guarantee 
possible,  no  more  efficient  device  could  be  suggested  than 
pronouncing  a  formal  sentence  of  excommunication  against 
all  who  should  dare  to  infringe  them;2  and  when,  in  1297, 
Edward  I.  renewed  those  charters  in  return  for  an  octave  of 
his  subjects'  substance,  he  intensified  the  security  by  ordering 
that  this  sentence  of  excommunication  should  be  pronounced 
twice  a  year  by  every  prelate  in  his  dominions.3  Subsequently 
this  rule  was  extended  to  embrace  the  lower  clergy,  and  until 
the  year  1534  in  every  parish  church  in  England  the  priest 
was  required  three  or  four  times  in  each  year  to  include  in 
fractions  of  Magna  Charta  and  the  Charta  de  Foresta  among 
the  sins  for  which  he  pronounced  a  formula  of  imprecation, 
with  bell,  book,  and  candle,  as  minute  in  details  of  malediction 
as  Ilervey  of  Rheims  or  Benedict  VIII.  could  have  asked  for. 

"  Than  thon  thi  candell  slialt  cast  to  grounde, 
And  spet  therto  the  same  stound 
And  lete  also  the  belles  knylle, 
To  make  her  hartes  the  mor  grylle.4 

If  the  church  thus  at  one  place  could  become  the  guarantor 
of  the  people's  liberties,  it  had  as  much  right  elsewhere,  and 

1  Rymer,  Feed  era  I.  200-20S.  2  Matt.  Paris,  arm.  1253. 

3  Thomson's  Magna  Charta,  London,  1829,  p.  371.— Cf.  Rymer,  Foedera 
II.  793-4. 

*  John  Myrc's  Instructions  for  Parish  Priests  p.  24  (Early  English  Text 
Soc.).  See  also,  in  the  notes,  Ibid.  p.  84,  an  extract  from  the  Sarum 
Manual  of  1530.  My  re  speaks  of  the  excommunication  being  pronounced 
"  twies  or  thries  in  the  yere ;"  but  in  the  formula  given  by  Strype  (Eccles. 
Memorials  T.  I.  App.  No.  XLVI.)  it  is  required  once  in  each  quarter. 


THE  CHURCH  AND  FEUDALISM.        383 

as  little  scruple,  in  assisting  their  tyrants.  When,  in  1141, 
William  II.,  Count  of  Montpellier,  was  driven  from  the  city 
by  his  burghers,  with  the  countenance  of  Arnaud,  Archbishop 
of  Narbonne,  Innocent  II.  lost  no  time  in  excommunicating 
the  consuls  of  Montpellier  and  their  abettors,  and  laying  on  the 
city  an  interdict  which  prohibited  all  religious  services  except 
infant  baptism  and  death-bed  penitence.  The  struggle  was 
kept  up  for  some  time,  but  the  citizens  at  length  were  obliged 
to  yield.1 

So,  too,  when  evil-disposed  monarchs  were  bold  enough  to 
question  the  right  of  the  Holy  See  to  dispose  at  will  of  the 
rich  prelacies  within  their  dominions,  it  cost  but  a  skin  ot 
parchment  and  an  ounce  of  lead  either  to  cut  off  from  the 
church  the  ill-advised  sovereign,  or  to  lay  whole  provinces 
under  interdict,  until  the  faithful,  tired  of  living  in  graceless 
deprivation  of  the  consolations  of  religion,  could  prevail  upon 
the  stubborn  ruler  to  give  way.2  Thus  Calixtus  II.  treated 
Henry  of  England  in  1119,  in  consequence  of  his  contumacy 
with  respect  to  Thurstan  of  York  ;3  Innocent  II.  was  equally 

1  Innocent.  PP.  II.  Epist.  509,  518.— Hugon.  Rothomag.  Epist.  xi. 

2  The  conditions  and  regulations  of  the  Interdict  varied  at  different 
times  and  under  different  circumstances.     As  described  in  the  council  of 
Limoges  in  1031,  the  rites  of  religion  were  conducted  secretly,  with  closed 
doors,  but  the  laity  were  admitted  to  the  sacraments  of  baptism,  peni 
tence,  and  the  viaticum.    They  were  not  allowed  to  marry,  however,  dur 
ing  its  continuance,  nor  to  shave  or  have  their  hair  cut,  and  were  obliged 
to  fast  as  in  Lent.     (Concil.  Lemovicens.  II.  Sess.  n.— Harduin.  T.  VI. 
P.  I.  p.  885.)     In  the  interdict  inflicted  on  England  by  Innocent  III. 
under  King  John,  which  lasted  for  six  years,  three  months,  and  fourteen 
days,  all  the  rites  of  religion  ceased  except  baptism,  confession,  and  the 
viaticum  (Matt.  Paris  Hist.  Maj.  arm.  1208, 1214).     Subsequently,  how 
ever,  this  rigor  was  somewhat  relaxed,  and  the  faithfu'  were  admitted 
privately  to  the  consolations  of  religion,  though  all  public  ceremonies 
were  prohibited  (Lib.  V.  Extra  Tit.  xxxm.  cap.  25  ;  Tit.  xxxvm.  cap. 
11 ;  Tit.  XL.  cap.  17  —Lib.  V.  in  Sexto  Tit.  xi.  cap.  24).     Yet  consider 
able  confusion  existed  in  the  clerical  mind  on  the  subject,  and  lawful 
concessions  were  frequently  refused  and  unlawful  ones  granted  (Concil. 
Bambergens.  ann.  1491  Tit.  LX.— Hartzheim.  V.  634). 

3  Calixti  PP.  II.  Epist.  44. 


384  EXCOMMUNICATION. 

energetic  with  Louis  le  Jeune  of  France  in  1141,  with  regard 
to  the  Archbishop  of  Bourges  j1  and  Clement  III.,  in  1188, 
was  as  peremptory  with  William  of  Scotland  in  the  case  of 
John,  Bishop  of  St.  Andrews.2  If  the  commands  of  the  Vice 
gerent  of  God  were  not  promptly  obeyed,  Heaven  did  not  fail 
to  come  to  the  rescue.  Thus  Henry  was  punished  for  his  ob 
stinacy  with  respect  to  Thurstan  by  the  loss  of  his  son  William, 
who  was  drowned  at  sea  during  the  next  year;  and  when  Ur- 
raca  of  Castile  married  Alphonso  of  Arragon  within  the  pro 
hibited  degrees,  and  not  only  refused  to  separate  from  him, 
but  disregarded  the  consequent  excommunication,  her  sudden 
death,  and  the  fall  of  Alphonso  in  battle  with  the  Moors, 
showed  how  dangerous  it  was  to  trifle  with  penalties  so  awful.3 
So  when,  in  1197,  Rhys,  King  of  South  Wales,  ill-treated 
Peter  de  Leia,  Bishop  of  St.  Davids,  the  latter  promptly  ex 
communicated  him  and  his  sons,  and  laid  his  territories  under 
interdict.  In  a  few  days  Heaven  vindicated  its  servant  in  the 
death  of  King  Rhys,  when  Gryffyth,  his  son,  promptly  made 
submission,  and  Bishop  Peter  enjoyed  the  noble  revenge  of 
scourging  the  dead  king's  decaying  remains  before  he  would 
allow  them  to  be  consigned  to  Christian  sepulture.4 

It  requires  no  effort  of  the  imagination  to  conceive  the  al 
most  illimitable  power  conferred  upon  those  who  thus  could  at 
any  moment  strike  down  their  enemies,  public  or  private,  with 
a  weapon  so  irresistible  ;  and  it  was  only  a  logical  conclusion 
from  such  premises  \vhen  Thomas  a  Becket  exclaimed,  "Who 
doubts  that  the  ministers  of  Christ  are  the  fathers  and  masters 
of  kings,  and  princes,  and  all  the  faithful?  Is  it  not  recognized 
as  miserable  madness  when  the  child  endeavors  to  subdue  the 
father,  or  the  disciple  his  master,  and  to  impose  unjust  condi- 

1  Pxobert.  de  Monte,  ann.  1141. 

2  Roger.  Hoved.  ann.  1188.    Cf.  Gesta  Henrici  II.  pp.  203,  265,  270-7 
(M.  R.  Series). 

3  Pascal  PP.  II.  Epist.  307,  349. 

4  Haddan  and  Stubbs's  Councils  of  Gr.  Brit.  I.  393. 


THE  CHURCH  AND  FEUDALISM.        385 

tions  on  him  who  is  known  to  have  the  power  of  binding  and 
loosing  him  not  only  on  earth,  but  in  heaven?"1  So  absolute 
was  this  domination,  that  in  1497  we  see  the  Abbot  of  Weis- 
senberg  excommunicating  the  Elector  Philip,  Palatine  of  the 
Rhine  and  Duke  of  Bavaria,  not  only  without  trial,  but  without 
notice,  summons,  or  complaint,  and,  notwithstanding  the  irregu 
larity  of  this  proceeding,  all  that  the  powerful  prince  could  do 
was  to  apply  to  Maximilian  I.  to  intercede  for  him  with  the 
pope  to  have  the  curse  removed.2 

The  power  thus  inherent  in  the  humblest  member  of  the 
hierarchy  was  concentrated  in  the  person  of  the  pope,  whose 
sentence  was  without  appeal,  while  he  could  revoke  the  im 
precations  of  his  subordinates;  for  though  the  rule  that  the 
ban  must  be  removed  by  him  who  had  imposed  it  still  held 
good — 

Gif  thou  a  mon  a-corset  has, 
He  mote  nede  be  soyled  of  the, 
Whoso  paresclien  eucr  he  be3 — 

still  it  referred  of  course  only  to  action  among  equals,  and  the 
punishment  could  be  set  aside  on  appeal  to  a  superior. 

The  papal  prerogative  therefore  became  limited  in  principle 
aiily  by  the  discretion  or  ability  of  the  wearer  of  the  tiara; 
though  in  practice,  of  course,  there  were  extremes  beyond 
which  it  was  not  safe  to  exercise  the  rights  claimed  as  impre 
scriptible  and  indefeasible.  Plow  far  the  mediaeval  casuists 
were  disposed  to  push  their  definitions  of  papal  omnipotence 
and  irresponsibility  is  shown  in  a  declaration  of  the  canon  law 
that  if  a  pope  was  so  lost  to  the  duties  of  his  high  station  that 
through  negligence  he  drew  innumerable  multitudes  of  the 
faithful  with  him  to  hell,  yet  was  he  not  to  be  reproved  by 
any  man,  for  he  was  to  judge  mankind,  and  not  to  be  judged 

1  S.  Thomse  Cantuar.  Epist.  73  (Ed.  Giles). 

'  *  Epist.  Maximil.  I.  ad  Pontif.  (Ludewig  Reliq.  Mssctor.  T.  VI.  p. 
103). 

3  Myrc's  Instructions  to  Parish  Priests,  p.  26. 

33 


386  EXCOMMUNICATION. 

by  man  ;  therefore  the  nations  were  to  pray  for  him,  for  on 
him  their  salvation  depended,  next  to  God.1  When  such  were 
the  teachings  of  the  church,  Matthew  of  Vendome  could  well 
exclaim — 

Papa  regit  reges,  dominos  dominatur,  acerbis 
Principibus  stabili  jure  jubere  jubet.2 

And  in  this  he  only  paraphrased  the  declaration  of  Innocent 
III.,  who  asserted  that  Christ  had  subjected  to  the  rule  of  the 
popes  not  only  the  whole  church  but  the  whole  world  ;3  while 
Clement  IV.,  in  1254,  claimed  that  the  Roman  church,  as  the 
mother  and  mistress  of  all,  possessed  supreme  sovereignty  over 
kings  and  kingdoms,  and  that  through  it  the  whole  Catholic 
world  was  governed.4  These  doctrines  were  fully  accepted  by 
the  canonists  ;  and  a  writer,  who  passes  under  the  name  of 
Thomas  Aquinas,  only  expressed  the  accepted  belief  when  he 
argued  that  the  temporal  jurisdiction  of  kings  and  potentates 
was  simply  derivative  from  the  power  entrusted  by  Christ  to 
Peter  and  his  successors,  though  he  admitted  that  in  some  re 
spects  the  functions  of  the  popes  were  not  equal  to  those  of 
Christ.5  Even  after  the  Reformation,  Simancas,  Bishop  of 
ISadajoz,  declared  that  the  popes  have  power  to  dethrone  kings 
who  are  useless  to  their  subjects  and  who  adopt  laws  adverse 
to  the  interests  of  religion  ;6  and  the  casuists  decided  that  the 
pope  could  compel  a  king  to  marry  any  individual  woman,  if 

1  Gratian.  Decrct.  P.  i.  Dist.  40  can.  6.— This  was  one  of  the  canons 
alleged  by  Luther  in  justification  of  his  publicly  burning:  the  canon  law 
at  Wittemberg  in  1520  (Lutheri  Opp.  Jeuae,  1581,  T.  II.  fol.  8176). 

2  Matt.  Vindocinens.  Commeudat.  Papa3  (Migue's  Patrol.  T.  205,  p. 
980). 

3  Innocent.  PP.  III.  Lib.  n.  Epist.  209. 

4  Cod.  Epist.  Rudolphi  I.  p.  305  (Lipsire,  1800). 

5  S.  Th.  Aquinat.  de  Priucipum  Regiraine  Lib.  in.  cap.  10.    The  authen 
ticity  of  this  work  is  more  than  doubtful,  but  as  it  was  universally  at 
tributed  to  Aquinas  it  contained  nothing  to  shock  the  opinions  of  the 
orthodox. 

6  Jacob.  Simancu;  de  Cathol.  lustit.  Tit.  XLV.  No.  25  (Romae,  1575). 


THE     CHURCH     AND     FEUDALISM.  387 

it  were  for  the  benefit  of  the  church.1  While  thus  there  was 
no  question  so  great  as  to  be  beyond  the  limit  of  papal  jurisdic 
tion,  there  was  none  so  small  but  what  it  could  be  carried  by 
appeal  to  Rome.  Alexander  III.  was  obliged  to  inform  a 
bishop  of  Exeter  that  if  children  in  an  ecclesiastical  school 
quarrelled  and  angrily  pummelled  each  other,  they  were  to  be 
sent  to  Rome  for  punishment,  but  that  if  it  occurred  in  play 
the  matter  ought  to  be  settled  at  home  and  not  to  be  sent  to 
him  for  adjudication.2  Thus,  from  the  highest  to  the  lowest, 
every  man  in  Christendom  might  at  any  moment  find  himself 
at  the  mercy  of  the  Supreme  Pontiff,  whose  decrees  were  final 
and  irreversible.  The  pope  was  not  only,  indeed,  the  ruler  of 
kings  and  the  sovereign  of  monarehs,  but  he  was  more  than 
man  and  little  less  than  God.  As  Geoffrey  Vinsauf  declares, 
addressing  Innocent  III 

Non  Deus  es,  nee  homo  ;  sed  neuter  et  inter  utrumqne, 
Qnem  Dens  elegit  socium  :  socialitcr  egit 
Tecum  partitus  mundum,  sibi  noluit  unus 
Omnia,  sed,  voluit  tibi  terras  et  sibi  coalum.3 

This  is  not  to  be  considered  as  the  delirium  of  blasphemous  flat 
tery.  Already  in  the  ninth  century  Nicholas  I.  had  seriously 
argued  that  the  pope  could  not  be  bound  or  loosed  by  the 
secular  powers,  because  Constantino  had  called  him  God,  and 
it  was  manifest  that  God  was  not  to  be  judged  by  man.4  In 
deed,  if,  as  it  was  in  good  faith  alleged,  the  simple  priest  was 
superior  to  the  angels,  because  he  could  in  the  Eucharist  bring 
the  true  body  of  Christ  to  earth  from  heaven  in  an  instant,5 


J  Rodriguez,  Nuova  Somma  de'  Casi  di  Coscienza  P.  i.  c.  230  No.  7. 

2  Lib.  v.  Extra  Tit.  xxxix.  c.  1. 

3  Hurter,  Hist,  du  Tape  Innocent  III.,  Paris,  1840,  T.  I.  p.  08.     Vinsauf 
failed  in  receiving  the  reward  of  his  adulation,  whereupon  his  facile  pen 
found  no  difficulty  in  decrying  the  pope  as  energetically  as  it  had  flat 
tered  him. 

4  Gratian.  Decret.  L.Dist.  xcvi.  c.  vii. 

5  Marquardi  de  Susanis   Tract,   dc   Coelibatu   Sacerdotum,   Venetiis, 
1505— a  work  dedicated  to  Pius  IV. 


388  EXCOMMUNICATION. 

there  was  small  hesitation  in  thus  extolling  the  faculties  of  the 
visible  head  of  the  church.  Such  in  fact  was  the  conviction 
of  the  church,  and  Innocent  III.  himself,  in  his  sermon  de 
livered  on  his  consecration,  had  no  hesitation  in  asserting  the 
same  of  himself — "  Now  you  may  see  who  is  the  servant  who 
is  placed  over  the  family  of  the  Lord;  truly  is  he  the  vicar  of 
Jesus  Christ,  the  successor  of  Peter,  the  Christ  of  the  Lord, 
the  God  of  Pharaoh  ;  placed  in  the  middle  between  God  and 
man,  on  this  side  of  God,  but  beyond  man  ;  less  than  God,  but 
greater  than  man  ;  who  judges  all,  but  is  judged  of  none."1 
The  character  of  Innocent  forbids  us  to  suppose  that  he  mag 
nified  his  office  beyond  his  own  honest  conviction  of  the  posi 
tion  assigned  to  it  by  God,  and  his  conviction  was  that  of  all 
faithful  Christians.  He  was  no  charlatan,  and  when  on  the 
same  occasion  he  expressed  his  anxiety  lest  he  should  kill  the 
souls  that  ought  to  enjoy  eternal  life,  or  give  life  to  those 
which  ought  to  die,  we  can  measure  the  extent  to  which  it  was 
conceded  that  God  had  abnegated  His  power  and  had  intrusted 
it  to  a  mortal.2 

1  "Vicarius  Jesu   Christi,   Christus   Domini,   Deus  Pharaonis ;   inter 
Deum  et  hominem  medius  constitutus,  citra  Denm  sed  ultra  hominem  ; 
minor  Deo  sed  major  homine;  qui  de  omnibus  judicat,  et  a  nemine  judi- 
catur.''— Innocent.  PP.  III.  Serm.  iii.  in  Consecrat.  (Migne's  Patrol.  T. 
217,  p.  659). 

2  Ibid.  p.  658. — Experience  of  his  own  fallibility  seems  in  time  to  have 
sobered  Innocent  somewhat,  and  towards  the  close  of  his  pontificate  he 
was  by  no  means  so  assured  of  his  omnipotence.     In  1212  he  admits  that 
the  church  may  err,  and  that  its  judgment  may  be  very  different  from 
that  of  God — "Judicium  Dei  veritati  qune  uon  fallit  iiec  fallitur  semper 
innititur;  Judicium  autem  ecclesiae   nonnunquam   opinionem   sequitur, 
quam  et  fallere  ssepe  contingit,  et  falli ;  propter  quod  contingit  interduin 
lit  qui  ligatus  est  apud  Deum,  apud  ecclesiam  sit  solutus  :  et  qui  liber 
est  apud  Deum,  ecclesiastica  sit  sententia  innodatus.'"     (Cap.  28  Extra 
v.  xxxix.) 

The  admission  of  this  into  the  decretals  of  Gregory  IX.  shows  that  the 
fallibility  of  the  church  in  the  distribution  of  its  censures  was  acknowl 
edged,  yet  to  examine  the  doctrines  of  the  casuists  as  to  the  sentences 
which  were  irrefragable  and  those  which  could  be  set  aside  by  the  mercy 
of  God  would  occupy  too  much  space.  Theoretically  it  was  admitted 


THE  CHURCH  AND  FEUDALISM.        389 

• 

These  assumptions,  as  I  have  said,  were  accepted  by  the 
church.  In  1335  Bishop  Alvarez  Pelayo  lays  down  the  doc 
trine  that  as  Christ  partook  of  the  nature  of  God  and  man,  so 
the  pope,  as  His  vicar,  participates  with  Him  in  the  divine 
nature  as  to  spiritual  things  and  in  the  nature  of  man  as  to 
temporals,1  so  that  he  is  not  simply  a  man  but  rather  a  God 
on  earth.2  These  extravagances  are  perpetuated  to  modern 
times.  During  the  sessions  of  the  Vatican  Council,  on  Jan. 
9,  1870,  Mermeillod,  Bishop  of  Hebron  and  Coadjutor  of 
Geneva,  in  a  sermon  preached  in  the  church  of  San  Andrea 
delle  Valle,  described  three  incarnations  of  Christ — the  first 
in  Judea  for  the  Atonement,  the  next  in  the  sacrifice  of  the 
Eucharist,  and  now  "  the  Saviour  is  once  more  on  earth — He 
is  in  the  Vatican  in  the  person  of  an  aged  man" — and  the 
promotion  with  which  the  preacher  was  rewarded  showed  that 
such  adulation  was  duly  appreciated.  Scarcely  less  blasphe 
mous  were  the  expressions  used  by  the  Irish  church  at  the 
Triduum,  or  celebration  of  papal  infallibility  in  Dublin,  in 
September,  1870 — "The  pope  is  Christ  in  office,  Christ  in 
jurisdiction  and  power  ...  we  bow  down  before  thy  voice,  O 
Pius,  as  before  the  voice  of  Christ,  the  God  of  Truth  ...  in 
clinging  to  thee,  we  cling  to  Christ." 

The  mediaeval  doctors,  indeed,  could  hardly  find  words 
strong  enough  to  express  their  sense  of  the  irresponsible  omni 
potence  of  the  pope.  In  the  twelfth  century  Peter  Cantor 
complains  that  the  canons  existed  solely  at  the  pleasure  of  the 

that  the  decree  of  excommunication  did  not  irreversibly  consign  its  sub 
ject  to  perdition,  but  practically  the  power  of  the  church  to  regulate  at 
will  the  future  destiny  of  the  faithful  was  assumed  and  acted  on. 

1  Quia  sicut  Christus  est  dcus  et  homo  ...  sic  ejus  vicarius  generalis 
et  singularis  papa  participat  cum  Christo  quodammodo  nature  divinitatis 
quoad  spiritualia,  et  humanitatis  quoad  temporalia.— Alvari  Pelagii  de 
Planctu  Ecclesise  Lib.  i.  Art.  37  Rat.  2  (Lugdun.  1517,  fol.  viii.). 

2  Ejusd.  Lib.  I.  Art.  G8  No.  J.  (fol.  Ixix.)— "  Papa  nou  homo  simpliciter 
sed  quasi  deus  in  terris  est."     Yet  Pelayo  was  by  no  means  blind  to  the 
crimes  of  the  popes,  and  catalogues  them  with  a  fulness  that  no  orthodox 
writer  since  the  Reformation  would  venture  to  do— Ibid.  Lib.  IT.  Art.  15. 

33* 


390  EXCOMMUNICATION. 

# 

pope,1  which  shows  that  Gratian's  assertion  to  that  effect  had 
become  practically  recognized.2  When  such  opinions  were 
current,  it  need  not  surprise  us  that  not  long  after  this  period 
the  legal  author  of  the  Bichstich  Landrecht,  while  defining 
with  jealous  care  the  boundary  between  papal  and  secular 
legislation,  adds  that  the  clergy  claim  for  the  pope  the  right 
to  alter  the  doctrines  of  the  Apostles  ;3  and  that  good  eccle 
siastical  authority  asserted  that  "  The  pope  is  bound  by  no 
forms  of  law  ;  his  pleasure  is  law" — "  The  pope  makes  right 
of  that  which  is  wrong,  and  can  change  the  nature  of  things" 
— "  The  pope  is  all  and  over  all ;  he  can  change  square  things 
into  round,  make  black  white,  and  white  black"4 — "  The  pope 
can  destroy  the  whole  of  the  canon  law  and  enact  a  new  one."5 
All  of  which  is  scarcely  more  extravagant  than  the  power 
which  Eugenius  IV.,  in  1439,  declared  to  be  inherent  in  the 
papacy.6  Adrian  VI.  was  fully  of  this  persuasion  when  in 
1523  he  sought  to  withdraw  the  Elector  Frederick  of  Saxony 
from  the  support  of  Luther  ;  and,  to  prove  that  the  ecclesias 
tical  body  could  not  through  corruption  forfeit  its  right  to  the 
obedience  of  the  laity,  he  argued  thus — "Thou  art  a  sheep; 
presume  not  to  impugn  thy  shepherd,  nor  to  judge  thy  God 
and  Christ."7  An  organization  which  thus  conferred  super 
human  prerogatives  on  human  frailty  invited  corruption  ;  and 
that  it  should  succumb  to  the  evil  influences  thus  fostered  can 
surely  not  be  a  matter  for  surprise.  As  the  cardinals  com- 

1  In   ejus   enim    pot  estate   est    condendi,   interprctandi   et  abrogandi 
canones. — Pet.  Cantor.  Verb.  Abbrev.  cap.  LIU. 

2  Gratian.  P.  u.  caus.  xxv.  quest.  2  ad  calcern. 

3  Richstich  Landrecht,  Lib.  n.  cap.  24. 

4  Prosper  Fagnani,  Commentt.  in  Libb.  Decretalium,  Vesuntione,  17-40, 
pp.  153,  297,  592  (Ap.  Chavard.  Le  Celibat  des  Pretres,  Paris,  1874,  p. 
340). 

5  See  the  propositions  of  John  Angelus,  condemned  by  the  University 
of  Paris  in  1482  (Geddes'  Modest  Apology  for  the  Catholics  of  Great 
Britain,  p.  97). 

6  Raynald.  Annal.  aim.  1439  No.  37. 

7  Adrian!  PP.  VI.  Breve  ad  Frid.  Saxon.     (Lutheri  Opp.  Jen:e,  15S1, 
T.  I.  fol.  543 fc. 


T  tf  E     CHURCH     AND     FEUDALISM.  391 

missioned  in  1538  by  Paul  III.  to  frame  a  project  of  refor 
mation  for  the  church,  expressed  it  in  their  report  to  him — 
"  The  predecessors  of  your  Holiness  surrounded  themselves 
with  advisers  selected  with  the  object  not  of  learning  what 
they  ought  to  do  but  of  cunningly  finding  excuses  for  doing  as 
they  pleased.  Thence  it  has  followed  that  the  wishes  of  the 
popes  have  been  the  sole  rule  of  their  actions,  and  they  have 
grown  to  believe  that  whatever  they  desired  was  lawful  to 
them.  From  this  source,  holy  father,  as  from  the  Trojan  horse, 
it  is  that  the  church  of  God  is  overwhelmed  with  so  many 
abuses  and  diseases  so  grave  as  those  by  which  we  see  her  now 
reduced  to  a  condition  almost  hopeless  ;  and  the  knowledge  of 
these  things  has  reached  even  to  the  Infidel  (if  your  Holiness 
will  believe  those  who  know)  who  principally  on  this  account 
ridicule  the  Christian  religion,  so  that  through  us,  through  us 
we  say,  the  name  of  Christ  is  blasphemed  throughout  the 
world."1 

It  may  be  uncharitable  to  assume  that  it  is  only  the  unbelief 
of  godless  generations  that  restrains  the  church  from  similar 
degeneracy  at  the  present  day,  for,  as  we  have  seen,  it  has 
abated  no  jot  of  its  pretensions  to  the  illimitable  supremacy  of 
its  chief.  The  logical  deduction  from  such  principles  is  to  be 
found  in  the  assertion  by  a  leading  organ  of  the  church  in 

America "  The  finger  of  the    pope,  like  the   needle  in  the 

compass,  invariably  points  to  the  pole  of  eternal  truth,  and  the 
mind  of  the  sovereign  pontiff  is  as  certain  to  reflect  the  mind 
and  will  of  God,  as  the  mirror  at  one  end  of  a  submarine  cable 
to  indicate  the  electric  signal  made  at  the  other."2  Men  who 
can  promulgate  doctrines  such  as  these  are  quite  prepared  to 
take  advantage  of  all  the  possible  consequences  of  Infallibility. 

1  Le  Plat,  Monument.  Coricil.  Trident.  II.  590.     The  commission  which 
drew  up  this  report  was  composed  of  the  best  men  of  the  Roman  court. 
Caraffa,  afterwards  Paul  IV.,  was  its  head,  assisted  by  Cardinals  Conta- 
rini,  Sadoleti,  Reginald  Pole  and  others.    In  its  outspoken  frankness  it 
gives  a  picture  of  the  corruptions  of  the  church  as  damaging  as  anything 
the  Reformers  dared  to  allege. 

2  Catholic  World,  Now  York,  July,  1870. 


392  EXCOMMUNICATION. 


TEMPORAL  PENALTIES. 

This  marvellous  structure  of  theocratic  autocracy  was  not 
erected  solely  on  the  spiritual  powers  claimed  by  the  church. 
Indeed,  had  excommunication  entailed  only  the  remote  con 
sequence  of  perdition,  it  would  have  been  comparatively  inert 
in  its  effects  on  the  violence  of  the  turbulent  races  of  Europe. 
Its  full  significance,  however,  was  insured  by  its  carrying  with 
it  a  constantly  increasing  list  of  temporal  disabilities  and 
penalties.  We  have  seen  how  Charlemagne  lent  the  power  of 
the  state  to  the  church  which  he  used  as  an  instrument  in  con 
structing  his  evanescent  civilization,  and  how  his  impotent 
successors  vainly  sought  to  strengthen  themselves  by  fusing 
the  temporal  and  spiritual  punishments.  The  power  of  calling 
upon  the  state  then  granted  to  the  church  was  improved  by  the 
forgery  of  the  Capitulary  of  Louis  le  Debonnaire,  prescribing 
a  year  and  a  day  as  the  limit  beyond  which  the  disregard  of 
excommunication  entailed  the  severest  temporal  inflictions, 
and  these  rights  became  the  most  effective  means  of  subduing 
the  state,  as  Henry  IV.  found  by  the  bitterest  experience.  It 
was  gradually  recognized  in  the  jurisprudence  of  all  Europe 
that  the  civil  power  was  bound  to  aid  in  the  enforcement  of 
ecclesiastical  censures;  and  thus  the  jurisdiction  of  the  church 
became  a  net,  strong  enough  to  hold  the  most  powerful,  yet 
with  meshes  so  fine  that  the  smallest  and  humblest  could  not 
escape.  It  was  bound  by  no  statute  of  limitations,  nor  con 
fined  by  any  territorial  circumscription  ;  the  sentence  pro 
nounced  in  Lisbon  was  equally  valid  in  Copenhagen  ;  to  escape 
it  the  criminal  must  take  refuge  with  the  schismatic  Greek  or 
the  infidel  Moslem  ;  and  if  he  evaded  it  by  opportunely  dying 
his  bones  could  be  cast  forth  from  their  resting-place,  and  his 
posterity  could  be  visited  with  the  reversion  of  the  civil 
penalties. 


TEMPORAL    PENALTIES.  393 

The  segregation  which  we  have  seen  practised  in  the  earlier 
ages  of  the  church  had  by  this  time  become  a  portion  of  the 
penalty  of  excommunication  far  more  serious  to  wordly  minds 
than  the  remote  spiritual  consequences  which  death-bed  peni 
tence  might  haply  remove.  The  liability  to  share  the  punish 
ment  of  an  excommunicate  for  the  simplest  offices  or  greeting 
tendered  to  him  was  universally  admitted.1  No  one  was  even 
to  salute  him,  and  the  confessor  was  instructed,  among  the 
regular  questions  addressed  to  his  penitents,  to  inquire  whether 
they  had  exchanged  a  word  or  a  greeting  with  any  one  under 
the  ban  of  the  church.2  Worse  than  a  leper,  he  was  to  die 
like  a  dog,  and  all  the  promptings  of  humanity  in  his  behalf 
were  to  be  sternly  repressed.  About  11*20  a  monk  of  Flay 
abandoning  his  monastery  gave  as  a  reason  that  he  was  a 
physician,  and  that  his  abbot  had  forced  him  to  exercise  his 
art  on  excommunicates,  for  the  benefit  of  the  abbey,  to  the 
manifest  peril  of  his  soul, — and  St.  Bernard  esteemed  the  reason 
a  valid  one.3  Of  course,  to  supply  the  anathematized  with  the 
necessaries  of  life  was  a  heinous  offence,  and  in  the  bull  pub 
lished  about  the  year  1420,  by  Martin  V.  against  his  rival 
Peter  de  Luna  and  his  cardinals,  the  pope  declares  that  if  any 
one  shall  give  or  sell  them  bread  or  water,  or  other  assistance, 
he  shall  ipso  facto  be  excommunicate  until  death,  and  his 
descendants,  male  and  female,  to  the  second  generation,  shall 
be  subject  to  the  civil  disabilities  consequent  upon  excision 
from  the  church.4 

The  excommunicate  thus  shed  around  him  a  contagion 
which  cut  him  off  from  all  human  society  and  left  him  to 
perish  in  misery  and  starvation.  This  was  no  mere  theoretical 
infliction,  but  a  law  enforced  with  all  the  power  of  the  church 
and  applied  so  liberally  that  it  became  almost  impossible  for 

1  Ordo  Excom.  Ssec.  x.  (Migno's  Patrol.  T.  138  p.  1125). 

2  Burchard.  Decret.  Lib.  xix.  cap.  5  §  de  excommunicat. 

3  S.  Bernard*  Epist.  67. 

4  Ludewig.  Reliq.  Mssctor.  T.  V.  pp.  424-5. 


394  EXCOMMUNICATION. 

the  innocent  to  escape  its  effects.  In  the  early  part  of  the 
fifteenth  century,  Chancellor  Gerson  complains  of  this  as  an 
intolerable  abuse,  and  suggests  as  the  only  mode  of  preserving 
the  conscientious  Christian  from  ceaseless  peril,  that  account 
ability  should  only  attach  to  associating  with  those  whose  ex 
communication  had  been  formally  pronounced  by  a  regular 
sentence,  and  not  when  it  had  merely  been  incurred  by  infring 
ing  some  rule  for  which  an  ipso  facto  anathema  was  the  pen 
alty1 — as  in  the  former  case  there  was  some  chance  that  the 
condition  of  the  criminal  might  be  known,  while  in  the  latter 
it  was  almost  impossible  that  those  who  met  him  could  be  aware 
of  his  guilt  and  its  consequences.  Flagrantly  unjust  as  was 
the  refusal  of  this  slender  concession,  yet  the  ecclesiastical  au 
thorities  were  unwilling  to  grant  it.  It  was  one  of  the  reforms 
expected  of  the  council  of  Constance,  but  that  body  separated 
without  accomplishing  any  of  the  measures  for  which  it  had 
been  assembled,  except  the  condemnation  of  the  Hussites  and 
the  extinguishment  of  the  Great  Schism  ;  and  the  only  effort 
made  in  this  direction  was  a  clause  in  the  concordat  between 
Martin  V.  and  the  Germans,  under  the  auspices  of  the  council* 
by  which  the  very  moderate  concession  suggested  by  Gerson 
was  provided  as  a  special  and  merciful  grace  to  the  subjects  of 
the  empire,  no  such  clause  being  inserted  in  the  concordats 
proposed  with  France  and  England.2  The  council  of  Bfile 
assembled  with  a  more  resolute  determination  to  uproot  the 
abuses  which  were  destroying  the  church,  and  it  adopted  this 
provision  of  the  German  Concordat  as  a  general  rule.3  The 
well-meant  efforts  of  the  council,  however,  were  baffled  by  the 
invincible  repugnance  to  reform  manifested  by  the  papacy,  and 
so  little  was  this  decree  respected  that  we  find  the  limitation 
which  it  thus  established  as  a  universal  law  of  the  church 

1  Joann.  Gerson.  de  Vit.  Spirit.  Animse  Lect.  iv.  Coroll.  xiv.  Prop.  1. 

2  Concil.  Constant.  Sess.  XLIII.  (Harduin  VIII.  892).     Violence  offered 
to  ecclesiastics,  however,  was  excepted  from  the  benefits  of  the  limitation. 

3  Concil.  Basiliens.  Scss.  xx.  cap.  2  (Harduin.  VIII.  1194). 


TEMPORAL     PENALTIES.  395 

granted  once  more  as  a  special  favor  to  the  French,  in  151 G, 
by  Leo  X.  in  his  concordat  with  Francis  I.1 

All  this  is  very  suggestive  of  the  dangers  perpetually  sur 
rounding  those  who  had  the  misfortune  to  reside  where  no  such 
privileges  had  been  graciously  accorded,  and  even  this  modified 
restriction  by  no  means  afforded  immunity  from  the  consequences 
of  ignorance.  How  easily  the  most  conscientious  and  obedient 
sons  of  the  church  might  incur  the  heaviest  of  ecclesiastical 
censures  is  manifested  in  1297  by  a  complaint  from  the  citizens 
of  Berlin  to  Boniface  VIII.,  that  their  town  was  frequently 
subjected  to  interdict  in  consequence  of  ignorantly  furnishing 
food  and  shelter  to  wayfarers  who  subsequently  were  found  to 
be  excommunicates  ;  and  Boniface  graciously  granted  to  them 
as  a  special  privilege,  that  the  rule  should  not  be  enforced 
if  the  outcasts  left  the  town  promptly  or  were  forthwith  turned 
out  by  their  citizens  on  their  guilt  becoming  known.2 

The  whole  theory  of  the  consequences  of  excommunication 
is  well  developed  in  the  charter  of  foundation  granted  to  the 
church  of  St.  Mary  Magdalen,  in  1520,  by  Jerome,  Bishop  of 
Brandenburg.  All  who  dare  to  infringe  its  provisions  are  de 
clared  excommunicate,  nunc pro  tune  and  time  pro  mine.  For 
ten  days  the  anathema  is  to  be  pronounced  in  the  church, 
against  the  offender,  with  bell,  book,  and  candle,  when,  if  he 
remains  obdurate,  the  priest  at  the  head  of  the  citizens  is  to 
proceed  to  his  house  and  to  cast  at  it  three  stones  in  token  of 
eternal  damnation.  If  for  another  ten  days  he  continues  con 
tumacious,  then  his  friends  and  relations  and  servants  are  to 
be  warned  not  to  minister  to  him  salt,  or  food,  or  drink,  or 
water,  or  fire,  or  to  perform  any  other  office  of  humanity  under 
pain  of  sharing  his  punishment.  If  this  is  insufficient  for 
another  ten  days,  then  any  place,  or  town,  or  church,  or  mon 
astery  where  he  may  take  refuge  is  laid  under  an  interdict, 
lasting  until  three  days  after  his  departure.  If  the  hardened 

1  Concordat.  Leon.  X.  Rubr.  9  (Isambert,  Anc.  Lois  FraiiQ.  T.  XII.  pp. 
02-3). 

2  Luilewig.  Rcliq.  Mssctor.  T.  XI.  p.  01.8. 


396  EXCOMMUNICATION. 

sinner  persists  in  his  impenitence  for  ten  days  more,  then  all 
secular  authorities,  judges,  nobles,  and  others  having  jurisdiction 
are  ordered,  under  pain  of  excommunication,  to  seize  his  person 
and  property,  goods,  lands,  and  chattels,  for  imprisonment  and 
confiscation.1 

It  was  only  by  means  of  the  secular  power  that  these  con 
sequences  of  excommunication  could  be  enforced  ;  and  the 
secular  power,  as  a  rule,  was  prompt  in  lending  its  aid.  Almost 
every  code  in  Europe  pledged  its  assistance  to  vindicate  the 
authority  of  the  church,  and  this  was  generally  done  by  de 
priving  the  excommunicate  of  his  privileges  as  a  citizen,  or  by 
withdrawing  from  him  all  legal  protection  and  rendering  him 

an  outlaw — that  is  a  wild  beast,  bearing  a  caput  lupinum to 

be  tracked  and  slain  by  any  one. 

Notwithstanding  the  failure  of  Henry  II.  in  the  constitutions 
of  Clarendon,  the  English  law,  after  the  bitter  experience  of 
ecclesiastical  tenderness  under  King  John,  was  peculiarly 
jealous  of  all  ecclesiastical  interference.  Yet  the  excommuni 
cate  could  enter  into  no  legal  contracts  ;  he  had  no  standing  in 
court,  either  as  plaintiff  or  advocate  ;  he  was  denied  the  wao-er 
of  battle,  and  no  one  could  eat,  or  drink,  or  speak,  or  live  with 
him,  either  publicly  or  in  private;  he  was  held  to  be  a  leper 
and  worse  than  a  leper,  for  he  could  execute  no  legal  act.2 
Indeed,  from  the  time  of  the  Saxons,  harboring  an  excom 
municate  was  an  offence  against  the  crown  which  placed  the 
offender  at  the  king's  mercy,  both  as  to  person  and  property  ;3 

1  Fundationis  Eccles.  M.  Magdal.  §§  14-23  (Ludcwig.  T.  XI.  pp.  457- 
69).     See  also  the  excommunication  of  Rano  von  Kannenstein,  in  1467, 
by  the  Abbot  of  Pegau  (Ejusd.  T.  XII.  p.  276).     The  ceremony  of  stoning 
the  house  of  an  excommunicate  was  one  of  wide  extent.     It  was  forbid 
den  in  1337  by  the  council  of  Avignon  (Concil.  Avenion.  ann  1337  can. 
8.— Harduin.  VII.  1624-5). 

2  Home,  Myrror  of  Justice,  cap.  ii.   §§  3,  5,  27  ;  cap.  iii.  §  23.  —Brae- 
ton,  Lib.  v.  Tract,  v.  cap.  18  §  1 ;  cap.  23  §  1.— Fleta.  Lib.  vi.  cap.  xv.  §  2. 

3  Cnuti.  LI.  Secul.  Tit.  Ixvii.— LI.  Henrici  I.  Tit.  x.  §  1  ;  Tit.  xi.  §  14 ; 
Tit.  xiii.  §  10. 


TEMPORAL     PENALTIES.  39f 

and,  in  the  quarterly  curse  read  in  every  parish  church  in  Eng 
land  four  times  a  year  until  1534,  the  major  excommunication 
was  denounced  against  all  who  should  receive  "  a  cursed  man 
from  the  tyme  that  he  hath  layen  in  cursyng  xl  dayes  &  wil 
seke  for  no  remedy."1  If  any  one  thus  remained  under  ex 
communication  for  forty  days,  the  bishop  could  apply  to  the 
king's  court,  whence  immediately  a  writ  was  issued  to  the 
sheriff  commanding  him  to  seize  the  offender  and  to  imprison 
him  or  hold  him  in  sufficient  bail  until  he  gave  full  satisfaction 
to  the  church,  and  he  could  be  released  only  in  virtue  of  an 
episcopal  declaration  of  his  reconciliation,  unless,  indeed,  he 
could  prove  that  the  ecclesiastical  proceedings  against  him  had 
been  unlawful.2  Disobedience  to  the  king's  writ  entailed  out 
lawry,  with  all  its  tremendous  consequences,  and  this  was  the 
result  of  persistent  contumacy.''5  The  church  struggled  hard 
to  maintain  these  privileges,  which  were  not  unfrequently  dis 
regarded.  In  12(51,  the  council  of  Lambeth  complained  that 
sometimes  the  writ  de  excommunicato  capiendo  was  refused, 
in  which  case  it  orders  the  bishop  whose  application  was  dis 
regarded  to  place  under  interdict  all  the  royal  possessions  in 
his  diocese.  Sometimes,  also,  the  sheriffs  and  bailiffs  allowed 
the  bishop's  prisoners  to  be  discharged,  for  which  those  officials 
are  ordered  to  be  duly  excommunicated.4  A  century  later  the 
church  advanced  in  its  pretensions,  for  the  council  of  London 
in  1342  complains  bitterly  of  imprisoned  excommunicates 
being  liberated  on  ball  to  answer  before  the  ecclesiastical 
courts.  It  denounces  this  as  an  interference  with  the  jurisdic 
tion  of  the  church,  but  has  no  remedy  to  suggest  except  further 
excommunications.3 

Yet  with  all  this  the  independent   insular  spirit  is  shown  in 

1  Strype's  Eccles.  Memorials  I.  Append.  No.  xi,vi. 

2  Bracton,  Lib.  v.  Tract,  v.  cap.  ii.  §§  2,  4  ;  cap.  xxiii.  §  4. 

3  Bracton,  Lib.  in.  Tract,  ii.  cap.  xii.  §  8. 

4  Concil.  Lambeth,  arm.  1261  can.  de  Excorn.  capiend.  (Harduin.  VII. 
539). 

5  Concil.  London,  ami.  1342  can.  xiii.   (Harduin.  VII.  1666). 

34 


398  EXCOMiMUNICATION. 

the  power  assumed  by  the  king  of  commanding  the  ordinaries, 
or  episcopal  officials,  to  remove  excommunication  within  a 
stated  time,  and  in  1315  Edward  II.  promised  that  he  would 
issue  no  more  letters  to  that  effect,  except  in  cases  where  the 
ecclesiastical  sentence  appeared  to  infringe  upon  the  royal  pre 
rogative.1  It  was  ominous  of  the  future,  moreover,  that  when 
in  1389  the  Statute  of  Provisors,  which  deprived  the  papal 
court  of  patronage  in  the  English  church,  was  revived,  it  was 
re-enforced  by  a  provision  that  any  one  bringing  into  the  king 
dom  any  excommunication  for  actions  arising  under  the  statute 
should  be  imprisoned  with  liability  of  life  and  limb,  and  all  his 
lands  and  goods  be  forfeited  to  the  king;  while  any  one  pre 
tending  to  execute  such  an  excommunication,  should,  if  a  pre 
late,  be  deprived  of  his  temporalities  during  the  king's  pleasure, 
and,  if  of  lower  degree,  be  thrown  into  prison  and  subjected  to 
a  discretionary  fine.2 

Wales  was  even  more  prompt  in  enforcing  the  sentences  of 
the  ecclesiastical  courts,  and  the  law  was  obliged  to  interfere 
rather  for  the  protection  of  the  excommunicate  under  the  fear 
ful  disadvantages  of  his  outlawed  condition.  "  If  a  person  be 
excommunicated,  whatever  the  cause  for  which  lie  may  be  ex 
communicated,  and  the  lord  willeth  his  spoil  on  the  spot,  the 
law  says  that  he  is  not  to  suffer  spoliation  until  lie  shall  have 
been  excommunicated  a  month  and  a  day."3  That  he  should 
be  exposed  to  the  ordinary  disabilities  of  the  outlaw  is,  there 
fore,  a  matter  of  course.4  During  the  period  which  preceded 
the  final  absorption  of  Wales,  however,  the  Normanizing  influ 
ence  of  the  prelates  led  to  long  and  intricate  quarrels  between 
them  and  the  native  princes,  in  which  the  secular  power  fre 
quently  declined  to  support  the  censures  of  the  church.  Thus 

1  IX.  Edw.  II.  cap.  7  (Statutes  at  Large,  I.  168,  Ed.  1769). 

2  XIII.  Ric.  II.  cap.  3  (Ibid.  p.  395). 

3  Anomalous  Laws,  Bk.  v.  chap.  ii.  §  91  :  Bk.  xi.  ch.  iii.  §  23.     (Aneu- 
rin  Owen's  Ancient  Laws,  etc.,  of  Wales,  Vol.  II.  pp.  75,  411.) 

4  Diraetian  Code,  Bk.  ITT.  ch.  i.  §  10.— Anomalous  Laws,  Bk.  VITT.  ch. 
xi.  §  19.     (Ibid.  I.  591  ;  II.  205.) 


TEMPORAL     PENALTIES.  399 

in  a  settlement  of  disputed  questions  made  in  1201  between 
Llywelyn,  Prince  of  Wales,  and  Richard,  Bishop  of  Bangor, 
there  is  a  clause  providing  that  the  former,  when  duly  called 
upon,  shall  arrest  excommunicates,  which  apparently  he  had 
previously  refused  to  do.1 

In  France  the  church  at  first  seems  to  have  endeavored  to 
tal^e  the  matter  into  its  own  hands,  by  applying  both  spiritual 
and  temporal  penalties.  The  eulogist  of  Geoffrey  of  Muret, 
who  was  Abbot  of  Castres  in  1110,  describes  how  in  his  holy 
zeal  he  threw  into  his  dungeons  those  whom  he  had  delivered 
over  to  Satan,  if  they  remained  impenitent  for  a  year,  and  how 
his  victims,  recalcitrating  against  this  double  punishment,  ap 
pealed  to  the  secular  tribunals,  giving  rise  to  a  lively  quarrel 
between  the  two  jurisdictions.2  In  time,  however,  the  state 
came  to  the  aid  of  the  church,  and  supported  its  anathema 
with  civil  inflictions,  though  when  this  became  a  matter  of 
course,  I  cannot  affirm  with  certainty.  In  121G  we  find  the 
council  of  Melun  resolving  that  the  secular  power  should  be 
compelled  to  seize  the  persons  and  properties  of  all  who  re 
mained  under  the  ban  of  the  church  for  a  year  and  a  day.3 
The  first  formal  acceptance  of  this  doctrine  by  the  state,  how 
ever,  appears  to  have  arisen  from  the  efforts  to  quench  the 
Albigensian  heresy,  when  the  Regent  Blanche  of  Castile,  in 
1228,  in  an  edict  addressed  to  the  authorities  of  Nismes  and 
Narbonne,  deplores  the  contempt  generally  felt  in  those  dis 
tricts  for  the  sentence  of  excommunication,  and  directs  that 
avoidance  of  intercourse  with  excommunicates  shall  be  strictly 
observed,  while  any  one  remaining  unreconciled  for  a  year 
shall  be  compelled  to  seek  absolution  by  the  seizure  of  all  his 
property,  real  and  personal,  which  shall  not  be  returned  until 
he  shall  be  readmitted  to  communion,  and  not  even  then 

1  Haddan  and  Stubbs's  Councils  of  Gr.  Brit.  I.  490. 

2  Du  Cange,  Observations  sur  les  Memoires  de  Joinville,  P.  i.  No.  27. 

3  Concil.  Melodun.  ann.  1216  can.  2  (Harduin.  VIF.  85). 


400  EXCOMMUNICATION. 

without  a  special  inundate  from  the  crown.1  This  practically 
amounted  to  an  absolute  confiscation,  as  may  be  seen  in  the 
proceedings  of  various  councils  of  the  period  ;  and  to  quicken 
the  sensibilities  of  the  obdurate,  a  preliminary  mulct  of  ten 
livres  was  added,  to  be  levied  on  all  excommunicates  who  al 
lowed  forty  days  to  pass  without  seeking  reconciliation.2 

These  rules,  however,  were  scarcely  applicable  to  the  whole 
kingdom,  and  the  customary  cautious  sagacity  of  St.  Louis 
rendered  him  wary  in  pledging  his  power  to  the  blind  support 
of  those  who  too  often  used  their  spiritual  jurisdiction  for  the 
gratification  of  malice  or  ambition.  About  the  year  12f>0  an 
assembly  of  the  French  bishops  held  in  Paris  demanded  an  in 
terview  with  St.  Louis,  and  assured  him  that  he  was  allowing 
Christianity  to  be  destroyed.  The  good  king  crossed  himself 
and  Jisked  how  that  could  be,  when  Guy,  Bishop  of  Auxerre, 
replied  that  it  was  because  excommunications  were  no  longer 
respected,  and  men  preferred  to  die  under  the  anathema  rather 
than  to  seek  absolution.  Therefore  they  requested  him  to 
issue  an  edict  commanding  his  officers  to  seize  the  possessions 
of  all  who  remained  for  a  year  and  a  day  under  the  censure  of 
the  church.  To  this  St.  Louis  replied  that  he  would  willingly 
do  so  in  all  cases  where  parties  were  found  to  be  in  the  wrong 
towards  the  church  or  her  ministers.  The  prelates  responded 
that  the  secular  courts  had  no  authority  to  investigate  such 
matters,  but  the  king  was  firm,  illustrating  his  position  by  the 
case  of  the  Count  of  Brit'anny  who  remained  under  excommu 
nication  for  seven  years,  while  pleading  against  his  clergy,  and 
finally  obtained  a  verdict  in  his  favor  from  the  pope  himself. 
Now,  said  the  king,  if  I  had  forced  the  count  to  submit  at  the 
end  of  the  first  year,  I  should  have  done  wrong  to  God  and 
man,  and  it  would  be  contrary  to  God's  justice  were  I  to  con 
strain  those  whom  the  clergy  have  wronged  to  seek  absolution 
without  hearing  their  appeals.  This  was  unanswerable,  and 

1  Ordouu.  ami.  1228,  §  7  (Isambert,  Ane.  Lois  Frai:p.  I.  233). 

2  Concil.  apud  Copriniacum  aim.  1238  can.  17, 18  (Harduin.  VTT.  310). 
— Concil.  Bitorrens.  ami.  1246  can.  36  (Ibid.  p.  413). 


TEMPORAL     PENALTIES.  401 

St.  Louis  was  troubled  with  no  more  requests  of  the  kind.1 
Joinville  describes  this  scene  as  an  eye-witness,  and  his  testi 
mony  is  not  to  be  doubted,  yet  there  is  no  trace  of  any  such 
regulations  in  the  legislation  attributed  to.  St.  Louis.  In  the 
collection  known  as  the  Etablissements  it  is  ordered  that  the 
royal  officers,  when  summoned  by  the  bishop,  shall  seize  both 
person  and  property  of  any  one  remaining  under  excommunica 
tion  for  a  year  and  a  day,  without  providing  for  any  inquest  into 
the  circumstances  connected  with  the  case.2  The  people,  how 
ever,  were  apparently  growing  careless  of  the  spiritual  thunders 
of  the  church,  and  the  prelates  were  too  impatient  to  await  the 
delay  prescribed  by  law,  for,  in  a  synod  held  in  Anjou  in  1265, 
we  find  a  regulation  ordering  that  when  any  one  remained 
under  excommunication  for  the  space  of  two  months,  his  wife 
and  children  should  be  interdicted  and  deprived  of  all  the 
sacraments  of  the  church,  except  those  of  baptism  and  peni 
tence,  the  reason  given  for  this  vicarious  outrage  being  that 
men  were  becoming  insensible  to  the  censures  of  the  church 
and  required  some  additional  stimulus  to  obedience.3  Even 
the  secular  law  was  frequently  disregarded,  ami  its  observance 
had  to  be  secured  by  repeated  enactments,  such  as  that  of 
Philip  III.  shortly  after  his  father's  death  in  1274,  and  of 
Louis  X.  in  1315,*  and  complaints  of  its  neglect  continually 
arose.  The  whole  subject  appears  to  have  been  one  regulated 
by  no  settled  principle,  for  in  1280  the  Parlement  decided,  in 
a  case  between  the  king  and  the  Archbishop  of  Tours,  that  the 
royal  officers  were  not  bound  to  coerce  excommunicates  by 
the  seizure  of  persons  and  property  ;5  and  yet  in  the  same 

1  Joinville,  Histoire  de  Saint  Loys. — This  lias  been  considered  as  the 
origin  of  the  appellate  power  exercised  by  the  crown  in  the  appel  comrne 
d'abus  (Isambert  I.  358). 

2  fitablissements,  Liv.  I.  chap.  123. 

3  Synod.  Andegavens.  ann.  1265  cap.  iii.   (D'Achery  T.  728).     Com 
plaints  of  the  neglect  of  this  rule  are  uttered  in  a  subsequent  synod  ot 
1270  (Ibid.  p.  730). 

4  Isambert  II.  655,  III.  123. 

5  Aetes  du  Purl,  de  Paris,  T.  I.  p.  362  Xo.  418  (Paris,  1863). 

34* 


402  EXCOMMUNICATION. 

year,  on  complaint  of  the  Bishop  of  Poitiers,  it  ordered  that 
excommunicates  should  be  punished  by  the  secular  power  ac 
cording  to  custom.1  Under  these  conflicting  decisions  it  is  no 
wonder  that  the  royal  officials  were  not  alert  in  seconding  the 
ecclesistical  courts;  and  in  1291  we  find  an  agreement  between 
the  king  and  the  Archbishop  of  Bourges,  wherein  the  latter 
promises  that  he  will  no  longer  prosecute  the  royal  bailli  to 
force  him  to  execute  the  sentence  of  excommunication  on  those 
who  happened  to  have  nothing  that  could  be  seized.2  Some, 
indeed,  did  not  confine  themselves  to  merely  the  resistance  of 
inertia,  for  in  1299  Philippe  le  Bel  was  obliged  to  command 
his  baillis  in  Touraine  and  Le  Mans  not  to  protect  excommu 
nicates  as  they  were  in  the  habit  of  doing,  but  to  constrain 
them  to  submission  according  to  the  laws.3 

It  thus  required  repeated  enunciations  of  the  principle  to 
secure  its  observance,  and  the  church  was  not  idle  in  contri 
buting  to  the  good  work.  It  was  no  easy  task,  indeed,  to 
keep  the  faithful  in  the  due  condition  of  obedience.  Occa 
sionally  sons  of  Belial  were  found  who  even  dared  irreverently 
to  retort  the  censures  of  the  church,  by  burlesquing  the  awful 
rites  which  symbolized  the  destruction  of  their  souls.  With 
wisps  of  lighted  straw,  tallow  candles,  pans  of  burning  coals, 
and  other  profane  contrivances,  they  mimicked  the  condemna 
tion  passed  upon  them,  to  the  infinite  scandal  of  all  believers. 
Such  hopeless  sinners  were  manifestly  beyond  the  reach  of 
spiritual  terrors,  and  the  council  of  Avignon,  in  1326,  was 
compelled  to  call  upon  the  secular  authorities  to  do  their  duty 
in  compelling  all  who  remained  for  two  months  under  excom 
munication  to  seek  absolution.  Judges  and  seigneurs  who 


1  Oliin,  III.  167. 

'2  Actes  du  Par!,  de  Paris,  T.  I.  p.  270,  No.  '2754.  Cf.  Oliin,  II.  322-3. 
For  an  arrangement  with  the  Bishop  of  Coutanc.es  see  Les  Glim  II.  209. 

3  Guillel.  Major.  Episc.  Audegav.  Gest.  cap.  xliii.  (D'Achery  Spicileg. 
II.  194).  The  troubles  in  this  case  arose  in  the  collection  of  the  tithes 
and  aids  granted  by  the  church  to  the  king'  to  assist  him  in  his  war  with 
Flanders. 


TEMPORAL     PENALTIES.  403 

neglected  this  were  themselves  threatened  with  the  anathema  ; 
and  if  persistently  contumacious,  their  territories  were  placed 
under  interdict.  As  though  taught  by  experience,  however, 
that  this  was  insufficient,  the  church  further  took  the  matter 
of  temporal  penalties  into  its  own  hands,  and  struck  at  the 
pockets  of  those  whose  souls  were  inaccessible,  by  levying  a 
monthly  fine  of  live  sous  of  good  coin  on  laymen,  ten  sous  on 
the  lower  clergy,  and  fifteen  sous  on  priests,  as  long  as  they 
remained  obdurately  under  the  ban.1  All  this  seems  to  have 
speedily  lost  its  effect,  for  it  had  to  be  repeated  eleven  years 
later  by  the  council  of  1337.2  At  length  the  royal  power  was 
obliged  again  to  intervene,  and  in  13G3  John  II.  issued  a 
declaration  renewing  the  old  law  that  those  who  persistently 
remained  under  excommunication  should  be  constrained  to 
seek  reconciliation  by  seizure  of  both  person  and  property.3 
This  seems  to  have  had  little  effect,  for  in  1371  the  archdeacon 
of  Langres  represented  to  Charles  V.  that  many  obstinate 
sinners  did  not  hesitate  to  remain  excommunicated  for  ten  or 
even  twenty  years,  all  the  while  frequenting  church,  to  the 
great  scandal  of  the  faithful  ;  and  Charles  in  consequence  com 
manded  all  judicial  officers  to  coerce  offenders  to  obedience  by 
seizing  their  property  after  they  had  remained  for  a  year  or 
more  under  excommunication,  but  he  adds  a  caution  which 
indicates  for  us  one  of  the  prolific  sources  of  abuse  in  these 
matters,  for  he  warns  his  representatives  to  see  that  the  clerical 
official  does  not  exact  inordinate  payment  for  reconciling  the 
culprits.4  Churchmen  themselves,  however,  were  sometimes 
negligent  in  enforcing  the  rigor  of  the  censure,  for  the  council 
of  Rheims  in  1408  found  it  necessary  to  threaten  priests  who, 
through  fear  or  favor,  allowed  excommunicates  to  be  present 
during  the  celebration  of  Mass.5  In  spite  of  such  lukewarmness, 


1  Concil.  Avenion.  ami.  132(>  can.  7,  41  (Harduin.  VII.  1495,  1508). 

2  Concil.  Avenion.  ann.  1337  can.  53  (Ibid.  H>:>3). 

3  Isarnbert,  T.  V.  p.  146. 
1  Ibid.  p.  353-5. 

5  Concil.   Remens.  ann.  140K  cap.  16   (Martene   AmpliPs.  Collect.  VII. 
418). 


404  EXCOMMUNICATION. 

the  church  at  large  was  not  backward  in  pushing  the  advan 
tages  which  it  had  secured  from  the  secular  power,  for  a  pro 
vision  of  the  concordat  of  1516  between  Leo  X.  and  Francis 
I.  presents  as  a  concession  on  the  part  of  the  pope,  that  no 
place  shall  be  laid  under  interdict  for  an  offence  committed  by 
one  of  its  inhabitants,  unless  the  magistrate  or  seigneur  shall, 
after  receiving  notice,  delay  for  forty-eight  hours  in  either 
compelling  the  offender  to  submit  or  driving  him  away  from 
his  place  of  residence.1  When  this  was  a  reform,  we  may 
judge  how  summary  had  been  the  process  by  which  churchmen 
had  been  accustomed  to  right  themselves  for  real  or  imaginary 
wrongs. 

With  regard  to  the  disabilities  of  excommunicates,  St.  Louis 
provided  that  they  might  be  heard  in  lay  courts,  both  as  plain 
tiffs  and  defendants,  but  limited  them  in  the  ecclesiastical 
tribunals  to  appearing  only  as  defendants — that  is,  they  could 
be  prosecuted,  but  could  not  prosecute.2  In  this,  he  was  more 
liberal  than  his  age,  and  his  legislation  received  little  attention. 
Beaumanoir,  the  recognized  expounder  of  his  jurisprudence, 
expressly  states  that  no  one  under  excommunication  can  be 
witness,  pleader,  advocate,  or  judge  ;  and  he  adds  the  very 
sufficient  reason  that  all  who  should  hold  converse  with  him 
would  themselves  be  excommunicate.3  The  proceedings  of  the 
Parlement  of  Paris  show  that  this  was  a  recognized  usage 
when  it  required  the  proof  of  excommunication  to  sustain  the 
refusal  of  an  answer  to  a  plaintiff',  or  the  rejection  of  the  testi 
mony  of  a  witness.4  This  is  manifested  in  another  case  which 
further  suggests  the  enormous  advantage  conferred  on  eccle 
siastics  by  these  regulations.  Jean  Roisel,  Mayor  of  St. 
Riquier,  had  brought  suit  against  the  Abbot  of  St.  Riquier, 
and  had  been  thrown  out  of  court  on  admitting  that  lie  was 
under  excommunication.  He  then  brought  another  suit  against 

1  Concordat,  ami.  1516  Rubr.  10  (Isambert  XII.  92-3). 

2  Etablissements,  Lib.  I.  chap.  123. 

3  Contumes  du  Beauvoisis,  cap.  v.  §  17;  cap.  xxxix.  §  63. 
*  Glim,  I.  738. 


TEMPORAL     PENALTIES.  405 

the  abbot  in  a  private  quarrel,  and  endeavored  to  sustain  him 
self  by  the  ingenious  plea  that,  as  his  excommunication  had 
been  incurred  in  his  public  character  as  mayor,  it  should  not 
prejudice  his  legal  status  as  a  man,  but  the  Parlcment  refused 
to  dissociate  the  excommunicated  official  from  the  individual, 
and  decided  that  lie  could  not  be  heard  in  any  capacity  until 
he  could  bring  forward  evidence  of  his  absolution.1  Constant 
vigilance  on  the  part  of  the  church,  however,  was  requisite  to 
enforce  the  observance  of  these  disabilities.  Thus  in  1326  we 
find  the  council  of  Avignon  renewing  the  prohibition  of  ex 
communicates  serving  as  judges,  baillis,  assessors,  consuls,  or 
notaries.  Those  who  appoint  such  persons  are  pronounced  ex 
communicate  ip so  facto,  and  if  they  do  not  force  the  appointee 
to  resign  within  ten  days  their  territories  are  declared  under 
interdict.2  In  the  same  year,  also,  the  council  of  Senlis  en 
deavored  to  enforce  the  disabilities  of  excommunicates  as 
plaintiffs  and  witnesses.3 

Spain  maintained  a  greater  degree  of  independence  of  the 
ecclesiastical  power  than  any  other  state  of  mediaeval  Europe. 
Her  jurisprudence  was  founded  on  the  Wisigothic  Code,  en 
acted  at  a  period  anterior  to  the  encroachments  of  the  church, 
and  based  on  the  Roman  laws  ;  and  the  character  of  her  insti 
tutions  is  aptly  illustrated  by  the  regulation  of  the  twelfth 
council  of  Toledo,  in  681,  referred  to  above,  which  released 
from  excommunication  any  one  whom  the  king  might  please 
to  invite  to  his  table.  Spain  was  thus  shielded  at  the  outset 
from  the  influences  which  moulded  the  Carlo vingian  legislation, 
and  after  the  rise  of  the  clerical  power  in  the  ninth  century  her 
internal  condition  was  comparatively  free  from  the  necessities 
which  drove  the  descendants  of  Charlemagne  to  seek  a  suicidal 
alliance  with  the  hierarchy.  Her  polity,  therefore,  retained 

1  Olirn,  I.  817. 

2  Concil.  Avenicm.  aim.  132(5  can.  10  (Harduin.  VII.  1500). 
*  Concil.  Silvaneet.  ami.  1326  can.  4  (Ibid.  p.  15:32). 


406  EXCOMMUNICATION. 

much  of  its  original  character  to  a  comparatively  late  period.1 
The  Fuero  Juzgo,  or  Romance  version  of  the  Gothic  code, 
which  was  not  superseded  until  the  thirteenth  century,  shows 
no  trace  of  the  effort  to  enforce  the  censures  of  the  church  by 
secular  athority.  The  only  recognition,  indeed,  of  the  ana 
thema  as  an  element  in  the  institutions  of  the  Peninsula,  is 
the  insertion  in  that  Code  of  various  canons  from  the  Gothic 
parliaments,  known  as  the  councils  of  Toledo,  which  liberally 
threaten  excommunication  against  all  who  may  conspire  against 
the  king,  or  seek  to  interrupt  the  succession  of  the  throne.2 
The  increased  preponderance  of  the  crown,  moreover,  is  mani 
fested  by  the  omission  from  one  of  these  of  a  countervailing 
sentence  of  expulsion  from  the  church  of  any  monarch  who 
may  illegally  oppress  the  people,  and  the  substitution  for  it  of 
a  text  inculcating  submission  to  the  powers  that  be,  as  the 
representatives  of  God.3 

It  is  easy  thus  to  understand  why  in  Spain  the  thunders  of 
the  church  were  comparatively  innocuous,  and  how  Queen 
Urraca  and  her  cousin-husband  Alfonso  of  Arra<)ron  could 

O 

safely  defy  the  papal  excommunication  to  which  Robert  the 
Pious  and  Philip  I.  of  France  were  obliged  humbly  to  submit. 
It  is  true  that  in  the  debatable  land  between  France  and  Spain, 
Nunez  Sancho,  Count  of  Roussillon,  in  1217,  specially  ex- 
cepted  excommunicates,  with  heretics,  from  the  enjoyment  of 

1  The  popular  spirit  with  regard  to  the  encroachments  of  Home  is  well 
illustrated  in  the  Romancero  del  Cid,  when  that  doughty  warrior  urges 
his  sovereign  to  defy  the  Pope  who  had  just  decided  that  Spain  was  sub 
ject  to  the  Holy  Roman  Empire — 

"  Enviad  vuoso  mensage 
Al  Papa,  y  a  su  valla, 
Ya  todas  desaflad 
De  vuesa  parte  y  la  mia." 
(Romances  Antiguos  Espanoles,  Loudres,  182"),  T.  I.  p.  167.) 

2  Fuero  Juzgo  Prolog.  LI.  5,  G,  7,  8,  9,  10,  11,  12,  14,  16,  17  (Concil. 
Toletan.  IV.  ann.  633  can.  75  —V.  ann.   636  can.  2,  3,  4.— VI.  ann.  638 
can.  17, 18.— VII.  ann.  64(5  can.  1.— XIII.  ann.  683  can.  4.— XVI.  aim.  693 
can.  10.— XVII.  ann.  694  can.  7). 

3  Romans  xm.  1-4,  inserted  in  ley  ix.  from  Concil.  Toletan.  IV.  can.  75. 


TEMPORAL    PENALTIES.  407 

public  peace,  thus  practically  rendering  them  outlaws.1  In 
this  he  only  imitated  Don  Pedro  II.  of  Aragon,  who  in  1210 
issued  an  edict  imposing  on  excommunicates  a  fine  of  100 
solidi  for  the  first  four  months  of  contumacy,  with  300  solidi 
additional  for  the  second  and  third  periods,  completing  the 
year,  one-half  of  the  mulct  for  the  henefit  of  the  royal  fisc,  and 
the  other  to  accrue  to  the  bishop  of  the  offender.  After  the 
expiration  of  a  year,  he  could  be  reconciled  only  by  the  pope 
himself  or  by  a  papal  legate,  and  during  the  whole  period  of 
contumacy  he  was  deprived  of  all  legal  rights  and  segregated 
from  all  human  society,  except  that  of  his  wife,  children,  and 
others  permitted  by  the  canons  ;  to  the  enforcement  of  all  which 
he  pledged  the  full  power  of  the  state.2  Yet  in  those  portions 
of  Spain  further  removed  from  Italian  influence,  and  which 
had  not  felt  the  pressure  of  the  inquisition  against  heresy,  the 
old  independence  continued  to  prevail.  AVhen,  about  the 
middle  of  the  thirteenth  century,  Alfonso  the  Wise  of  Castile 
drew  up  the  elaborate  code  known  as  the  Siete  Partidas,  he 
devoted  no  less  than  thirty-eight  laws  to  the  subject  of  excom 
munication,  thus  giving  a  more  complete  and  detailed  body  of 
jurisprudence  with  regard  to  it  than  can  elsewhere  be  found 
among  the  labors  of  secular  lawgivers  of  the  period.  He  pro 
fesses,  indeed,  the  utmost  reverence  for  ecclesiastical  censures, 
deriving  them  from  the  divine  examples  of  the  excommunica 
tion  of  the  angels  whom  God  changed  into  devils  for  their 
pride,  and  the  excommunication  of  Adam,  when  he  was  ejected 
from  Paradise  for  disobedience.3  Yet  he  gives  no  intimation 
of  any  secular  enforcement,  beyond  the  regulation  that  a  man 
remaining  for  a  year  under  the  ban  of  the  church  without 
seeking  reconciliation,  if  he  has  been  sentenced  as  a  suspected 
heretic  is  to  be  held  confessed  of  heresy  ;  if  he  is  a  noble,  his 

1  D'Achcry  Spicileg.  III.  588. 

2  Statutum  Petri.  II.  A  rag.  (Aguirre  Y.  179).    For  regulations  of  1228 
and  1223  by  Don  Jayme  I.  see  D'Achery,  III.  598  and  Martene,  Ampliss. 
Collect.  VII.  125. 

:?  Las  Siete  Partidas,  P.  i.  Tit.  ix.  Prooevn. 


408  EXCOMMUNICATION. 

vassals  are  not  bound  to  obey  him  while  under  excommunica 
tion  ;  and  if  possessed  of  any  church  patronage  or  privileges, 
he  is  not  to  enjoy  them  while  thus  remaining  in  antagonism 
with  the  church.1  Alfonso  deprecates,  moreover,  as  improper 
the  reprisals  occasionally  exercised  by  communities  while  under 
interdict,  in  prohibiting  their  excommunicator  and  his  men 
from  buying  or  selling  in  their  town,  grinding  corn  in  their 
mill,  baking  in  their  public  oven,  travelling  over  their  roads 
and  bridges,  drawing  water  from  their  wells  and  streams,  or 
cutting  wood  on  their  mountains.2  Evidently  in  Spain  there  was 
a  spirit  little  known  elsewhere  which  enabled  the  civil  power 
to  treat  on  equal  terms  with  the  ecclesiastical,  and  consequently 
the  effects  of  excommunication,  in  this  world  at  least,  were 
much  less  fearful  than  in  other  lands.  Although  he  who  as- 

O 

sociated  knowingly  with  an  excommunicate  incurred  the  com 
paratively  light  punishment  of  the  minor  excommunication, 
yet  even  this  did  not  apply  to  the  wife,  children,  servants, 
vassals,  and  hired  laborers  of  the  offender,  who  were  not  de 
barred  from  intercourse  with  him,  nor  was  it  forbidden  to  give 
him  alms.3  Modern  Spanish  fanaticism,  however,  made 
amends  for  this  laxity,  for  the  unhappy  wretch  who  remained 
for  a  year  under  excommunication  was  handed  over  to  the 
tender  mercies  of  the  Inquisition.4 

In  forcible  contrast  with  the  mildness  of  mediaeval  Castilian 
legislation  is  the  contemporary  jurisprudence  of  Germany. 
There  the  Carlovingian  traditions  were  regarded  with  special 
reverence,  and  the  constitution  and  vicissitudes  of  the  Holy 
Roman  Empire  brought  church  and  state  into  almost  insepa 
rable  connection.  This,  in  the  middle  ages,  necessarily  re 
sulted  in  the  supremacy  of  the  church,  and  consequently  we 

1  Ibid.  P.  i.  Tit.  ix.  ley  32.— Also  in  RecopilacionLib.  vm.  Tit.  v.  1.  12. 

2  Ibid.  P.  i.  Tit.  ix.  ley  19. — This  device  was  not  confined  to  Spain.     It 
is  condemned  in  1326  by  the  council  of  Marsiac  in  Guyeune   (Concil. 
Marciac.  ann.  1326  can.  47.— Harduin.  VII.  1529). 

3  Siete  Partidas  P.  I.  Tit.  ix.  11.  5,  35. 

4  MS.  Bib.  Reg.  Hafniene.  No.  2185  fol.  p.  179. 


TEMPORAL     PENALTIES.  409 

find  in  the  German  law  of  the  period  that  all  the  claims  of 
Gregory  VII.  and  Innocent  III.  were  not  only  admitted  hut 
enforced  by  the  secular  power. 

In  the  Niirnberg  decree  of  1187,  issued  by  Frederic  Bar- 
barossa  for  the  suppression  of  incendiarism,  that  crime  is  pun 
ished  with  proscription.  If  this  does  not  secure  submission, 
then  the  offender  is  to  be  excommunicated  by  his  bishop,  and 
is  not  to  be  absolved  until  he  makes  full  amends  for  the  dam 
age  caused  by  the  arson.  On  the  other  hand,  whoever  is  ex 
communicated  by  a  bishop  shall  similarly  be  proscribed  by  the 
secular  judges,  until  he  shall  have  been  reconciled  to  the 
church,  which  is  only  to  be  accomplished  by  a  pilgrimage  to 
the  Holy  Land,  or  to  the  shrine  of  St.  James  of  Compostella, 
involving  an  absence  from  the  empire  of  at  least  a  year  and  a 
day.  If  he  proves  obstinate  and  remains  under  proscription 
and  excommunication  for  a  year  and  a  day,  then  he  becomes 
an  outlaw,  deprived  of  all  legal  rights.1  The  church  had  suc 
ceeded  in  humbling  the  central  power  and  perpetuating  the 
anarchy  of  Germany,  and  the  authority  which  thus  was  ren 
dered  unable  to  enforce  the  law  was  obliged  to  implore  the 
assistance  of  the  church,  and  to  pay  for  that  assistance  by 
placing  its  forces  at  the  disposal  of  the  spiritual  courts.  It  is 
the  old  story  of  the  Carlovingians  repeated  at  a  period  when 
the  church  was  more  fully  able  to  take  advantage  of  its  oppor 
tunities. 

When  Barbarossa's  grandson,  Frederic  II.,  received  the 
imperial  crown  in  1220,  at  the  hands  of  Honorius  II J.,  the 
coronation  ceremonies  were  varied  by  a  solemn  excommunica 
tion,  with  bell,  book,  and  candle,  launched  by  the  pope  against 
all  who  should  promulgate  or  enforce  laws  infringing  the 
privileges  of  the  church.  All  who  were  connected  in  any  way 
with  such  laws,  from  the  monarch  in  whose  name  they  were 
issued,  to  the  officers  executing  them,  and  the  scribes  engross 
ing  them,  were  declared  anathematized  ipso  facto,  unless 

1  Feudor.  Lib.  v.  Tit.  x. — Cf.  Conrad.  Ursperg.  arm.  1187. 
35 


410  EXCOMMUNICATION. 

within  sixty  days  the  laws  were  annulled  or  repealed.1  This 
was  forthwith  confirmed  by  Frederic,  in  an  edict  by  which  he 
surrendered  the  power  of  the  state  unreservedly,  without  even 
asking  for  an  equivalent.  Any  one  incurring  excommunica 
tion  for  infringing  the  liberties  of  the  church,  and  so  remain 
ing  for  a  year,  was  threatened  with  the  imperial  ban  until  he 
should  obtain  absolution.  If  excommunicated  for  harboring 
heretics,  and  not  reconciled  within  a  year,  he  was  declared 
infamous  and  ineligible  to  any  office  or  place  of  trust,  disabled 
from  bequeathing  or  receiving  inheritance,  from  bearing  wit 
ness,  and  from  appearing  as  plaintiff.  If  a  judge,  his  verdicts 
were  null  and  he  could  try  no  causes  ;  if  an  advocate,  he  had 
no  standing  in  court  ;  and  if  a  notary,  his  official  documents 
were  void.'2 

When  such  laws  as  these  were  wrung  from  monarchs  whose 
whole  lives  were  consumed  in  an  internecine  conflict  with  the 
papal  power,  it  is  not  surprising  to  find  that  the  principles 
which  they  thus  were  compelled  to  admit  were  developed  even 
more,  fully  in  the  pretensions  advanced  by  the  church.  Al 
ready,  in  12r>C>,  the  council  of  Cologne  directs  the  excommu 
nication  of  any  secular  magistrate  who  shall  refuse  or  neglect 
to  compel  the  submission  of  any  one  remaining  under  excom 
munication  for  a  year;3  and  even  this  became  exceeded  in  the 
popular  jurisprudence  of  the  empire.  The  civil  and  the  eccle 
siastical  powers  were  bound  together  with  the  closest  require 
ments  of  mutual  support,  yet  with  the  supremacy  of  the 
spiritual  authority  fully  admitted  in  the  last  resort.  Thus,  in 
the  Suabian  law,  which  ruled  all  Southern  Germany,  it  is 
declared  to  be  in  virtue  of  an  agreement  entered  into  between 

1  This  decree  was  not  of  mere  momentary  force.     It  was  quoted  in 
1236  as  a  rule  of  the  church  by  Gregory  IX.  to  Thibaut  of  Navarre  (Mar- 
tene,  Thesaur.  I.  996). 

2  Const.  Frid.  II.  post  Lib.  Feudor.   §§  3,  8.— The   latter  of  these  was 
even  interpolated  in  the  Code  of  Justinian,  Post  Const.  4,  Cod.  I.  v. — Cf. 
Capit.  Gregor.  IX.  ann.  1235  (Harduin.  VII.  163-4). 

3  Concil.  Coloniens.  ann.  1266  can.  37,  38  (Harduin.  VII.  575). 


TEMPORAL     PENALTIES.  411 

Constantino  the  Great  and  Sylvester  I.,  that  any  one  remain- 
ins;  under  excommunication  for  six  weeks  and  a  day  is  to  be 
proscribed  by  the  lay  courts;  and  similarly  proscription,  after 
the  same  interval,  is  to  be  followed  by  excommunication  ;  and 
whichever  of  the  two  penalties  has  been  first  inflicted  is  to  be 
removed  before  the  other  is  removable.1  In  fact,  he  who  was 
either  excommunicated  or  proscribed  was  held  to  be  both  ex 
communicated  and  proscribed  ;  he  had  no  standing  in  court 
except  as  a  defendant ;  he  could  neither  ask  for  a  verdict  nor 
appeal  from  one,  nor  act  as  a  witness  or  judge — in  short,  he 
was  deprived  of  all  le«;al  protection  in  both  secular  and  eccle 
siastical  tribunals.2  The  universality  of  spiritual  jurisdiction 
was  established  by  empowering  the  bishops,  at  their  annual 
councils,  to  summon  before  them  all  laymen  of  their  dioceses, 
from  prince  to  peasant,  and  authorizing  the  prelates  to  excom 
municate  any  one  who  neglected  or  disobeyed  the  summons.3 
The  supremacy  of  the  church,  moreover,  was  admitted  by  two 
provisions.  One  of  these  directs  the  bishops  to  excommuni 
cate  any  prince  or  potentate  who  neglects  to  persecute  heresy; 
if  he  remains  obdurate  for  a  year,  the  bishop  is  then  to  report 
the  case  to  the  pope,  who  is  thereupon  to  deprive  him  of  his 
rank  and  honors,  and  the  secular  power  shall  enforce  the  sen 
tence  by  stripping  him  of  all  his  possessions.4  The  other 
authorizes  the  pope  to  place  the  emperor  under  ban  if  he 
deviates  from  orthodoxy,  deserts  his  wife,  or  destroys  the 
churches.5  The  severity  of  the  excommunication  thus  liberally 

1  Juris   Provin.    Alaman.    Ed.    Senckenberg.    cap.    1,   2,  3,  100    (Ed. 
Schilter  cap.  1,  242,  89). 

2  Jur.  Prov.  Alaman.  cap.  127,  115,  78,  75   (Ed.  Schilter  cap.  272,  105, 
15,68). 

3  Ibid.  cap.  11  (Ed.  Schilter  cap.  128). 

4  Ibid.   cap.  351    (Ed.  Schilter  cap.  308).     Yet  when  Leo  X.  in  1520 
endeavored  to  enforce  this  rule,  in  the  Bull  Exsurge  Domine,  against 
the   protectors   of    Lutheranisni,   the   German   legists   declared   that  it 
was    unconstitutional,   relying,    apparently,   on    the    provisions    of    the 
Sachsenspiegel. 

5  Ibid.  cap.  29  (Ed.  Schilter,  cap.  111). 


412  EXCOMMUNICATION. 

denounced  contrasts  strongly  with  the  laxity  of  the  contem 
porary  Spanish  laws.  Any  one  conversing  familiarly  with  a 
known  excommunicate  was  likewise  excommunicated,  and,  if 
he  failed  to  obtain  absolution  within  the  prescribed  period  of 
six  weeks  and  a  day,  he  was  held  guilty  of  the  crime  for  which 
the  first  excommunication  had  been  incurred.1  Under  le^is- 

r? 

lation  such  as  this  the  responsibility  of  the  secular  authorities 
for  the  obedience  of  the  individual  was  thorough  and  com 
plete.  In  1405,  George,  Bishop  of  Bamberg,  considered  it  a 
relaxation  of  the  strictness  of  the  rule,  when  he  declared  that 
a  town  was  not  necessarily  under  interdict  because  one  of  its 
inhabitants  was  excommunicated,  and  lie  mercifully  provided 
that  the  authorities  should  have  two  days  in  which  to  enforce 
his  submission  or  to  eject  him." 

Yet,  in  so  turbulent  a  period,  laws  like  these  were  easier  to 
frame  than  to  enforce.  There  is  extant  a  supplication  addressed 
to  Rodolph  of  ITapsburg,  in  which  a  bishop  complains  of  two 
brothers  whom  he  had  excommunicated  for  robbery,  rapine, 
and  numerous  other  crimes.  They  retorted  by  making  war 
upon  him,  whereupon  after  due  proceedings  he  had  deprived 
them  of  the  fief's  held  of  his  church.  They  laughed  this  to 
scorn,  and,  after  two  years  of  unavailing  efforts  to  enforce  the 
censures,  the  bishop  finally  appeals  to  the  emperor  to  put  the 
offenders  under  the  ban  of  proscription.3 

Northern  Germany,  however,  was  by  no  means  disposed  to 
yield  the  same  implicit  obedience  to  the  demands  of  the  church. 
The  Sachsenspiegel,  which  was  the  recognized  code  of  the 
North,  as  the  Schwabenspiegel  was  of  the  South,  expressly 
declared  that  no  one  could  be  deprived  by  excommunication 
of  the  privileges  of  the  common  or  feudal  law  unless  the  ex- 

1  Ibid.  cap.  11   (Ed.  Schilter,  cap.  3r>l).     This   forms  part  of  a  law 
specially  directed  against  usury,  'out  the  terms  employed  are  general, 
and  warrant  the  assumption  that  it  was  not  confined  in  its  application  to 
that  single  offence. 

2  Georgii  I.  Episc.  Bamberg  Reform.  Consistorii  art.  xxxiv.  (Ludewig, 
Script.  Rer.  German.  I.  11TO). 

3  Cod.  Epist.  Rodolphi  I.  p.  199  (Lipsis»,  1806). 


TEMPORAL    PENALTIES.  413 

communicate  was  put  under  ban  by  the  emperor.  The  cen 
sures  of  the  church,  indeed,  were  specially  asserted  to  be 
directed  against  the  soul,  and  they  could  have  no  effect  upon 
the  temporal  condition  of  the  sinner.  This  was  repeated  in 
the  burgher-law  of  the  Saxon  cities,  which  stoutly  maintained 
that  even  the  censures  of  the  pope,  if  unjustly  bestowed,  did 
not  derogate  from  the  rights  of  the  citizen,  although  he  might 
remain  under  them  for  a  year  and  a  day.  This,  together  with 
several  other  manifestations  of  the  same  spirit  of  independence, 
caused  the  code  to  be  regarded  with  extreme  disfavor  by  the 
church.  It  was  condemned  and  anathematized  in  1374  by 
Gregory  XL,  and  all  good  Christians  were  forbidden  to  obey 
it.  Teutonic  stubbornness,  however,  was  not  readily  over 
come,  and  the  Sachsenspiegel  remained  in  force,  notwithstand 
ing  that  the  condemnation  was  emphatically  repeated  by  the 
council  of  Bale  and  Eugenius  IV.1 

In  Italy  the  authority  of  the  church  was  weaker  than  else 
where.  According  to  medizeval  theory  that  authority  was 
derived  from  the  successor  of  St.  Peter,  and  to  the  Italians 
the  pope  was  invested  with  little  of  that  awful  and  mysterious 
dignity  which  rendered  his  name  a  word  of  power  in  distant 
and  more  barbarous  regions.  They  knew  him  as  a  secular  prince, 
vindicating  his  claims  to  obedience  by  the  arm  of  liesh  as  well 
as  by  the  power  of  the  Word,  and  they  had  too  often  success 
fully  withstood  his  pretensions  to  feel  much  dread  of  his  curses 
when  not  restrained  by  his  legions.  This  is  strikingly  mani 
fest  in  the  Neapolitan  code  of  the  Emperor  Frederic  11.  We 
have  seen  him,  in  1220,  at  Honcaglia,  in  his  capacity  as  em 
peror,  invoke  the  aid  of  the  church  to  uproot  heresy,  and  pledge 
the  full  power  of  the  state  to  sustain  her  censures,  both  in  cases 
of  suspected  faith  and  of  infringement  of  her  liberties.  In  the 

1  Specul.  Saxon.  Lib.  in.  art.  63.— Sachsische  WeicWbild,  art.  v.  §  1. 
— Raynald.  Annal.  Eccles.  ami.  loTi  No.  12.— Gryphiand.  de  Weiehbild. 
Saxon,  cap.  47.  But  the  Weiehbild,  art.  iv.  §  0,  elapses  the  excommuni 
cate  with  the  proscribed. 

-       35* 


414  EXCOMMUNICATION. 

freer  air,  however,  of  his  hereditary  kingdom  of  Sicily,  he  was 
careful  to  keep  her  at  arm's  length,  and  jealously  maintained 
the  independence  of  secular  jurisdiction.  In  the  Sicilian  Con 
stitutions  there  is  no  allusion  to  excommunication.  The  state 
did  not  call  upon  the  church  to  aid  in  enforcing  the  secular 
law,  nor  would  it  allow  itself  to  be  called  on  to  enforce  the 
judgments  of  the  church  by  temporal  penalties.  This  is  par 
ticularly  significant  when  we  find  the  lawgiver  regulating  many 
questions  as  to  heresy,  usury,  tithes,  marriage,  incest,  adultery, 
perjury,  sorcery,  testaments,  and  inheritance,  which  at  that 
period  were  generally  conceded  to  belong  almost  exclusively  to 
ecclesiastical  jurisdiction  ;T  and  the  intention  of  the  legislator 
is  rendered  unquestionable  by  the  care  with  which  he  limits 
the  immunity  of  the  clergy  from  the  civil  tribunals,  and 
prohibits  them  from  any  share  in  administering  the  laws.2 

At  the  other  extremity  of  Italy,  when  the  pressure  from 
Germany  was  removed,  there  was  equal  alacrity  on  the  part  of 
the  independent  states  in  disregarding  the  claims  and  pre 
tensions  of  the  church.  Thus  Milan,  in  Io47,  decided  that 
the  clergy  were  bound,  equally  with  the  laity,  by  all  the  details 
of  municipal  law;3  and  in  l.']SS  Gian  Galeaz/o  Visconti,  the 
first  Duke  of  Milan,  struck  a  blow  at  the  whole  system  of  ex 
communication  by  a  decree  in  which  he  released  all  laymen 
from  the  necessity  of  answering  a  summons  from  the  ecclesias 
tical  courts — clerks  were  to  be  tried  by  clerical  judges,  and 
laymen  by  laymen  alone.4  Whatever  may  have  been  the  motives 
which  prompted  the  wily  Visconti  to  this  extraordinary  attack 
upon  the  jurisdiction  and  prerogatives  of  the  church,  it  was 
altogether  too  much  in  advance  of  the  age  for  even  his  power 

1  Coustit.  Sicularum  Lib.  i.  Tit.  1,  2,  3,  Tit.  5  cap.  2,  Tit.   7  cap.  1.— 
Lib.  ii.  Tit,  11,  Tit.  38  cap.  2.— Lib.  in.  Tit.  25,  Tit,  40  cap.  7.  Tit.  42 cap. 
2,  3,  Tit,  43,  44,  45,  47,  49,  50,  59.— In  the  whole  code  the  only  offence 
committed  to  the  jurisdiction  of  the  church  is  that  of  adultery  (Lib.  in. 
Tit,  51). 

2  Ibid.  Lib.  I.  Tit.  46,  08,  65,  Tit.  66  cap.  2,  Tit,  72. 

3  Antiqna  Ducuni  Mertiolani  Deereta  (Medio)an.  1664,  p.  3). 

4  I  hid.  p.  136. 


TEMPORAL     PENALTIES.  415 

to  sustain  it,  and  in  the  following  year  we  find  him  limiting  the 
decree  in  various  essential  particulars.1  Yet  it  stands  upon  the 
statute-book  to  show  how  precarious  in  Italy  was  the  hold  of 
the  church  on  those  prerogatives  which  kept  the  rest  of  Latin 
Christendom  in  subjection. 

Poland  was,  probably  from  its  contamination  by  the  Greek 
schismatics,  even  less  disposed  than  Italy  to  invest  the  sentence 
of  excommunication  with  temporal  terrors.  In  1346,  the  sta 
tute  of  Vislitza  declares  that  if  the  evidence  of  an  excommunicate 
was  requisite  in  a  suit,  and  if  the  excommunicator  refused  ab 
solution,  then  the  testimony  of  the  witness  could  be  given  as 
freely  as  though  he  were  in  full  communion.  This  manifests 
so  complete  disregard  of  the  sanctity  claimed  by  the  church  for 
all  its  acts  that  we  can  readily  believe  the  statement  that  by  the 
commencement  of  the  fifteenth  century  the  anathema  entailed 
no  legal  or  political  disabilities,  and  was  consequently  but  little 
regarded  by  the  people.'2 

The  Northern  nations  were  guilty  of  no  such  insubordina 
tion.  In  Sweden,  for  instance,  the  inviolability  of  ecclesiasti 
cal  censures  was  protected  with  relentless  ferocity.  By  the 
laws  in  force  until  the  time  of  the  Reformation,  if  a  man  re 
mained  under  excommunication  for  a  year,  without  seeking 
absolution,  the  bishop  reported  him  to  the  king,  and  the  king 
was  bound  to  put  him  to  death.  His  body  was  denied  Christian 
sepulture,  and  his  relatives  could  claim  no  wer-gild  or  blood 
money,  though  his  heirs  were  not  disinherited.3  Among  the 
free  Frisians,  any  one  interfering  to  prevent  the  prelates  from 
absolutely  coercing  offenders  among  their  flocks  was  subjected 
to  the  heavy  fine  of  20  marcs.4 

In  Hungary,  the  secular  powers  were  bound  to  subdue  ex 
communicates  by  the  seizure  of  all  their  possessions.  Any 

1  Ibid.  pp.  158-9. 

2  Krasinski,  Reformation  in  Poland,  I.  100. 

3  Raguald.  LI.  Suecorutn  Lib.  i.  cap.  xiv.  (Stoi-kholmiye,  1(514,  p.  28). 

4  LI.  Opstalbomioar.  ami.  1^2^  §  4. 


416  EXCOMMUNICATION. 

judge  who  admitted  an  excommunicate  to  appear  as  plaintiff, 
advocate,  or  witness,  was  suspended  for  a  month  from  his 
functions,  and  the  judgment  rendered  in  sucli  a  case  was  null 
and  void.1 

Thus  supported  by  the  jurisprudence  of  nearly  all  Europe, 
it  is  no  wonder  that  the  church  could  assume  as  a  general  prin 
ciple  that  all  secular  magistrates  were  obliged  to  exercise  their 
authority  at  the  call  of  the  bishops,  and  that  any  one  neglect 
ing  thus  to  perform  his  duty  in  enforcing  the  mandates  of  the 
ecclesiastical  power,  was,  after  three  summons,  himself  liable 
to  excommunication.2  Nor  has  the  church  by  any  means  aban 
doned  this  claim,  the  exercise  of  which  is  only  prevented  by 
the  irreligious  tendencies  of  the  age.  In  the  concordat  of 
1803,  concluded  between  the  papacy  and  the  Soutli  American 
republics,  there  is  an  article  expressly  providing  that  the  sec 
ular  authorities  shall  execute  every  penalty  decreed  by  the 
ecclesiastical  tribunals.3 


ABUSE  OF  EXCOMMUNICATION. 

With  the  power  of  the  state  thus  at  command,  the  authority 
of  the  church  became  almost  illimitable.  It  was  riot  only 
available  in  reducing  to  submission  the  proudest  inonarchs  of 
Christendom,  but  it  extended  to  the  minutest  details  of  daily 
life.  The  canons  might  repeat  with  ceaseless  iteration  that 
excommunication  was  a  spiritual  sword  which  should  only  be 
unsheathed  in  the  cause  of  God,  and  for  weighty  reasons  ;  but 
the  cause  of  every  churchman  was  the  cause  of  the  church,  and 
the  cause  of  the  church  was  the  cause  of  God.  The  rule  that  no 


1  Concil.  Budens.  aim.  1279  can.  lv.  Ivii.  (llarduin.  VII.  808-9). 

2  C.  A.  Thesauri  de  Pcenis  Eccles.,  Fcrrariae,  1761,  p.  169. 

3  "Janus,"  The  Pope  and  the  Council,  London,  1809,  p.  1:2. 


ABUSE     OF     EXCOMMUNICATION.  417 

one  could  be  judge  in  his  own  case  thus  was  disregarded  in  the 
zeal  to  punish  the  wrongs  offered  to  God  in  the  persons  of  His 
servants,  and  private  enmity  gratified  itself  under  the  guise  of 
holy  fervor.1  Jt  is  not  in  human  nature  to  resist  the  tempta 
tion  of  abusing  a  power  so  tremendous  and  so  irresponsible, 
and  the  warnings  to  be  temperate  in  its  exercise  met  with  little 
respect  from  the  highest  as  from  the  lowest.  A  well-informed 
writer  in  the  early  part  of  the  fourteenth  century  deplores  the 
grave  scandals  arising  from  the  fact  that  more  than  half  of  the 
Christians  then  existing,  including  the  most  devoted  sons  of 
the  church,  were  at  that  time  under  excommunication.2 

Not  only,  moreover,  were  offenders  themselves  doomed  to 
eternal  perdition,  but  their  innocent  children  and  descendants 
were  likewise  devoted  to  Satan  with  a  refinement  of  cruelty 
which  renders  it  almost  impossible  to  believe  that  those  who  ad 
ministered  the  curse  could  have  had  faith  in  its  efficacy.  AVe 
have  already  seen  that  Martin  Y.  thus  sentenced  the  children 
of  those  who  should  give  a  cup  of  water  to  the  adherents  of  his 
rival,  Pedro  de  Luna  ;  and  Gregory  XI.  went  even  further  when, 
in  187."),  he  excommunicated  the  Florentines  and  their  leaders, 
Francisco  and  Baptisto  de  Yico,  with  their  descendants  to  the 
seventh  generation,  for  procuring  the  rebellion  of  the  papal  ter 
ritories.3 

One  fertile  source  of  oppression  is  suggested  by  the  case 
above  cited  of  the  Abbot  of  St.  Riquier  and  Mayor  Iloisel. 
As  the  excommunicate  was  what  the  old  English'  law  deno 
minated  a  "lawless  man" — one  who  could  claim  no  protection 
under  the  law — it  is  easy  to  see  that  when  a  quarrel  arose  be 
tween  a  prelate  and  a  layman,  the  former  could  fulminate  the 
anathema  against  his  adversary,  who  thenceforth  had  no  stand- 

1  Cf.  Alvari  Pelagii  de  Planetu  Eccles.  Lib.  ir.  Art.  xx.  cap.  34-,  35. 

2  Marini  Sanuti  Epist.  xvii.  (Bongars.  Gesta  Dei  per  Francos  II.  310). 
Sanuti  was  a  Venetian  who  devoted  his  life  to  rout-ing  Christendom  for 
the  recovery  of  the  Holy  Land.     The  above  assertion  is  contained  in  a 
letter  addressed  to  a'cardinal  and  papal  legate. 

3  Chron.  Cornel.  Zunfliet  ami.  1375  (Martene  Ampl.  Coll.  V.  301). 


418  EXCOMMUNICATION. 

ing  in  court  until  he  could  procure  absolution  from  his  excom- 
municator,  thus  practically  placing  him  at  the  mercy  of  his 
antagonist,  who  could  exact  his  own  terms  for  reconcilation. 
It  mattered  not  whether  the  excommunication  was  le^al  or  ille- 

O 

gal,  justifiable  or  unjustifiable.  The  False  Decretals  had  pro 
mulgated  the  doctrine  that  the  episcopal  sentence,  even  when 
groundless,  was  to  be  respected,1  and  this  principle  became 
freely  admitted  in  practice.2  Beaumanoir  advises  any  one 
summoned  to  an  ecclesiastical  court  to  obey  the  summons 
promptly,  whether  subject  to  its  jurisdiction  or  not,  for  if  he 
fails  to  appear,  he  will  be  excommunicated — "  et  li  eseom- 
rneniement  font  a  douter,  comment  qu'il  soient  gete,  soit  a  tort, 
soit  a  droit."3  About  the  same  period,  Alfonso  the  Wise  of 
Castile,  in  his  code  of  laws,  declares  that  though  it  is  a  grave 
sin  to  excommunicate  without  cause,  yet  he  who  is  thus  excom 
municated  can  only  submit  until  lie  is  absolved.4  It  thus 
gradually  came  to  be  established  tbat  however  illicit  an  ex 
communication  might  be,  it  yet  was  valid;5  and  so  thoroughly 
was  the  customary  abuse  of  this  tremendous  power  recognized, 
that  popes  sometimes,  in  virtue  of  their  supreme  authority, 
granted  as  a  special  privilege  the  right  not  to  be  excommuni 
cated  without  cause.  A  bull  of  this  nature  is  extant,  issued 
by  Celestin  III.  in  111K>,  in  favor  of  the  monastery  of  Nieu- 
werke,6  and  another  by  Innocent  III.  in  1207,  for  the  protec 
tion  of  an  archbishop.7 

It  could  hardly  be  expected,  indeed,  that  papal  monitions  to 
be  moderate  in  the  exercise  of  power  should  be  heeded  when 
the  papacy  itself  set  the  example  of  the  most  flagrant  abuse. 
In  the  insatiable  greed  of  the  Roman  curia,  for  instance,  not 

1  Pseudo-Urbani  Epist.  cap.  v. 

2  G rattan.  P.  n.  cans.  xi.  q.  iii.  can.  27. 

3  Couturnes  du  Beauvoisis,  cap.  n.  §  28. 

4  Las  Siete  Partidas,  P.  I.  Tit.  ix.  11.  20,  21. 

5  Avila  de  Censuris  Eccles.  P.  n.  cap.  v.  Disput.  ii.  Dub.  1,  Conclus.  4. 
fi  Ludewig  Reliq.  Mssctor.  T.  v.  p.  64. 

'  Innocent.  PP.  III.  Regest.  Lib.  x.  Epist.  36. 


ABUSE     OF     EXCOMMUNICATION.  419 

only  was  the  right  of  confirming  the  election  of  bishops  turned 
to  account  by  grasping  the  annates,  but,  in  defiance  of  all  the 
canons  against  simony,  the  creatures  of  the  court  exacted  heavy 
fees  under  pretence  of  free  gifts.  In  process  of  time  this 
custom  became  so  thoroughly  established  that  those  who  were 
niggard  or  dilatory  were  formally  excommunicated  ;  and  Peter 
Boerius,  Bishop  of  Orvieto,  in  the  latter  part  of  the  fourteenth 
century,  relates  that  no  less  than  seven  bishops  were  thus  under 
the  ban  of  the  church  at  one  time  for  not  gratifying  the  ex 
pectations  of  the  cardinals.1  Finally,  indeed,  a  regular  form 
of  monition  was  drawn  up  by  the  curia  and  served  on  all 
bishops,  archbishops,  and  patriarchs  on  their  application  to 
Rome  for  confirmation.  This  specified  the  sum  that  was  ex 
pected  of  them  by  the  cardinals  ;  if  they  should  die  before  its 
payment,  it  wras  to  be  paid  by  their  successors,  and  failure  to 
settle  by  the  specified  time  entailed  the  penalty  of  excommuni 
cation.2  As  for  the  annates,  they  were  the  constant  source  of 
excommunication  launched  against  the  prelates  of  Christendom.3 

When  we  consider  the  materials  of  which  the  hierarchy  was 
composed  and  the  influences  which  secured  preferment  to  its 
highest  places,  it  is  therefore  no  wonder  if  the  tremendous 
power  thus  confided  to  unworthy  hands  was  abused  for  private 
ends  and  in  the  most  shocking  manner.  Mediaeval  history  is 
full  of  this  prostitution  of  the  name  and  authority  of  Christ  by 
those  who  professed  to  be  acting  in  His  name  and  for  His  cause. 

In  1149  Wibald,  Abbot  of  Corvey,  reproved  a  rebellious 
member  of  his  convent  who  was  in  the  habit  of  excommuni- 

1  Gloss,  ad  Vit.   Pontificum   (Baluzc  ct  Mansi  Miscell.   T.I.  p.  479). 
Ecclesiastics  seemed  to  know  too  much  of  tbe  machinery  of  excommuni 
cation  to  feel  for  it  the  implicit  respect  that  was  expected  of  laymen.     In 
1207  we  find  the  church  of  Cologne  inquiring  of  Innocent  III.  what  should 
be  done  in  cases  where  abbots  and  abbesses  bestowed  preferment  on  clerks 
who  were  under  excommunication,  and  how  they  could  be  compelled  to 
respect  an  interdict. — Innocent  PP.  Ill,  Regest.  Lib.  x.  Epist.  62. 

2  A  copy  of  one  of  these  remarkable  documents  is  given  in  full  by  Von 
der  llardt,  Concil.  Constant.  T.  I.  P.  V.  p.  159. 

3  Quia  communiter  praelatus  excommunicatur  per  illas. — Card.  Zaba- 
rellae  Capita  agend.  in  Concil.  cap.  ix.  (Ibid.  P.  ix.  p.  518). 


420  EXCOMMUNICATION. 

eating  the  person  and  family  of  a  merchant  with  whom  he  had 
a  quarrel;  and  as  lie  did  not  exactly  dare  to  anathematize  his 
abbot  and  prior,  he  celebrated  mass  against  them  continuously, 
under  an  impression  that  his  vindictive  feelings  while  engaged 
in  the  ineffable  mysteries  would  work  some  damage  to  their 
health  and  prosperity.1  In  11(>3  the  Archbishop  of  Rheims 
placed  the  town  of  Beauvais  under  an  interdict  in  consequence 
of  a  quarrel  between  two  women  about  a  house,  and  when 
Louis  VII.  applied  to  Alexander  III.  to  remove  it,  the  pontiff 
declined  to  interfere  except  by  remonstrance.2  Among  the 
extant  letters  of  Rodolph  of  Hapsburg  is  one  addressed  to  a 
bishop  who  had  excommunicated  all  the  inhabitants  of  a  city 
because  one  of  their  number  had  killed  a  servant  of  his  and 
had  escaped  by  flight,  nor  would  the  anger  of  the  prelate  at 
the  murder  of  his  follower  allow  the  punishment  of  the  innocent 
to  be  relaxed  until  the  emperor  was  forced  to  intervene  and 
remonstrate  with  him.3  There  was  more  of  sacrilege,  but 
hardly  a  less  Christian  determination  to  abuse  the  incalculable 
power  of  the  Eucharist,  in  the  case  of  the  cure  of  St.  John 
the  Less  at  Lyons  who  was  burnt  alive  in  1518  for  sing 
ing  mass  with  an  unconsecrated  Most.  He  confessed  on  his 
trial  that  he  had  resorted  to  this  underhand  method  of  excom 
munication  for  the  purpose  of  damning  his  parishioners  with 
whom  he  had  a  lawsuit,  by  thus  making  them  unconsciously 
commit  the  sin  of  idolatry.4 

Prelates,  however,  were  not  reduced  to  the  necessity  of  em 
ploying  impious  subterfuges  such  as  this,  and  the  above  ex 
ample  of  the  German  bishop  was  by  no  means  an  unusual  or 
extreme  one.  When  the  Regent  Blanche  in  1233  seized  the 
regalia  of  the  province  of  Rouen,  Maurice  the  Archbishop 
retorted  by  proclaiming  an  interdict  over  his  whole  diocese, 
and  maintaining  it  for  more  than  a  year,  until  the  court  had  to 

1  Wibaldi  Abbat.  Corbeiens.  Epist;.  CLVII.  ( Marten e  Ampl.  Collect.  II. 
351 ) . 

2  Alex.  PP.  III.  Epist.  133,  134  (Patrol.  T.  CC.  pp.  199-200). 

3  Cod.  Epist.  Rodolph.  I.  p.  248  (Lipsise  1806). 

4  Bodin.  de  Ma.gor.  Daemonoman.  Basil  1581,  p  .403. 


ABUSE     OP     EXCOMMUNICATION.  421 

give  way  and  surrender  the  property  with  all  the  revenues  that 
had  been  collected.1  This  disposition  to  use  their  authority 
over  Heaven  to  promote  their  worldly  ends  is  well  illustrated 
by  the  quarrel  which  arose  in  1253  when  Henri  de  Suze 
endeavored  to  levy  an  illegal  tax  on  the  citizens  of  Embrun, 
of  which  place  he  was  archbishop.  The  community  resisted  so 
vivaciously  that  he  was  forced  to  leave  the  town,  and  the  matter 
was  referred  to  the  pope,  who  appointed  the  Bishop  of  Senez 
as  an  arbiter.  As  this  prelate  was  a  suffragan  of  the  archbishop 
he  could  hardly  be  regarded  as  an  impartial  judge,  and  he 
naturally  was  unable  to  reconcile  the  parties.  In  April,  1254, 
therefore,  the  archbishop  excommunicated  the  inhabitants,  but 
they  still  refused  submission,  and  after  a  year's  grace,  in  May, 
1255,  he  fulminated  a  more  decisive  anathema  against  them, 
which  is  a  fair  example  of  the  manner  in  which  the  spirit  of 
the  Gospel  was  lost  in  the  all-absorbing  interests  of  the  tem 
poral  power  : — 

"I.  If  the  consuls  and  inhabitants  of  Embrun  do  not  return  to 
their  duty  by  St.  John's  day  they  are  declared  thenceforth  infamous, 
incapable  of  thereafter  executing  testaments,  of  bearing  witness, 
or  of  exercising  any  public  function,  and  in  addition  they  shall  be 
banished. 

"II.  All  those  who  have  served  as  consuls  since  the  date  of  ex 
communication  shall  be  disabled  from  holding  any  office  of  dignity. 
All  the  acts  of  their  consulate  are  hereby  declared  null  and  void. 

"III.  All  citizens  who  have  been  candidates  for  the  consulships 
or  municipal  council  ot  Embrun  are  declared  infamous  and  per 
jured  ;  and  those  who  have  favored  them  or  may  favor  them  are 
excommunicated.  All  the  inhabitants  more  than  fourteen  years  of 
age  who  have  obeyed  the  consuls  or  have  been  willing  to  obey 
them  are  likewise  declared  infamous  and  excommunicate. 

"IV.  All  ecclesiastics  are  forbidden  to  enter  the  town  of  Embrun  ; 
and  all  towns,  villages,  and  hamlets  of  the  diocese  are  prohibited 

1  Fragment.  Chron.  Rotomag  (D'Achery  Spicileg.  III.  614).     In  the 
maturity  of  his  power,  however,  St.  Louis  procured  from  Alexander  IV. 
a  privilege  prohibiting  all  prelates  from  issuing  interdicts  in  France  with 
out  special  papal  authority  (Ibid.  p.  634). 
36 


422  EXCOMMUNICATION. 

from  receiving  or  harboring  the  inhabitants  of  Embrun  under  pain 
of  sharing  in  the  interdict  during  their  stay. 

"  V.  All  testaments,  contracts  of  marriage,  and  other  acts  which 
may  be  executed  in  Embrun  and  other  interdicted  places  are  de 
clared  null  and  void,  especially  those  to  which  excommunicates 
are  parties.  All  children  born  of  such  unions  are  declared  bastard 
and  not  heritable,  notwithstanding  the  ignorance  of  those  who  may 
have  contracted  the  marriage. 

"  VI.  The  curates  and  chaplains  of  the  Maritime  Alps  are  ordered 
to  publish  these  presents  on  all  Sundays  and  holidays.  All  who 
during  the  interdict  shall  frequent  the  market  of  Embrun,  shall  sell 
provisions  to  the  inhabitants,  or  shall  assist  them  in  any  manner 
whatsoever,  shall  appear  before  the  archbishop  to  answer  for  their 
disobedience. 

41 VII.  The  present  interdict  shall  be  addressed  to  all  bishops, 
abbots,  priors,  convents,  and  other  ecclesiastics,  with  prohibition  to 
receive  any  of  the  inhabitants  of  Embrun,  or  any  messenger  from 
its  pretended  magistrates.  All  confessors  are  moreover  forbidden 
to  absolve  any  of  the  said  inhabitants  without  special  permission. 

"VIII.  The  bodies  of  all  persons  dying  under  the  said  excom 
munication  shall  be  hung  upon  trees.  Any  one  burying  them, 
even  in  the  fields,  is  declared  unworthy  of  sepulture  until  St.  John's 
day/1' 

As  during  the  next  year.  1250,  the  archbishop  is  found  in 
peaceable  possession  of  his  city,  we  may  fairly  conclude  that 
even  his  stubborn  Hock  were  unable  to  maintain  their  ground 
against  so  ruthless  a  proscription  as  this. 

In  sentences  of  this  kind  it  is  worthy  of  note  how  completely 
the  spiritual  penalties  had  become  absorbed  in  the  temporal 
punishment.  .The  alliance  between  church  and  state  had  done 
its  work,  and  the  church,  secularised  in  its  aspirations,  relied 
rather  upon  the  sword  of  iiesh  which  it  had  succeeded  in  grasp 
ing  than  upon  the  sword  of  the  spirit  which  it  claimed  to  have 
received  from  the  apostles.  Thus  the  power  to  refuse  the  rites 
of  Christian  sepulture,  not  content  with  merely  denying  all 
funeral  ceremonies,  expands  into  a  prohibition  even  to  hide 
the  body  of  the  excommunicate  in  the  bosom  of  mother  earth. 

1  Gautier.  Hist,  dc  la  Ville  cle  Gap,  Notes,  pp.  208-10  (Gap,  1841). 


ABUSE     OF     EXCOMMUNICATION.  423 

The  corpse  is  to  be  suspended  on  a  tree,  and  rotting  in  the  air 
is  to  carry  dreadful  warning  and  example  to  the  senses  of  those 
whose  souls  are  too  hardened  or  too  obtuse  to  fear  the  threat 
of  eternal  punishment.  This  was  no  invention  of  the  Arch 
bishop  of  Embrun.  It  was  the  recognized  penalty  attached 
by  the  church  to  all  who  died  under  her  censure.  In  1031 
the  Bishop  of  Cahors  edified  the  council  of  Limoges  with  an 
account  of  a  miracle  that  had  occurred  under  his  own  super 
vision,  showing  that  Heaven  approved  of  this  regulation.  The 
body  of  a  certain  knight  who  had  died  excommunicated  for 
spoiling  the  church  was  forcibly  buried  by  his  companions  in 
consecrated  ground,  but  without  funeral  rites.  Next  morning 
the  corpse  was  found  lying  naked  on  the  ground  beyond  the 
cemetery,  while  the  grave  presented  no  signs  of  having  been 
touched.  On  opening  it  the  grave-clothes  were  found ;  the 
body  was  again  buried,  and  the  spot  covered  with  an  enormous 
pile  of  stones,  but  to  no  effect,  for  the  next  day  the  body  was 
found  thrown  out  as  before.  This  was  repeated  five  times, 
until  the  noble  friends  of  the  deceased,  appalled  by  the  warn 
ing,  allowed  the  body  to  lie  unburied,  and  sought  reconciliation 
to  the  church.1  When  the  rule  was  thus  divinely  enforced  it 
is  no  wonder  that  the  church  adhered  to  it.  In  1200  the 
council  of  Cognac  prohibited  all  dead  excommunicates  from 
being  covered  with  stones  even  above  ground  ;'2  while  in  Ice 
land  the  attempt  to  bury  a  corpse  to  which  sepulture  had  been 
interdicted  was  punished  with  exile.3  The  custom  was  ob 
served  even  when  the  excommunication  itself  was  despised. 
Thus,  when  in  1239  Gregory  IX.  anathematized  Frederic  II. 
in  the  vain  hope  of  staying  the  progress  of  his  victorious  arms 

1  Concil.  Lemoviccns.  II.  Sess.  n.  (Ilardiiin.  T.  VI.  P.  I.  pp.  884-5). 

2  Concil.  Copriniac.  ami.  1:200  can.  15  (Havduin.  VII.  532).— Cf.  Du- 
cange  s.  v.  Imblocatus. 

:!  Kristinrettr  Thorlaks  oc  Ketils,  cap.  vir.  XLVIII.  (Havnine,  177(5,  pp. 
37,  171).  In  the  Icelandic  church  there  were  regular  fees  for  sepulture 
established  by  law,  as  well  as  for  other  sacerdotal  ministrations,  even  to 
the  consecration  of  a  church  by  a  bishop.— Ibid.  cap.  v.  xiv.  xv. 


424  EXCOMMUNICATION. 

in  Italy,  and  ordered  his  subjects  to  elect  another  emperor,  the 
Germans  treated  the  papal  fulmination  with  absolute  contempt. 
The  Bishop  of  Passau  even  soundly  pummelled  arid  cast  into 
jail  the  nuncio  who  bore  the  apostolic  commands,  and  the 
whole  nation  asserted  its  independence  of  Roman  control. 
Yet  when  Eberhardt  of  Salzburg  died  in  1240  under  excom 
munication  for  sharing  in  this  disobedience,  although  he  had 
quietly  exercised  his  archiepiscopal  functions  without  inter 
ruption,  his  body  was  refused  sepulture,  and  lay  at  Kadstadt 
until  1288,  when  it  was  finally  brought  to  Salzburg  and  mag 
nificently  interred.1  This  gave  rise  to  a  curious  abuse,  con 
demned  by  the  Synod  of  Anjou  in  1275.  Malignant  people 
would  sometimes  procure  letters  of  excommunication  against 
their  enemies  and  hold  them  secretly  until  the  death  of  the 
unfortunate,  who,  ignorant  of  the  sentence,  would  thus  die 
without  absolution,  and,  on  the  production  of  the  letters,  would 
be  denied  Christian  sepulture.2  The  Synod,  to  put  an  end  to 
this,  ordered  that  all  letters  of  excommunication  should  be 

published  within  fifteen   days  of  iheir  execution but  the  fact 

that  such  wrongs  could  be  committed,  involving  secret  trial 
and  sentence  without  notice  to  the  party  accused,  shows  ho\v 
thoroughly  corrupt  the  whole  system  had  become  and  ho\v 
easily  it  could  be  worked  to  gratify  private  malice  and  enmity. 
Usurers,  as  being  ip so  facto  excommunicate,  were  similarly 
denied  Christian  burial,  and  in  1456  the  Bishop  of  St.  Andree 
complained  to  the  council  of  Salzburg  that  the  mendicant  friars 
dared  to  give  funeral  rites  to  notorious  offenders  of  this  kind, 
without  exacting  satisfaction  from  the  heirs,  to  the  great  injury 
of  the  priesthood.3  About  the  same  period,  a  Synod  of  Amiens 
prescribed  that  the  bodies  of  impenitent  excommunicates  should 

1  Dal  ha  hi  Concil.  Salisbury-ens,  pp.  91-99. 

2  Synod.  Andegav.  ann.  1275  cap.  2  (D'Achery  I.  7:32). 

3  Concil.  Salisbury,  xxxvnr.  (Dalliam,  op.  cit.  233).     Even  as  late  as 
1569  a  formal  body  of  ecclesiastical  law  adopted  by  a  council  of  Salzburg 
forbade  Christian  sepulture  to  usurers  (Concil.  Salisburg.  XLVI.  const. 
li.  cap.  9.— Dalhani,  p.  ,505). 


ABUSE     OF     EXCOMMUNICATION.  425 

be  enclosed  in  a  box  and  placed  on  top  of  a  wall,  or  be  hung 
on  trees.1     In  process  of  time,  indeed,  the  strictness  of  the  rule 
was  relaxed  in  some  places,  where  the  clergy  found  it  more 
profitable  to  be  merciful.     George,  Bishop  of  Bamberg,  issued 
in  1465  a  scale  of  prices  for  all  the  processes  of  his  episcopal 
court,  to  restrain  the  grasping  venality  of  the  officials,  and  in 
this  document  he  defines  that  the  fee  for  burying  the  body  of 
an  excommunicate  shall  be  properly  proportioned  to  the  estate 
of  the   defunct.2     It   is   evident,  therefore,  that  the  absolute 
refusal  of  sepulture  was  no  longer  rigidly  enforced  in  his  dio 
cese,  and,  in   fact,  with  advancing  civilization  it  became  ad 
mitted  that  a  dead  excommunicate,  who  had  been  buried  in 
consecrated  ground,  could  be   reconciled    by   digging   up  his 
body  and  scourging  it,  by  way  of  penance  ;  and  a  still  greater 
relaxation  was  introduced  when  the  rule  became  established 
that  if  the  defunct   had  manifested  signs  of  contrition   on  his 
death-bed,  the  church  might  satisfy  its  sensibilities  by  merely 
scourging    the    tomb,    without    exhuming    the    corpse.3      The 
scourging  of  the  remains  of  an  excommunicate  had  long  been, 
as  we  have  already  seen  (p.  384),  one  of  the  modes  adopted  of 
admitting  him  to  salvation.     It  would  seem  that  even  in  earlier 
times  a  proceeding  so  repugnant  to  all  human  sensibilities  as  the 
denial  of  sepulture  could  not  have  been  universally  carried  out, 
for  if  it  had  been  it  would   have  demonstrated   the  falsity  of  a 
wide-spread  belief  that  the  corpse  of  an  excommunicate,  though 
it  might  decay,  was  practically  indestructible,  and  would  re 
main  for  an  indefinite  period  in  a  putrid  condition.      Adam  of 
Bremen  relates  a  case  in  which  a  body  thus  was  preserved  for 
seventy-five  years,  until  a.  pious   bishop  removed  the  excom 
munication,   when   it  incontinently  crumbled    into  dust;    and 

1  Synod.  Amlriancns.  cap.  \\.  No.  (5  (Martene  Ampl.  Coll.  VII.  12G2). 

2  Georgii  I.  Epise.  Bamberg.  Reform.  Consistorii  Art.  xlii.  (Ludewig 
Script.  Rer.  German,  I.  1183). 

:!  Azpilcuetft   Maimalis   Confessariorum    cap.  xxvi.  No.  .'V3  (Veuetiib, 
1584). 

36* 


426  EXCOMMUNICATION. 

two  centuries  later  Matthew  Paris  shows  that  the  superstition 
still  existed.1 

Thus,  although  the  temporal  penalties  formed  the  most 
efficient  feature  of  excommunication,  yet  its  spiritual  and 
superhuman  effects  were  by  no  means  abandoned.  These  were 
materialized,  however,  to  suit  the  grosser  superstitions  of  the 
age,  and  men  were  taught  that  nature  itself  was  subject  to  the 
awful  and  mysterious  ban  of  the  church.  On  sensitive  and 
spiritual  natures  the  curse  doubtless  often  worked  its  own  ful 
filment.  Adam,  a  monk  of  Locheim,  early  in  the  thirteenth 
century  used  to  relate  of  himself  that  when  a  boy,  studying  in 
the  conventual  school  of  Bocke,  he  one  day  wandered  into  the 
cemetery  where  there  was  a  pile  of  bricks  provided  for  the 
building  of  an  oratory.  Picking  up  one  of  them  he  commenced 
to  write  upon  it,  when  his  teacher  seeing  him  exclaimed, 
"  Put  it  down,  for  you  are  excommunicated."  Instantly  he 
was  struck  with  sickness,  which  continued  until  he  WHS  given 
up  as  dying,  the  last  rites  were  performed,  and  lie  was  only 
saved  miraculously  by  the  intervention  of  St.  Nicholas  and 
St.  Paternianus.'-'  Not  less  potent  were  the  effects  of  the  curse 
on  inanimate  nature.  Not  only  were  the  bodies  of  the  dead 
rendered  imperishable  witnesses  of  the  doom  reserved  in  an 
other  world  for  the  disobedient,  but  even  in  this  world,  if  the 
stubborn  soul  of  man  was  insensible,  the  dreadful  curse  could 
wither  into  sterility  his  lands  and  his  flocks,  for  God  had 
given  the  earth  to  His  church,  and  the  blessings  of  kindly 
nature  were  to  be  enjoyed  only  on  condition  of  submission  to 
its  behests. 

From  time  immemorial  up  to  the  Revolution  of  1781',  an 
annual  tribute  of  30  sous  Morlaas  was  regularly  paid  by  the 
Valley  of  Saint-Savin  in  Bigorre,  to  the  Valley  of  Aspe  in 
Beam.  The  origin  of  this  custom,  as  explicitly  set  forth  in 
formal  legal  documents  of  1348  and  1  ;">!)•?,  was  as  follows: 


1  Adam.  Bremcns.   Gest.   Pontif.    Hamburg,  Lib.  ji,  cap.    31.— Matt. 
Paris  ami.  1245  (Ed.  Paris.  1644,  p.  404). 

?  Cspgar.  Heisterhacli.  Dial.  Mirac.  Dist.  viir.  c.  Ixxiv, 


ABUSE     OF     EXCOMMUNICATION.  427 

The  people  of  Aspe  made  a  sudden  raid  upon  their  neighbors 
of  Saint-Savin,  when,  to  arrest  the  course  of  the  invaders,  an 
abbot  climbed  into  an  elder-tree  and  so  paralyzed  them  by  his 
magic  arts  that  they  allowed  themselves  to  be  slaughtered 
without  resistance.  The  pope,  informed  of  this  shocking  car 
nage,  cast  an  interdict  on  Saint-Savin,  and  for  seven  years  it 
was  cursed  with  absolute  sterility — women  bore  no  children, 
cattle  gave  no  increase,  and  the  land  produced  no  fruit.  To 
expiate  its  crime  and  to  gain  absolution  the  Valley  of  Saint- 
Savin  at  last  agreed  to  pay  tribute  to  Aspe,  and  the  memory 
of  its  punishment  and  expiation  was  thus  regularly  handed 
down  to  modern  times.1 

From  this  example  it  is  not  difficult  to  understand  how  the 
excommunication  of  animals  and  inanimate  objects  came  to 
be,  if  not  a  matter  of  everyday  occurrence,  at  all  events  a  re 
cognized  portion  of  the  attributes  and  functions  of  the  church. 
Shortly  after  St.  Bernard  had  founded  his  ascetic  community 
at  Clairvaux,  a  monk  of  a  less  rigid  order  planted  a  vineyard 
in  the  neighborhood.  Two  of  the  Bernardines,  regarding  this 
as  a  scandalous  derogation  from  the  austerity  of  monastic  life, 
after  vainly  expostulating  with  brother  Christian  the  cultivator, 
informed  him  that  he  should  never  taste  the  fruit  of  his  labors, 
and  proceeded  to  excommunicate  the  vineyard.  It  never- 
thrived,  and  Christian  died  without  seeing  it  come  into  bear 
ing.  After  years  of  resultless  labor  had  been  spent  upon  it,  at 
length  the  owner  came  to  St.  Bernard  and  complained  of  the 
curse  of  barrenness  which  had  been  inflicted  on  it  by  the  ex 
communication  of  his  brethren,  when  the  pitying  saint  caused 
a  basin  of  water  to  be  brought,  blessed  it,  and  told  the  vine 
dresser  to  sprinkle  it  over  the  accursed  ground.  The  vines 
thenceforth  grew  luxuriantly,  and  bore  such  abundant  crops 
that  they  were  the  admiration  of  all  beholders.2  It  will  be  ob 
served  here  that  it  was  not  the  sanctity  of  the  monks  but  the 

1  Lag-ieze,  Hist,  du  Droit  dans  les  Pyrenees,  Paris,  1867,  p.  8K9. 

2  Joann.  Eremit.  Vit.  S.  Bernard!  Lib.  n.  cap.  10. 


428  EXCOMMUNICATION. 

anathema  itself  which  inHicted  the  curse  of  barrenness  ;  and 
such  was  the  fact  also  in  a  case  reported  by  Chassanee,  where 
a  priest  excommunicated  an  orchard  of  which  the  tempting 
fruit  enticed  away  the  children  of  the  vicinage  from  attend 
ance  upon  divine  service.  It  immediately  ceased  bearing,  and 
remained  sterile  until  the  curse  was  removed  at  the  special  re 
quest  of  the  Dowager  Duchess  of  .Burgundy.1  A  more  bene 
ficent  exertion  of  the  same  awful  power  was  that  which  in  the 
first  half  of  the  twelfth  century  was  wrought  by  St.  Bertram!, 
Bishop  of  Comminges,  when  at  the  prayer  of  some  poor  peas 
ants  of  his  flock  he  cursed  the  tares  which  infested  their  fields, 
and  thenceforth  the  peinicious  weeds  ceased  to  exhaust  the 
fertility  of  the  soil.2 

Excommunication  of  animals,  however,  was  much  more  fre 
quent  than  that  of  inanimate  objects.  The  earliest  instance 
with  which  I  have  met  occurred  about  975,  when  the  pious 
Ecgbehrt,  Archbishop  of  Troves,  was  saying  mass  in  the 
church  of  St.  Peter,  and  an  irreligious  swallow,  which  was  cir 
cling  around  the  temple,  had  the  audacity  to  soil  his  reverend 
head.  He  promptly  cursed  the  birds,  and  it  was  thenceforth 
observed  that  they  kept  scrupulously  out  of  the  holy  precincts, 
or  if  one,  bolder  than  the  rest,  ventured  to  intrude,  it  expiated 
its  fault  by  promptly  falling  dead  upon  the  sacred  pavement.3 
Another  example  occurred  in  1120,  when  a  bishop  of  Laon 
excommunicated  the  caterpillars,  which  were  ravaging  his  dio 
cese,  with  the  same  formula  as  that  employed  the  previous  year 
by  the  council  of  Rheims  in  cursing  the  priests  who  persisted 
in  marrying  in  spite  of  the  canons.4  What  success  attended 
his  efforts  is  not  on  record,  but  soon  afterwards  St.  Bernard 
found  the  remedy  effectual  when,  preaching  in  the  monastery 
of  Foigny,  which  he  founded  in  1121,  he  was  interrupted  by 

1  Agncl,  Curiosites  Judiciaires  du  Moycn-Age,  Paris,  1858,  p.  26. 

2  Vita  S.  Bertrandi  Convcnar.  No.  21  (Martene  Ampliss.  Collect.  VI. 
1032). 

3  Gestre  Trevir.  Archiep.  cap.  xi.  (Martene  Ampliss.  Collect.  IV.  158). 

4  Desmaze,  Penalitds  Anciennes,  Paris,  I860,  pp.  *>l-2. 


ABUSE     OP     EXCOMMUNICATION.  429 

swarms  of  irreligious  flies  whose  buzzing  sorely  tried  the  pa 
tience  of  the  orator  and  the  attention  of  his  audience.  Wearied 
beyond  endurance,  the  saint  at  last  exclaimed  to  his  tormentors, 
"  I  excommunicate  you,"  and  next  morning  they  were  found 
lying  dead  upon  the  floor  of  the  chapel  in  such  multitudes  that 
they  had  to  be  swept  out.1 

In  all  these  cases  it  is  observable  how  completely  the  origi 
nal  idea  of  excommunication — the  depriving  a  sinner  of  par 
ticipation  in  a  sacrament  of  which  he  was  unworthy — is  lost  in 
the  secondary  notion  of  a  ban  or  curse  inflicted  on  persons  or 
things  who  never  had  enjoyed  or  could  enjoy  communion.  Per 
haps  the  most  extraordinary  instance  of  this  extension  of  the 
formula  is  to  be  found  in  a  story  related  of  St.  Bernard,  in 
which  that  holy  person  actually  and  successfully  excommuni 
cated  the  devil.  A  woman  for  six  years  had  been  in  constant 
commerce  with  a  demon  incubus  of  whom  she  could  not  get 
rid.  St.  Bernard  happening  to  come  into  the  neighborhood, 
she  formed  the  intention  of  appealing  to  him,  whereupon  the 
demon  threatened  her  with  the  most  fearful  torments  if  she 
should  dare  to  do  so.  In  spite  of  this,  she  carried  out  her  in- 
iritention,  when  the  saint  obligingly  and  with  much  ceremony 
performed  the  rite  of  excommunicating  the  evil  spirit,  who 
thereupon  departed  and  left  in  peace  his  female  partner  in 
guilt.2  The  church  thus  is  no  longer  merely  the  custodian  of 
the  body  and  blood  of  the  Redeemer,  but  has  acquired  the 
attributes  of  the  Deity,  the  power  to  bless  or  to  curse,  and  ex 
communication  is  only  the  traditional  form  through  which  to 
convey  the  ban  that  works  woe  in  this  world  and  the  next. 
In  all  ages  the  saints,  peculiarly  favored  of  God,  were  enabled 
by  divine  grace  to  work  miracles,  but  the  formula  of  excom 
munication  embodied  the  collective  authority  of  the  church, 

1  Guillelmi  S.  Theod.  Vit.  S.  Beruardi  cap.  xi.  No.  52.   William;  Abbot 
of  St.  Theodore,  was  a  contemporary  of  St.  Bernard,  and  his  story  repre 
sents  therefore  a  living  belief  of  the  age,  and  not  merely  a  miraculous 
legend. 

2  Nider  Formicar.  Lib.  v.  c.  x. 


430  EXCOMMUNICATION. 

and  it  was  effectual  as  an  everyday  operation  of  that  authority, 
irrespective  of  the  character  of  the  minister  who  wielded  it. 

How  thoroughly  these  excomrnonications  of  animals  were 
assimilated  to  the  regular  use  of  the  censures  of  the  church  is 
manifest  by  the  form  which  they  subsequently  took.  Even  as 
the  canons,  however  constantly  violated,  forbade  the  expulsion 
of  a  Christian  without  a  formal  trial,  so,  as  civilization  ad 
vanced,  it  began  to  be  thought  that  an  unfair  advantage  was 
taken  of  the  dumb  creatures  of  God  by  condemning  them  un 
heard,  and  the  practice  arose  of  affording  them  the  opportunity 
of  defence  before  the  ecclesiastical  courts  prior  to  pronouncing 
the  dreadful  sentence  against  them.  Perhaps  the  best  known  of 
these  curious  proceedings  was  that  by  which  the  distinguished 
lawyer,  Bartholomew  Chassanee,  in  1510,  made  the  reputa 
tion  which  subsequently  elevated  him  to  the  post  of  Premier 
President  of  the  Parlement  of  Aix.  The  country  around  Autun 
being  intolerably  infested  with  rats,  whose  numbers  resisted 
all  ordinary  means  of  extermination,  the  inhabitants  applied 
to  the  bishop  to  have  the  vermin  regularly  excommunicated. 
The  episcopal  court  nominated  Chassanee  to  appear  as  counsel 
for  the  rats,  in  consequence  of  his  having  shortly  before  printed 
a  consultation  of  vast  erudition  on  trials  of  that  kind,  lie  ac 
cordingly  undertook  the  defence,  and  proved  that  the  rats  had 
not  been  properly  summoned  to  appear,  and  the  trial  went  over 
until  a  formal  citation  to  the  defendants  was  published  by  the 
priests  of  all  the  parishes  in  the  infested  district.  Ue  then 
moved  for  a  longer  delay,  alleging  that  the  time  allowed  the 
rats  to  put  in  an  appearance  was  too  short,  in  view  of  the 
danger  incurred  through  reason  of  the  cats  which  barred  all 
access  to  the  court  ;  and  his  learned  argument  on  the  point 
gained  an  additional  postponement.1  De  Thou,  to  whom  we 
are  indebted  for  these  curious  details,  does  not  state  the  conclu 
sion  of  the  trial,  but  it  is  fair  to  presume  that  the  rats  were 
finally  condemned  and  duly  excommunicated,  in  spite  of  the 

1  De  Thou,  Hist.  Univ.  Lib.  vr. 


ABUSE     OF     EXCOMMUNICATION.  431 

learning  and  ability  of  their  advocate,  for  that  was  the  usual 
result  in  these  cases,  and  Chassanee  in  his  consultation  had 
admitted  its  propriety.  He  argues,  after  various  generalizing 
reasons,  that  religion  permits  us  to  lay  snares  for  birds  and 
other  animals  destructive  of  the  fruits  of  the  earth,  and  that 
the  anathema  is  the  surest  and  most  comprehensive  of  snares. 
That  to  preserve  the  harvests,  incantations  and  other  forbidden 
proceedings  are  tolerated  by  the  law,  and  a  fortiori  it  is  per 
missible  to  use  against  destructive  vermin  the  excommunica 
tion  which  is  authorized  and  employed  by  the  church  itself. 
In  support  of  this  opinion  he  cites  a  case  in  which  the  sparrows 
who  soiled  the  church  of  St.  Vincent  were  excommunicated 
by  the  bishop,  and  another  where  the  rats  and  caterpillars  who 
swarmed  over  a  wide  extent  of  country  were  jointly  anathe 
matized  by  the  ecclesiastical  authorities  of  Autun,  Macon,  and 
Lyons.1 

Such  cases,  indeed,  were  by  no  means  rare.  In  1451  the 
fish  of  the  Lake  of  Geneva  were  threatened  with  destruction 
by  the  abounding  multitudes  of  leeches.  By  order  of  William 
of  Saluces,  Bishop  of  Lausanne,  a  regular  trial  was  held  ;  the 
leeches  were  ordered,  under  pain  of  excommunication,  to  con- 
line  themselves  to  a  certain  spot,  and  they  duly  obeyed,  no 
longer  venturing  to  wander  beyond  the  limits  prescribed.  In 
1480  the  spiritual  court  of  Autun,  on  complaint  of  the  inhabi 
tants  of  Mussy  and  Pernan,  excommunicated  the  caterpillars, 
and  ordered  the  priests  to  repeat  the  anathema  from  their  pul 
pits  until  it  should  produce  the  desired  effect.  In  1481  a  simi 
lar  sentence  was  rendered  at  Macon  against  the  snails,  which 
was  repeated  in  1487.  Another  was  delivered  in  1488  at 
Autun  against  the  caterpillars,  and  the  same  year  at  Beaujeu 
against  the  snails.  At  Troves,  in  1516,  there  were  similar 
proceedings  against  caterpillars;'2  and  about  the  same  time 
against  grasshoppers  at  Miiliere  in  Normandy.  The  progress 

1  Agncl,  Curiosites  Judiciaircs,  pp.  25-0. 

-  The  form  of  adjuration  employed  on  this  occasion  may  be  found  in 
Du  Cange  K.  v.  Excommnnicatio  (T.  III.  p.  137,  col.  i.  Ed.  1844). 


432  EXCOMMUNICATION. 

of  enlightenment,  however,  made  itself  apparent  in  1587  at 
Valence,  where  a  plague  of  caterpillars  led  to  a  formal  trial 
and  sentence  of  banishment  under  pain  of  excommunication. 
The  obstinate  insects  refusing  obedience,  the  grand  vicar  of 
the  Bishop  of  Valence  was  proceeding  to  fulminate  the  threat 
ened  anathema,  when  he  was  dissuaded  by  some  discreet  lawyers 
and  canonists.1 

In  Spain  at  a  somewhat  earlier  period  the  theologians  took 
the  sensible  view  that  all  such  proceedings  were  vain  and 
superstitious,  seeing  that  insects  being  devoid  of  reason  cannot 
understand  the  anathema  launched  at  them,  and  being  the 
result  of  natural  causes,  and  having  no  free  will,  they  are 
guilty  of  no  sin.  Yet  the  superstition  was  so  ingrained  in  the 
people  that  a  class  of  swindlers  derived  support  from  their 
assumed  power  to  drive  away  these  pests,  and  were  paid  every 
year  to  come  for  that  purpose.  Their  proceedings  consisted 
in  holding  a  court  wherein  one  acted  as  judge,  another  as 
prosecutor,  and  a  third  as  counsel  for  the  defendants.  Long 
pleadings  were  made,  with  frequent  adjournments  and  delays, 
and  finally  judgment  was  given  that  the  insects  should  vacate 
the  district  within  a  specified  time  under  pain  of  excommuni 
cation,  lata  sententia.  Ciruelo,  a  learned  inquisitor,  writing 
in  1539,  condemns  as  blasphemous  this  burlesque  upon  the 
holy  ceremonies  of  the  church,  and  calls  upon  both  the  eccle 
siastical  and  secular  tribunals  to  punish  all  concerned,  espe 
cially  as  the  devil,  for  the  purpose  of  deceiving  pious  simplicity, 
often  caused  the  insects  to  disappear  when  thus  summoned. 
Yet  in  his  directions  as  to  what  ought  to  be  done  to  get  rid  of 
these  pests,  he  mingles  sound  agricultural  advice  with  instruc 
tions  for  the  use  of  holy  water,  masses,  processions,  and  other 
spiritual  remedies,  which  must  have  been  equally  tempting  to 
the  Arch  Deceiver.  He  especially  recommends  devotion  to 
St.  Gregory  of  Ostia,  who  was  sent  by  the  pope  in  response  to 
.an  application  from  the  people  of  Aragon  and  Navarre,  after 

1  Agnel,  op.  cit.  pp.  26-36. 


ABUSE     OF     EXCOMMUNICATION.  433 

suffering  devastation  for  many  years  from  a  plague  of  locusts. 
St.  Gregory  organized  processions  of  flagellants,  with  prayers, 
fasts,  and  almsgiving,  and  then  irt  full  pontificals  celebrated 
mass  in  various  places  throughout  the  infected  districts.  His 
sanctity,  the  papal  authority,  and  the  grace  of  God  were  too 
much  for  the  devastators,  who  fled  the  country  and  disap 
peared.1 

Cardinal  Duperron,  who  was  too  vain  of  his  learning  to  have 
much  belief  in  anything  but  himself,  was  keenly  alive  to  the 
absurdity  of  such  proceedings,  and  in  the  ritual  of  Kvreux  in 
1G06  forbade  every  tiling  of  the  kind  except  under  written  per 
mission  of  the  bishop.  Yet  the  superstition  was  too  deeply 
rooted  in  the  popular  belief  to  be  easily  eradicated,  nor  was 
the  church  prepared  to  abandon  any  source  of  influence  over 
the  faithful.  Martin  of  Aries,  who  about  this  period  published 
a  tract  against  the  superstitions  of  the  day,  mingles  with  sen 
sible  observations  on  the  grosser  forms  of  popular  credulity  a 
defence  of  proceedings  of  this  kind,  provided  they  are  con 
ducted  in  accordance  with  the  established  formulas  of  the 
church.  All  destructive  vermin  he  conceives  to  be  the  direct 
emissaries  or  instruments  of  the  devil,  and  it  is  the  province  of 
the  church  to  exorcise  and  defeat  the  devil  in  all  his  manifes 
tations.2  What  were  the  established  forms  are  to  be  found  in 
a  manual  of  exorcisms  published  by  authority  at  Antwerp  in 
1648,  which  gives  the  regular  ritual  provided  for  the  cursing 
of  noxious  vermin.  After  certain  prayers  offered  in  the  fields 
to  be  cleansed  of  them,  the  priest  recited  the  9th  chapter  of 
the  Apocalypse,  the  llth  of  Luke,  and  the  49th  Psalm,  and 
then  proceeded,  "  I  exorcise  and  adjure  you,  O  pestilent 

1  Ciruelo,  Reprovacion    de   Supersticioues,   P.  in.   c.  x.,   Salamanca, 
1539. — Del  Rio,  writing  in  the  early  years  of  the  seventeenth  century, 
quotes  Ciruelo  at  much  length  and  with   full  approval,  as  though  his 
remarks  were  still  applicable.—  Magica,  Lib.  vi.  Anaceph.  Monit.  11. 

2  D.  Martini  de  Aries  Tract,  de  Superstit.  Ed.  Francof.  ad.  M.  1581,  pp. 
392,  sqq.     The  first  edition  of  this  work  I  believe  was  published  in  Rome 
in  1560. 

37 


434  EXCOMMUNICATION. 

worms,  by  God  the  omnipotent  Father,  and  our  Lord  Jesus 
Christ  His  Son,  and  by  the  Holy  Ghost  proceeding  from  both, 
that  you  at  once  abandon  tkese  fields,  meadows,  pastures,  gar 
dens,  vineyards,  and  waters,  if  the  providence  of  God  permit 
you  still  to  live,  and  that  you  no  longer  stay  here  but  betake 
yourselves  to  such  places  that  you  may  do  no  harm  to  the  ser 
vants  of  God.  If  you  are  here  through  the  craft  of  the  devil, 
I  order  you  in  the  name  of  Divine  Majesty,  of  all  the  Heavenly 
Host,  and  of  the  Church  Militant,  to  decrease  and  disappear 
unless  you  can  add  to  the  glory  of  God  the  comfort  of  man. 
"Which  may  He  deign  to  grant  who  cometh  to  judge  the  quick 
and  the  dead  and  the  world  by  fire.  Amen  I"1 

In  this  there  is  no  mention  of  excommunication,  and  if  the 
latter  was  employed,  it  must  have  been  a  subsequent  proceed 
ing  on  the  vermin  proving  obdurate  to  the  exorcism.  The 
custom  was  not  obsolete,  however,  for,  fifty  years  later,  the 
Canadian  colonists  used  occasionally  to  seek  protection  from 
the  ravages  of  immense  flocks  of  wild  pigeons  by  getting  the 
Bishop  of  Quebec  to  excommunicate  them  ;  and  in  the  early 
part  of  the  eighteenth  century,  at  the  request  of  the  village  of 
Pont-du-Chateau  in  Auvergne,  a  regular  process  of  anathema 
was  resorted  to  by  the  ecclesiastical  courts  against  an  invasion 
of  caterpillars.  In  1713  the  good  brethren  of  the  monastery 
of  St.  Anthony  of  Maranon,  in  Brazil,  finding  that  their  pro 
visions  were  destroyed  and  the  foundations  of  their  building 
undermined  by  an  immense  colony  of  ants,  went  through  the 
forms  of  a  regular  trial,  ending  in  a  sentence  of  banishment 
under  pain  of  excommunication  ;  and  on  this  being  formally 
read  at  the  entrance  of  the  ant-holes,  the  obedient  insects  at 

1  R.  D.  Max.  ab  Eynatten  Maimale  Exorcismorum,  Antverpire,  1649, 
pp.  299-305.  I  find  the  same  form  of  exorcism,  with  a  more  elaborate 
litany,  in  a  manual  published  in  Italy  in  1815  (Sannig,  Collectio  sive 
Apparatus  Absolutionum,  Benedictionum,  Conjurationum,  Exorcismo 
rum,  Rituum,  etc.  Bassani,  1815,  p.  217),  and  it  may  possibly  be  used 
there  to  this  day.  The  same  collection  has  a  form  of  exorcism  for  pow 
der  and  ball,  to  insure  that  when  used  against  enemies  of  the  Catholic 
faith  evil  spirits  may  not  render  them  harmless  (Ibid.  p.  180). 


ABUSE     OF     EXCOMMUNICATION.  435 

once  took  up  the  line  of  march  in  heavy  columns  and  pro 
ceeded  to  the  spot  designated  for  their  habitation.  About  the 
same  time  a  similar  occurrence  is  recorded  as  taking  place  in 
Peru,  where  the  ravages  of  a  multitude  of  ants  threatened  to 
destroy  a  library.1 

These  eccentric  abuses  of  the  power  of  excommunication 
have  their  importance  as  showing  the  impression  produced  on 
the  human  mind  by  the  assiduous  teachings  of  the  church. 
Not  only  was  the  anathema  thus  believed  to  be  endowed  with 
almost  omnipotent  force,  but  the  disposition  to  resort  to  it  on 
every  occasion  when  the  ordinary  processes  of  law  were  at 
fault  was  encouraged  until  it  became  a  universal  remedy  or 
panacea.  Diego  Gelmirez,  Archbishop  of  Compostella,  in  the 
early  part  of  the  twelfth  century,  could  think  of  no  better 
mode  of  preserving  the  manuscript  history  of  his  pontificate 
than  by  fulminating  an  excommunication,  which  consigned  to 
eternal  damnation  with  Dathan  and  Abiram,  any  sacrilegious 
wretch  who  might  steal  or  mutilate  the  copy  which  he  de 
posited  in  the  archives  of  his  cathedral  ;2  and  Arnaud,  Abbot 
of  St.  Peter  of  Sens,  on  his  death-bed  in  1 123,  formally  excom 
municated  any  of  his  successors  who  should  sell,  or  lend,  or 
lose,  any  of  the  twenty  volumes  which  constituted  the  abbey 
library.3  When  Clement  III.  desired  to  encourage  the  rising 
University  of  Bologna,  he  issued  a  bull  anathematizing  ipso 
facto  any  one  who  should  offer  higher  rent  for  lodgings  occu 
pied  by  any  teacher  or  student ;  and  this  became  the  com 
mon  law  of  the  church  everywhere,  according  to  Alfonso  the 
Wise.4  After  the  invention  of  printing  had  given  a  pecuniary 
value  to  literary  labor,  and  before  the  introduction  of  the 
legal  protection  of  copyright,  pirated  editions  were  prevented  by 
accompanying  the  grant  of  exclusive  publication  with  an  ana- 

1  Agnel,  op.  cit.  pp.  40-46. 

2  Historiae  Compostellan.  Procem.  et  Comminatio. 

3  Chron.  S.  Petri  Vivi  (D'Achery  II.  484). 

4  Las  Siete  Partidas,  P.  I.   Tit.  ix.  1.  2.   Cf.  Thesauri  de  Psenis  Ecclcs., 
Ferraria?,  1761,  p.  83. 


436  EXCOMMUNICATION. 

Ihema  directed  against  all  who  should  infringe  upon  the  rights 
of  the  author.  Even  popes  did  not  disdain  thus  to  fulminate 
the  papal  excommunication,  and  publishers  were  able  to  de 
fiantly  proclaim  the  eternal  punishment  awaiting  those  who 
should  interfere  with  their  privileges.1  So  minute,  indeed, 
were  the  applications  of  the  anathema  that  learned  doctors 
gravely  disputed  whether  a  man  who  stole  a  single  bunch  of 
grapes  from  a  vineyard  could  be  excommunicated,  if  others 
followed  his  example  until  the  vines  were  stripped;  or  whether 
the  same  penalty  could  be  inflicted  for  the  theft  of  a  tailor's 
needle,  when  the  loss  of  it  might  throw  him  out  of  work.2  Yet 
any  doubts  as  to  the  propriety  of  thus  employing  the  anathema 
for  trifles  were  usually  resolved  in  the  affirmative.  In  a  ser 
mon  preached  at  St.  Andrew's  in  Io28,  "William  Arith,  a 
Dominican  friar,  after  premising  that  cursing  "  was  the  most 
fearefull  thing  upon  the  face  of  the  earth,"  proceeded  to  state, 
"  but  now  the  avarice  of  preests  and  ignorance  of  their  office 
hath  caused  it  to  be  altogether  vilipended  ;  for  the  preest, 
whose  duetie  and  office  is  to  pray  for  the  people,  standeth  up 
on  Soonday  and  crieth  'One  hath  tint  a  spurtell ;  there  is  a 
flail  stollen  beyond  the  barne  ;  the  good  wife  on  the  other  side 
of  the  gate  hath  lost  a  home  spoone  ;  God's  curse  and  myne 
I  give  to  them  that  knoweth  of  this  geere  and  restoreth  it 
not!'"3 

This  idea  of  supplementing  the  defects  of  human  law  by  the 
employment  of  excommunication  was  a  very  fruitful  one,  and 
gave  immense  extension  to  the  jurisdiction  of  the  church,  not 
only  increasing  incalculably  the  power  of  the  ecclesiastical 
body,  but  providing  an  endless  succession  of  fees  for  its  offi- 

1  See  the  Rituum  Ecclesiasticorum  Libri  III.  Venet.  1516. — Reprinted 
in  Hoffmann's  Nova  Script,  ac  Monument.  Collect.  T.  II.  (Lipsirc,  1733). 
A  threat  of  major  excommunication  is  likewise  appended  to  an  elaborate 
account  of  an  auto-de-fe  published  in  Cordova  in  1(525,  with  the  authority 
of  the  Inquisition  (Arch  Seld.  130,  Bib.  Bodl.). 

2  Avila  de  Censuris  Eccles.  P.  ir.  cap.  v.  Disp.  ii.  Dub.  3  Conclus.  3. 

3  Calderwood's  Historie  of  the  Kirk  of  Scotland,  Vol.  I.  pp.  83-4. 


ABUSE     OP    EXCOMMUNICATION.  437 

cials.  Even  as  late  as  the  eighteenth  century,  any  one  suffering 
from  a  theft  could  procure  episcopal  letters  of  excommunication 
against  the  offenders  on  swearing  that  they  were  unknown,  and 
casuists  excused  this  traffic  in  the  body  and  blood  of  Christ  by 
arguing  that  this  process  was  not  intended  for  the  temporal 
good  of  the  loser,  but  for  the  soul's  health  of  the  criminal.1  In 
fact,  before  an  irreligious  generation  superseded  it  with  the 
carnal  device  of  a  detective  police,  it  was  regarded  as  the  most 
efficient  agency  for  the  recovery  of  stolen  property.  There  is 
on  record  a  bull  of  Paul  III.,  issued  in  1542,  excommunicating 
some  graceless  rascals  who  had  made  way  with  a  portion  of 
the  muniments  of  Montignac  in  Bigorre.  In  the  archives  of 
Pau  there  exist  various  "  rnonitoires,"  dating  about  the  middle 
of  the  seventeenth  century,  addressed  by  the  episcopal  official 
to  the  cures  of  parishes,  for  the  purpose  of  obtaining  the  resti 
tution  of  certain  papers  belonging  to  the  commune.  These 
monitoires  were  read  from  the  pulpits,  and  after  three  repeti 
tions,  any  one  neglecting  to  reveal  any  facts  within  his  knowl 
edge  bearing  on  the  subject  was  ipso  facto  excommunicated. 
So,  also,  the  records  of  Vic-en-Bigorre  contain  a  resolution 
adopted  by  the  authorities  of  that  town,  in  16(55,  to  obtain  a 
papal  excommunication  against  certain  parties  who  would  not 
restore  some  documents  belonging  to  the  commune.2  When, 
in  1582,  the  constitutions  of  the  see  of  Valencia  were  collected, 
a  hundred  copies  were  printed  and  one  was  given  to  each  of 
the  canons.  To  preserve  the  supply,  the  simple  expedient  was 
adopted  of  excommunicating  the  heirs  of  any  canon  who  should 
not  return  to  the  church  his  copy  within  three  day  of  being 
summoned  so  to  do.3 

In  1568  the  Inquistors  of  Valencia  were  forbidden  to  employ 
the  censures  of  the  church  in  cases  where  the  familiars  and 
other  inferior  officials  of  the  Holy  Office  had  suffered  theft  or 

1  Avila  de  Censuris  Eccles.  P.  IT.  cap.  v.  Disp.  ii.  Dub.  1  Conclus.  2,  3. 

2  Lagreze,  Hist,  du  Droit  dans  les  Pyrenees,  pp.  281,  211. 

3  Epist.  Consl.it.  Eccles.  Valent.  (Aguirre  Concil.  Hispan.  V.  530). 

37* 


438  EXCOMMUNICATION. 

damage1 — leaving  it  to  be  interred  that  they  were  at  liberty  to 
use  them  when  the  property  of  the  superior  officers  was  con 
cerned.  How  completely  the  anathema  had  become  a  matter 
of  traffic  is  shown  by  a  canon  of  the  council  of  Seville  in  1520 
prohibiting  the  episcopal  officials  from  issuing  letters  of  excom 
munication  in  blank  ;  and  the  extent  to  which  the  abuse  was 
carried  is  manifested  by  another  provision  declaring  that  such 
letters  shall  not  be  granted  in  trivial  matters,  the  minimum 
limit  being  fixed  at  100  maravedis.2  This  limit  was  raised, 
with  the  fall  in  the  value  of  money,  by  the  Synod  of  Valencia, 
in  15G6,  to  three  livres  in  cases  where  an  article  was  certainly 
known  to  have  been  lost  or  stolen,  and  to  fifteen  livres  where 
the  loss  or  theft  was  only  conjectural,  the  value  to  be  sworn  to 
by  the  party  applying  for  the  letters.3 

The  extension  of  church  censures  to  matters  so  manifestly 
bey<  nd  their  legitimate  sphere,  however,  could  not  but  inter 
fere  with  the  respect  due  to  them,  even  in  Spain,  and  casuists 
found  little  difficulty  in  eluding  their  consequences.  In  1  (».">(.), 
Fray  Miguel  de  Santa  Maria,  a  learned  theologian,  was  called 
upon  for  his  opinion  whether  a  depositary  could  be  forced  by 
a  proclamation  of  ipso  facto  excommunication  to  reveal  a  de 
posit  which  he  held  for  the  benefit  of  his  wife,  the  only  daughter 
and  legal  heiress  of  the  depositor,  who  was  the  undoubted 
owner  of  the  property  in  question.  The  bare  statement  of  the 
case  shows  the  foul  uses  to  which  excommunication  was  habit 
ually  put,  and  the  good  friar,  writing  from  his  convent,  had 
no  hesitation  in  making  the  unqualified  assertion  that  a  gene 
ral  proclamation  of  excommunication  was  only  binding  on 
those  who  were  in  mortal  sin,  that  it  was  always  to  be  under 
stood  as  not  aiding  an  injustice,  and  that  the  depositary  might, 
with  a  good  conscience,  deny  under  oath  the  holding  of  the 
deposit.4 

1  Concordia,  ano  de  1568  (Bib.  Bodl.  Arch  Seld.  130). 
-  Concil.  Hispalens.  ami.  1512  can.  lix.  (Aguirre  V.  379). 

3  Synod.  Valent.  aim.  1560  Act.  n.  cap.  xxi.  (Aguirre  V.  471). 

4  MS.  Rilil.  Bodleian.  Arch  Seld.  I.  1. 


ABUSE     OF     EXCOMMUNICATION.  439 

It  was  to  put  a  limit  to  these  abuses  that  the  council  ot 
Toledo  in  1582  decreed  that  only  bishops  personally,  or  their 
vicars  general  in  their  absence,  should  have  power  to  issue 
letters  of  excommunication.1  Yet  there  can  be  little  doubt 
that  in  many  cases  this  process  was  very  effective.  William 
Arith,  in  the  sermon  alluded  to  above,  told  a  story  of"  his  being 
asked  by  some  gossips  "  What  ser vaunt  will  serve  a  man  best 
upon  least  expense?"  and  on  his  guessing  "  the  good  angel," 
he  was  told  he  was  wrong,  for  "  Know  ye  not  how  the  bishops 
and  their  officialls  serve  us  husbandmen  ?  Will  they  not  give 
us  a  letter  of  cursing  for  a  placke  to  indure  for  a  whole  yeere, 
to  curse  all  that  look  over  our  dykes  ?  That  keepeth  our 
corne  better  nor  the  sleeping  boy,  who  will  have  three  shillings 
in  fee,  a  shirt,  and  a  pair  of  shoes  in  the  yeere."2 

The  most  instructive  example,  however,  of  this  extension 
of  the  anathema  is  perhaps  to  be  found  in  its  application  to 
the  collection  of  debts,  which  was  so  widely  used  and  so  long 
continued  that  we  may  fairly  conclude  that  it  proved  very 
effectual.  The  rise  of  this  custom  would  seem  to  be  attribu 
table  to  the  efforts  of  the  papacy  to  protect  the  money-lenders 
of  Italy  in  advancing  funds  to  the  multitudes  attracted  to  Rome 
by  the  innumerable  interests  concentrated  around  the  high 
court  of  Christendom.  A  sojourn  in  the  Holy  City  by  any 
one  who  had  a  favor  to  gain,  a  preferment  to  be  confirmed,  or 
a  cause  to  be  won,  was  apt  to  prove  much  more  costly  than 
the  simple  Englishman  or  German  had  anticipated,  and  be 
nevolent  bankers  were  not  scarce  who  would  cheerfully  supply 
the  necessities  of  any  prelate  in  good  credit,  to  the  resultant 
profit  of  the  papal  officials.  In  fact,  it  was  popularly  believed 
throughout  Europe  that  these  bankers  were  really  only  agents 
of  the  popes,  whose  money  they  thus  were  wont  to  put  out  at 
usurious  interest,3  and  thus  it  was  natural  that  the  holy  father 

1  Condi.  Toletan.  Provin.  an.  1532  Act.  in.  decret.  iv.  (Aguirre  VI.  7). 

2  Calderwood,  loc.  dt. 

3  See  the  treatise,  De  Recuperatione  Terne  Sanctt?  cap.  xvii.   (Bon- 
gars  Gesta  Dei  per  Francos   IT.  325).      The  author  was   supervisor  of 


440  EXCOMMUNICATION. 

should  exercise  a  paternal  watchfulness  over  the  repayment  of 
the  advances.  The  stranger,  however,  would  sometimes  depart 
without  a  settlement,  and  when  safely  returned  to  his  native 
fastnesses  would  prove  unduly  oblivious  of  the  florins  and  by- 
zants  accumulated  against  him  on  the  books  of  the  obliging 
Italian.  Collections  by  the  ordinary  forms. of  law  were  almost 
hopeless,  but  it  was  not  difficult  to  obtain  the  friendly  interest 
of  the  head  of  the  church,  whose  arm  was  long,  and  who  could 
reach  the  debtor,  however  distant  and  however  high-placed. 
The  earliest  instance  of  this  with  which  I  have  met  occurred 
in  1180,  when  Lucius  III.  writes  to  the  Archbishop  of  Can 
terbury,  whose  chancellor  had  borrowed  largely  of  some  Bo- 
lognese  on  the  security  of  an  Italian  friend.  The  money  was 
not  forthcoming,  the  interest  was  daily  increasing  the  debt, 
arid  the  security  was  becoming  uncomfortable,  when  the  pope 
intervened  and  informed  the  English  primate  that  if  the  trans 
action  was  not  disputed,  the  debtor  must  be  forced  to  settle  by 
means  of  ecclesiastical  censures.1  So  in  1207  we  find  Theo- 
doric,  Bishop  of  Utrecht,  making  default  in  the  payment  of 
1250  marks  borrowed  of  certain  citizens  of  Rome  and  Siena, 
and  setting  at  naught  the  excommunication  launched  at  him 
by  the  Bishop  of  Pnvneste  as  papal  legate.  At  length  Inno 
cent  III.  wrote  to  Hugh,  Bishop  of  Liege,  that  the  sum  must 
be  paid  within  the  year,  in  three  equal  instalments,  without 
interest,  failing  which,  Hugh  is  formally  to  anathematize 
Theodoric  with  bell,  book,  and  candle,  in  all  the  churches  of 
the  province  of  Cologne,  and  the  clergy  of  Utrecht  are  no 
longer  to  render  obedience  to  him  ;  while  further  contumacy 
is  to  be  punished  with  final  deposition.2  It  is  evident  that  no 
ecclesiastical  rank,  however  exalted,  exempted  the  debtor 

ecclesiastical  causes  in  Aquitaine,  and  thus  probably  had  ample  oppor 
tunity  to  learn  the  inner  workings  of  the  Roman  curia,  and  as  his  book 
is  addressed  to  Edward  I.  of  England,  his  royal  master,  it  may  be  as 
sumed  to  have  ample  endorsement.  According  to  Michaud  (Bibl.  des 
Croisades  I.  198),  it  was  written  about  the  year  1200. 

1  Cap.  -°>  X.  Lib.  in.  Tit.  22. 

*  Innocent.  PP.  ITT.  Regest,  Lib.  vi.  Epist.  215. 


ABUSE     OF     EXCOMMUNICATION.  441 

from  this  liability,  as  Ulric,  Archbishop  of  Salzburg,  found 
when  he  was  excommunicated  in  1262  by  Urban  IV.  for  not 
fulfilling  engagements  made  with  the  pontiff,  amounting  to 
4000  marks.1 

In  an  age  when  the  distinctions  of  meum  and  tuum  were  too 
often  subordinated  to  force  and  fraud,  there  was  a  charming 
promptness  and  simplicity  about  this  mode  of  procedure  which 
recommended  it  forcibly  to  the  proverbially  defenceless  class 
of  creditors.  They,  therefore,  eagerly  supported  the  claims  of 
the  church  to  jurisdiction  in  such  cases,  which  was  easily 
effected  by  making  debtors  swear  to  the  punctual  discharge  of 
their  obligations.  Bankruptcy  thus  became  perjury,  which  was 
clearly  a  case  of  conscience,  subject  to  the  courts  Christian  ; 
and  gradually  the  latter  acquired  a  large  and  profitable  busi 
ness  in  collecting  desperate  debts.  Already,  by  the  middle  of 
the  thirteenth  century,  St.  Louis  felt  himself  obliged  to  restrain 
the  rigor  of  these  proceedings  by  enacting  that  when  in  such 
cases  the  debtor  remained  under  excommunication  for  the  legal 
period  of  a  year  and  a  day,  the  secular  court  should  seize  only 
his  property  and  not  his  person,  leaving  him,  moreover,  enough 
to  sustain  life,  and  that  on  settlement  lie  should  pay  a  fine  of 

nine  livres three  to  the  temporal  and  six  to  the  ecclesiastical 

court.2  And  in  1245,  when  he  was  preparing  for  his  crusade 
and  granted  to  all  debtors  who  would  assume  the  cross  three 
years'  extension  for  the  payment  of  their  obligations,  he  ordered 
that  those  who  were  under  excommunication  should  be  ab 
solved  by  their  creditors  without  prejudice  to  any  securities 
which  the  latter  might  hold.3  About  the  same  time  the  council 
of  Ruffec,  on  the  other  hand,  sharply  reproved  the  tenderness 
of  those  priests  who  absolved  the  dying  debtor,  without  first 
taking  care  to  see  that  his  heirs  had  arranged  to  satisfy  the 
creditors,  and  in  all  such  cases  the  misplaced  sensibility  of  the 
ecclesiastic  was  punished  by  making  him  responsible  for  all 

1  Dalham  Concil.  Salisbury,  p.  98. 

2  Etablissements,  Liv.  i.  chap.  123. 

3  Martene  Collect.  Ampliss.  I.  1295. 


442  EXCOMMUNICATION. 

indebtedness,  unless,  indeed,  the  estate  of  the  decedent  should 
prove  to  be  utterly  insolvent.1  It  was  probably  for  cases  of 
this  kind  that  a  Synod  of  Anjou  in  1265  prescribed  that  when 
an  excommunicate  on  his  death-kid  desired  absolution  he 
should  first  be  required  to  take  an  oath  to  fulfil  the  commands 
of  the  church  and  should  pledge  his  property  and  heirs  to  the 
same  effect.  If  he  had  no  property  his  simple  oath  sufficed, 
and  if  he  were  speechless  the  obligation  was  to  be  given  bv 
his  heirs.2  In  Germany  the  tendency  of  the  priesthood  seems 
to  have  been  towards  extreme  severity,  for  the  council  of 
Wurzburg,  in  1287,  is  obliged  to  forbid  the  excommunication 
of  the  widows  and  mothers  of  dead  insolvents.  When  they 
inherited  property  and  refused  to  pay  the  debts  of  the  deceased, 
this  was  allowable,  but  when  they  received  nothing  the  council 
reasonably  enough  thought  it  a  hardship  that  they  should  share 
in  the  damnation  of  the  defunct.3 

In  an  age  when  a  powerful  debtor  could  be  reached  in  no 
other  way  there  was  much  to  be  said  in  favor  of  this  efficient 
intervention  of  the  church,  and  yet  the  employment  of  her 
solemn  rites  for  so  purely  worldly  a  purpose  could  not  fail  to 
be  shocking  to  the  spiritually  inclined,  and  the  natural  result 
of  such  an  abuse  of  ecclesiastical  censures  was  to  dull  the  sen 
sibilities  of  the  people  to  their  awful  nature.  In  1371  Charles 
le  Sage  issued  an  edict  in  which  he  recounts  that  multitudes 
of  wealthy  debtors  remained  unconcernedly  under  excommuni 
cation  for  long  periods  of  years,  and  the  church  was  therefore 
obliged  to  recur  to  the  vulgar  expedient  of  requesting  the  state 
to  seize  the  possessions  of  such  hardened  delinquents — a  re 
quest  with  which  the  king  hastened  to  comply.*  In  1302 
Boniface  VIII.  had  already  called  attention  to  a  flagrant  abuse 
by  which,  through  avarice  rather  than  Christian  charity,  whole 
communities  and  provinces  were  laid  under  interdict,  the  living 

1  Concil.  Rofflacens.  arm.  1250  can.  8  (Harduin.  VII.  503). 

2  Synod.  Andegavens.  ann.  1205  cap.  vi.  (D'Achery  I.  728). 

3  Concil.  Herbipolens.  ann.  1287  can.  29  (Harduin.  VII.  p.  114-0). 

4  Isambert.  V.  353. 


ABUSE     OF     EXCOMMUNICATION.  443 

deprived  of  the  sacrament  and  the  dead  refused  sepulture,  on 
disputes  arising  merely  from  pecuniary  questions,  and  he  for 
bade  such  oppressive  use  of  the  power  of  excommunication  for 
the  future.1  This  was  not  held,  however,  to  apply  to  indi 
vidual  cases,  and  in  1341  we  find  Benedict  XII.  collecting  in 
this  manner  a  debt  of  10,200  gold  florins  due  to  him  by  Hum 
bert  II.,  the  last  Dauphin  of  Vienne.2  Even  the  restriction  as 
imposed  by  Boniface  seems  to  have  received  little  respect,  for 
in  132G  the  council  of  Marsiac  was  obliged  again  to  forbid  the 
infliction  of  interdicts  on  communities  for  debt,  without  the 
especial  license  of  the  Holy  See,3  and  in  1416  the  council  of 
Constance  included  this  among  the  numerous  abuses  which  it 
proposed  to  check.  Prelates  were  in  the  habit  of  laying  whole 
communities  under  interdict  to  enforce  the  payment  of  trifling 
sums  due  by  individuals,  and  pretended,  as  usual,  that  it  was 
not  on  account  of  the  money  but  of  contumacy.  The  fathers 
of  Constance  suggested  that  this  should  only  be  allowed  when 
the  debtor  had  remained  under  excommunication  for  six  months 
without  amending  his  ways  and  the  people  of  the  district  en 
couraged  him  by  not  segregating  him.4  As  the  efforts  of  the 
council  to  adopt  any  system  of  reform  were  successfully  nega 
tived,  the  abuse  continued  to  flourish  until  the  sixteenth  cen 
tury,  as  we  shall  see  hereafter.  The  council  of  Avignon  in 
1337  sought  to  check  another  abuse  through  which  frauds  were 
frequently  practised  in  such  cases,  by  ordering  creditors,  under 
pain  of  excommunication,  to  surrender,  on  receiving  payment, 
all  obligations  and  evidences  of  the  debt  discharged,  and  by 
prescribing  a  limitation  of  ten  years,  after  which  all  bonds  and 
promises  to  pay  became  invalid.5  In  1456,  however,  a  com 
plaint  of  the  Estates  of  Languedoc  shows  that  the  royal  officials 

1  Can.  1  in  Septimo  Lib.  u.  Tit.  viii. 
'2  Du  Cange  s.  v.  Excoin.  ob  Debita. . 
?>  Concil.  Marciacens.  ann.  1326  can.  55  (Harduin.  VII.  1530). 

4  Reformator.  Constant.  Decretal.  Lib.  v.   Tit.  viii.   cap.  4  (Von  der 
Hardt  T.  I.  P.  xn.  p.  751). 

5  Concil.  Avenionens.  ann.  1337  can.  27,28  (Harduin.  VII.  pp.  1627-8). 


444  EXCOMMUNICATION. 

were  beginning  to  issue  injunctions  prohibiting  excommunica 
tion  in  cases  of  debt,  and  the  remonstrance  made  to  Charles 
VII.  received  a  very  unsatisfactory  response1 — though  for  a 
century  later  the  church  continued  with  more  or  less  activity 
her  functions  as  a  collector. 

When  a  debtor  died  under  the  ban  of  the  church  we  have 
seen  that  the  German  practice  to  enforce  a  settlement  was  the 
simple  expedient  of  excommunicating  his  heirs.  This  does  not 
seem  to  have  generally  obtained,  and  elsewhere  the  revival  of 
the  ancient  Roman  custom  of  refusing  sepulture  to  his  corpse 
was  deemed  sufficiently  effectual — a  proceeding  which  Theodo- 
ric  the  Ostrogoth  had  prohibited  under  pain  of  five  years'  exile 
and  forfeiture  of  one  third  of  the  offending  creditor's  property.2 
Theodoric  was  an  Arian,  however,  and  his  notions  of  humanity 
were  no  rule  for  the  orthodox,  while  the  indecency  of  the  act 
seemed  justified  by  the  general  principle  which  denied  sepul 
ture  to  the  dead  excommunicate,  and  it  was  found  too  effectual 
to  be  lightly  foregone.  Thus,  in  1273,  a  knight  named  Adam 
Fourre  died  under  excommunication  for  a  debt  due  to  the 
chapter  of  Meaux,  and,  before  he  could  be  buried  in  Paris,  the 
episcopal  official  issued  letters  patent  declaring  that  another 
knight,  Guillaume  de  Villiers,  had  given  security  for  the  debt, 
and  that  the  dead  man  had  in  consequence  been- properly  ab 
solved  by  a  priest — thus  showing  the  formula  by  which  the 
salvation  of  the  defunct  depended  upon  the  devotion  of  his 
friend  in  satisfying  the  demands  of  his  creditors.3  A  notable 
instance  of  the  practical  efficiency  of  this  custom  was  afforded 
in  1356,  when  Pierre  I.,  Duke  of  Bourbon,  fell  valiantly  fight 
ing  at  his  sovereign's  feet,  in  the  disastrous  day  of  Poitiers. 
He  was  the  great-grandson  of  St.  Louis,  the  brother-in-law  of 
Philip  of  Valois,  and  the  father-in-law  of  Charles  V.  of  France, 
and  of  Pedro  the  Cruel  of  Castile,  yet  his  creditors  were  nu 
merous,  and,  finding  no  means  of  enforcing  payment  from  a 

1  Isambert,  TX.  298,  311.  2  Edict,  Theodoric.  cap.  75. 

3  D'Achery  Spicileg.  III.  077. 


ABUSE     OF     EXCOMMUNICATION.  445 

man  elevated  above  the  reach  of  ordinary  law,  they  had  ob 
tained  a  sentence  of  excommunication  against  him.  Neither 
his  royal  blood,  his  lofty  station,  nor  his  distinguished  services 
availed  aught  against  the  decrees  of  the  church.  His  corpse 
was  carried  from  the  field  of  battle  to  the  church  of  the  Ja 
cobins  at  Poitiers,  where  it  lay  unburied  until  his  son,  Louis 
II.,  a  youth  of  18,  pledged  to  Innocent  VI.  all  his  estates  to 
satisfy  the  creditors  of  his  father,  when  the  excommunication 
was  raised,  and  the  remains  at  last  were  honored  with  a  splendid 
funeral1 — a  striking  illustration  of  the  usefulness  of  the  church 
in  establishing  the  common  humanity  of  all  men  in  an  age  of 
class  distinctions.  In  1365  the  council  of  Apt  censured  the 
practice  of  continuing  to  proclaim  the  excommunication  of 
deceased  insolvent  debtors,  and  ordered  the  creditors  to  have 
recourse  against  the  heirs,  which  was  probably  directed  against 
the  practice  of  refusing  burial  in  such  cases,2  and  in  13G8  the 
synod  of  Chartres  peremptorily  ordered  all  priests  under  pain 
of  suspension  to  prohibit  the  retention  of  bodies  above  ground 
on  account  of  d^bts,3  yet  the  custom  long  continued.  At  the 
very  close  of  the  fifteenth  century  we  find  the  case  of  Barthelerny 
de  Saint-Aunis,  who  died  under  excommunication  for  debt  by 
the  ecclesiastical  court  of  Tarbes,  and  whose  widow,  Marie  de 
Castelnau,  by  a  document  executed  in  1499,  pledged  herself  to 
pay  his  debts,  amounting  to  52J  crowns,  at  the  rate  of  four 
crowns  per  annum,  in  order  to  obtain  Christian  burial  for  him.4 
As  time  passed  away,  the  rigor  of  refusing  inhumation  was 
modified  into  the  lighter  penalty  of  burial  in  unconsecrated 
ground,  and  in  1542  the  court  of  the  Seneschal  of  Bigorre  en 
tertained  an  appeal  from  Dominique  de  la  Case,  a  priest  of 
Tarbes,  who  had  been  unable  to  obtain  Christian  sepulture  for 
his  cousin  Guillaume  Beyric,  then  five  years  dead,  and  lying 

1  Desormeaux,  Hist,  de  la  Maison  de  Bourbon,  I.  285-6. 

2  Concil.  Aptens.  arm.  1365  can.  23  (Marteue  Thesaur.  IV.  338). 

3  Synod.  Carnotens.  aim.  1368  c.  24  (Martene  Arapl.  Coll.  VII.  1362). 

4  Lagieze,  Hist,  du  Droit  dans  les  Pyrenees,  p.  209. 

38 


446  EXCOMMUNICATION. 

in  unhallowed  ground — his  plea  being  that  the  non-payment  of 
Guillaume's  debts  had  arisen  from  his  utter  poverty.1 

This  shows  that  the  church  took  no  count  of  the  debtor's 
inability  to  pay  when  condemning  him  to  eternal  torment,  and 
also  that  such  inability  was  thought  to  be  a  fair  justification  to 
bring  before  a  secular  court.  This  question  was  one  which 
received  different  solutions  at  different  times.  In  the  earliest 
extant  Coutumier  of  liritanny.  dating  probably  about  the  com 
mencement  of  the  fifteenth  century,  the  subject  is  discussed  at 
some  length.  The  right  of  the  church  to  act  in  such  cases  is 
allowed,  in  opposition  to  the  opinion  of  those  who  held  that 
secular  courts  alone  had  cognizance  of  such  matters,  and  its 
jurisdiction  is  admitted  to  be  a  valuable  resource  against  the 
partiality,  negligence,  or  avarice  of  the  secular  tribunals;  but 
the  assertion  is  made  that  no  one  ought  to  be  excommunicated 
if  he  has  property,  real  or  personal,  which  can  be  taken  in 
execution  by  the  lay  officers.  At  the  same  time,  any  priest 
refusing  absolution  to  a  dying  debtor,  whose  poverty  is  the 
excuse  for  the  non-payment  of  his  debts,  should  be  deprived  of 
his  benefice.2  In  the  early  part  of  the  sixteenth  century,  Anne 
of  Britanny  withdrew  actions  for  debt  from  ecclesiastical  juris 
diction  ;:!  arid  in  l.">39,  Francis  I.,  who  endeavored  to  limit  at 
all  points  the  power  of  the  spiritual  courts,  expressly  forbade 
his  clergy  from  citing  laymen  before  them  in  secular,  matters, 
and  prohibited  the  episcopal  judges  from  issuing  any  summons 
in  such  cases.4  Yet  in  spite  of  all  this,  the  revision  of  the 
Coutumier  in  1539  contains  the  same  provision,  permitting 
excommunication  only  in  cases  where  the  debtor  has  no  property 
that  can  be  seized  under  judgment,  and  the  right  to  do  so  dis- 

i  LaorSze,  op.  cit.  pp.  209-11. 

•2  Ties  Ancien  Gout,  de  Bretagne,  cap.  335  (Bourdot  de  Richebourg. 
IV.  280). 

3  D'Argcntie,  Comment,  in  Consuet.  Britan.  App.  p.  2. 

4  Edit,  de  Villere-Cotterets,  ami.  1530,  Art.  1,  2  (Lsambert,  XII.  601). 
— Cf.  Edit,  de  Yz  sur-Tille  (Oct.  1535),  chap.  xn.  art.  26,  27  (Neron,  I. 
131). 


ABUSE     OF    EXCOMMUNICATION.  447 

appears  only  in  the  revision  of  1580.1  Bertrand  d' Argents, 
writing  in  the  interval,  intimates  that  the  limitation  was  not 
strictly  observed,  and  that  ecclesiastical  censures  often  served 
a  good  purpose  in  aiding  the  secular  courts  to  deal  with  tricky 
and  fraudulent  debtors.'2 

As  the  administration  of  law  became  systematized,  and  petty 
local  despots  were  less  able  to  set  it  at  defiance,  the  necessity 
for  these  proceedings  decreased,  and  they  gradually  disappeared  ; 
but  there  can  be  no  doubt  that  in  preceding  ages  they  were  in 
many  instances  the  only  mode  in  which  substantial  justice  could 
be  obtained  of  the  powerful  by  the  weak.  At  the  same  time 
there  can  be  as  little  doubt  that  they  frequently  opened  the  door 
to  frio-htful  abuses.  The  power  thus  conferred  on  the  unscru 
pulous  is  well  illustrated  by  Balthazar  Cossa,  better  known  as 
John  XXIII.  Before  his  elevation  to  the  papacy,  while  yet  a 
cardinal  and  papal  legate  at  Bologna,  in  the  opening  years  of 
the  fifteenth  century,  he  enriched  himself  by  lending  money  at 
the  moderate  usury  of  twenty-four  per  cent,  for  four  months, 
obliging  the  borrower  to  give  security,  and  to  pledge  himself 
under  the  ecclesiastical  penalties  and  censures.  If  the  loan 
were  not  promptly  repaid  at  maturity,  he  immediately  prose 
cuted  the  unlucky  debtor  and  his  sureties  before  the  auditor  of 
the  papal  chamber,  and  had  them  thrown  into  prison.3  Another 
abuse  of  the  system  is  indicated  by  a  protest  in  the  Ancien 
Coutume  de  France,  to  the  effect  that  the  rule  convicting 
of  heresy  any  one  remaining  for  a  year  under  excommunication 
does  not  apply  to  those  involved  in  the  censure  for  debt.4  It 
is  fair  to  assume,  indeed,  that  the  Diet  of  Niirnberg  in  1522 
was  justified  in  including  among  the  grievances  laid  before 
Adrian  VI.  this  mode  of  collecting  debts,  and  that  its  statement 
of  the  wrong  and  ruin  frequently  caused  by  this  incongruous 

1  Ancien.  Gout,  de  Bretagnc,  Tit.  i.  art.  6.— Gout,  de  Bretagne,  Tit.  I. 
art.  6. 

2  B.  d'Argentre,  Comment,  in  Consuet.  Britun.  p.  17. 

3  Theoil.  a  Niem  de  Vit.  Joami.  XXIII. 

4  I) u  Gauge  P.  v.   Excom.  ol>  Debita. 


448  EXCOMMUNICATION 

mingling  of  spiritual  .and  temporal  affairs  was  not  exagger 
ated  :l  especially  when  we  find  Clement  VII.,  in  1529,  obliged 
to  promulgate  afresh  the  decretal  of  Boniface  VIII.,  prohibiting 
the  interdict  of  cities  and  provinces  on  account  of  debts,2  and  a 
learned  advocate  in  Spain,  as  late  as  1G70,  claiming  for  the 
legal  profession  the  special  exemption  of  not  being  liable  to  ex 
communication  for  debt.3 

From  this  rapid  sketch  of  some  of  the  practical  applications 
of  the  power  of  excommunication,  and  of  the  penalties  con 
sequent  upon  separation  from  the  sacraments  of  the  church,  it 
is  easy  to  imagine  the  authority  thence  derived  to  the  eccle 
siastical  body,  and  the  opportunities  for  good  or  evil  which  it 
thus  acquired.  In  the  social  order  of  Christendom,  no  man 
was  so  high  as  to  be  beyond  its  reach,  no  man  so  obscure  as  to 
escape  its  observation.  Even  the  misbelieving  Jew  could  not 
elude  the  anathema,  for  when  he  disobeyed  the  commands  of 
the  church  he  was  indirectly  excommunicated  by  excommuni 
cating  the  secular  authorities  until  they  compelled  his  obedi 
ence.4  The  network  of  its  organization  covered  every  land, 
and  where  it  could  not.  effect  its  purposes  by  working  on  the 
consciences  of  men,  the  whole  power  of  the  slate  was  at  its 
bidding  to  compel  obedience  and  to  crush  resistance.  In 
Languedoc  it  could  marshal  irresistible  armies  to  exterminate 
heresy  ;  in  Sweden  it  could  deliver  to  the  executioner  the 
miserable  peasant  who  refused  to  pay  his  tithe  ;  and  no  matter 
what  was  the  nature  of  the  offence,  as  soon  as  the  church  in 
tervened,  all  crimes  became  equal  when  merged  in  the  one 
overwhelming  sin  of  disobedience.5 

1  Gravamina  Nationis  German    cap.  41  (Lc  Plat,  Monument.  Condi. 
Trident.  T.  II.  pp.  1X8-9). 

2  Can.  3  in  Septirno  Lib.  II.  Tit.  viii. 

3  Juan  Marquez  de  Cuenca,  Memorial  Juridico,  fol.  37  (Bib.  Bodl.  Arch 
Seld. 1.23). 

4  Synod.  Bambergens.  aim.  H91  Tit.  xliv.— "  Ipsi  autem  Judtei  per  nos 
indirecte  per  subtractionem  communionis   fidelium  excornmunicationis 
sententia  compellantur."     (Hartzheim,  V.  623.) 

5  An  exception  to  this  must  be  noted  in  the  case  of  Iceland,  whose 


ABUSE     OP    EXCOMMUNICATION.  449 

In  thus  building  up  an  organization  able  to  confront  the 
savage  forces  of  feudalism,  the  church  unquestionably  accom 
plished  vast  good.  Yet  the  benefits  thus  conferred  on  civiliza 
tion  were  accompanied  by  inseparable  evils.  More  occupied 
with  acquiring  power  than  with  training  those  intrusted  with 
its  exercise,  the  church  found  its  ministers  too  often  utterly 
unworthy  of  the  tremendous  responsibilities  thrust  upon  them. 
The  authority,  indeed,  was  too  vast  and  too  unchecked  to  be 
safely  confided  to  fallible  human  nature,  and  there  was  more 
piety  than  reason  in  the  anticipation  that  God  would  strengthen 
the  hands  to  which  so  large  a  portion  of  His  attributes  were 
assigned. 

Theoretically,  indeed,  the  system  was  one  of  strict  account 
ability,  but  practically  it  amounted  to  irresponsibility.  With 
the  growth  of  the  papal  power  all  the  active  forces  of  the 
church  came  gradually  to  be  centred  in  the  successor  of  St. 
Peter.  He  was  supreme,  and  his  subordinates  everywhere 
exercised  only  a  delegated  authority,  to  be  set  aside  or  over 
ruled  at  his  pleasure.1  While  thus  there  lay  an  appeal  to  the 
pope  from  the  sentence  of  any  ecclesiastical  court,  yet  this 
illusory  reference  to.,  distant  Rome  was,  in  most  cases,  prac 
tically  to  render  the  local  judgment  final,  except  to  wealthy 
pleaders,  at  an  age  when  communication  was  so  tedious  and 
difficult,  and  perpetual  private  wars  and  robber  nobles  rendered 
every  pathway  insecure.  Its  effect,  moreover,  was  to 


1  ve 


church  diifered  so  greatly  from  the  rest  of  Christendom.  In  the  code  of 
ecclesiastical  law  drawn  up  by  Bishops  Thorlak  and  Ketill  in  1123,  which 
remained  in  force  until  1275,  there  is  no  mention  of  excommunication 
save,  a  somewhat  doubtful  allusion  to  the  interdiction  of  sepulture.  The 
penalties  provided  for  all  offences— infraction  of  fasts,  disregard  of  Sunday 
and  saints'  days,  non-payment  of  tithes,  and  even  sorcery  and  paganism- 
are  all  purely  temporal,  being  simply  fines  or  banishment,  and  all  charges 
were  tried  before  the  secular  courts  by  the  regular  form  of  a  jury  of  the 
vicinage.— Kristinrettr  Thorlaks  oc  Ketils,  cap.  xv.  xvr.  xvn.  xvm.  xxx. 
xxxv.  xxxvi.  xxxvir.  XL.  XLI.  XMI.  XLIII.  xux. 

i  Johann.  PP.  VIII.  Epist.  263.— Clement.  PP.  III.  Epist.  &J.— Grcgor, 
PP.  VIII.  Epist.  20. 

38* 


450  EXCOMMUNICATION. 

enormous  advantages  to  those  who  could  overcome  these 
obstacles,  and  thus  to  destroy  subordination  to  the  local  tribu 
nals.  Whether  well  or  ill  deserved,  the  Roman  curia  had  the 
reputation  of  doing  anything  and  everything  for  money,  and 
this  reputation,  while  most  profitable  to  its  officials,  was  utterly 
subversive  of  order  and  morality  throughout  Christendom.  At 
the  close  of  the  twelfth  century,  shortly  after  Innocent  III. 
had  ascended  the  papal  throne,  Conrad  Abbot  of  Ursperg  thus 
describes  the  condition  of  the  German  church  in  its  relations 
with  Rome — "  There  scarce  remained  a  bishopric  or  a  prelacy 
or  even  a  parish  church  that  was  not  involved  in  law,  and 
therefore  forced  to  apply  to  Rome,  but  not  empty  handed. 
Rejoice,  O  mother  Rome,  for  the  fountains  of  the  riches  of  the 
world  are  opened  that  rivers  and  heaps  of  money  may  pour  into 
thee!  Make  merry  over  the  iniquity  of  the  sons  of  men,  for 
tliou  gettest  thy  price  for  all  these  evils.  Be  glad  over  thy 
ally,  discord,  which  has  broken  loose  from  hell  that  tliou  mayest 
wax  rich.  Thou  hast  what  tliou  hast  always  thirsted  for; 
raise  the  song  of  joy,  for  thou  hast  conquered  the  world,  not 
by  thy  holiness,  but  by  the  wickedness  of  man.  Men  are 
drawn  to  thee,  not  by  their  devotion  oiMheir  conscience,  but 
by  the  increase  of  their  iniquity  and  the  sale  for  money  of  thy 
decision  of  their  quarrels."1  Two  hundred  years  later  the 
complaints  of  Nicholas  de  Claminges  show  us  that  these  abuses 
were  still  as  rife  as  ever.  Scarce  a  benefice  could  be  had, 
however  strong  tin1  claim  on  it,  without  litigation  in  Rome, 
where  gold  was  all-powerful  and  the  poor  suitor  had  no  chance. 
Judgment  was  openly  sold,  and  plots  and  tricks  were  ever  at 
the  service  of  the  wealthy  suitor  to  divert  the  course  of  justice. 
Nay,  the  innumerable  regulations  promulgated  by  every  pontiff 
had  no  other  object  than  to  give  free  scope  to  venality  and 
plunder.2  The  Council  of  Constance  proposed  at  one  time  to 
limit  the  vast  number  of  reserved  cases  in  which  the  Roman 

1  Conrad.  Ursperg-.  Chrou.  aim.  1199. 

-  Nic.  do  Claming,  do  Ruiua  Ecoloshp  oap.  x.  xi. 


ABUSE     OF     EXCOMMUNICATION.  451 

curia  Lad  assigned  to  itself  original  jurisdiction,  reducing  the 
power  of  the  local  courts  almost  to  a  nullity  and  conferring  on 
privileged  persons  and  classes  the  right  to  carry  their  suits  at 
once  to  Rome,  but  the  project  failed,  as  did  all  the  other  pro 
jects  of  reform  in  that  body,  under  the  skilful  manipulation  of 
those  who  were  interested  in  the  perpetuation  of  abuses.1 

It  can  readily  be  imagined  therefore  that  the  rush  of  busi 
ness  of  all  kinds  to  the  papal  court  was  so  enormous  and  so 
various  that  its  equitable  dispatch  became  impossible  amid  the 
obstacles  to  obtaining  proper  evidence  concerning  minute  details 
occurring  in  every  corner  of  Europe.  Setting  aside  the 
notorious  venality  of  the  Roman  curia,  the  organization  thus 
was  one  which  no  human  force,  in  the  existing  condition  of 
European  society,  could  carry  on  without  the  commission  of 
perpetual  injustice.  The  endeavor  to  create  a  theocracy,  and 
to  concentrate  its  power  in  the  visible  head  of  the  church,  was 
a  brilliant  scheme,  but  one  which  only  angels  could  execute. 
Too  much  was  attempted,  and  even  the  best-intent ioned  popes 
often  were  unwittingly  the  cause  of  aggravating  the  evils 
which  they  sought  to  mitigate.  Omnipotence  can  only  be 
safely  directed  by  omniscience,  and  the  papacy,  in  grasping  at 
the  former,  unfortunately  was  unable  to  command  the  latter. 

Thus  the  supreme  jurisdiction,  original  and  appellate,  of 
Rome,  only  added  another  to  the  numerous  elements  of  wrong 
and  extortion  wherewith  the  church  afflicted  the  faithful. 
Papal  letters  were  all-powerful  everywhere  ;  they  were  readily 
obtainable,  and  in  a  system  so  liable  to  abuse  they  proved  a 
perpetual  source  of  confusion  and  injustice.  As  early  as  the 
commencement  of  the  twelfth  century  we  find  the  pope  thus 
granting  the  power  to  bind  and  to  loose  to  a  simple  chaplain 
who  was  about  to  accompany  Stephen  Count  of  Ossone  in  the 
first  crusade,2  and  the  prerogatives  thus  liberally  bestowed  were 
constantly  used  for  selfish  and  evil  purposes.  The  prelates  of 

1  Reformator.  Decretal,  in  Concil.  Constant.  Lib.  I.  cap.  1  (Von  dcr 
HardtT.  I.  P.  xii.  p.  670). 

2  Chron.  S.  Petri  Vivi  (D'Achery  Spicily.  IT.  4X4). 


452  EXCOMMUNICATION. 

Southern  France,  assembled  in  council  at  Nougaro  in  1200, 
and  at  Avignon  in  1320,  and  in  1337,  complain  bitterly  of  the 
evils  thence  arising.  Letters  were  constantly  procured  from 
the  pope  or  his  legates  under  false  pretences  ;  they  were  trans 
ferred  from  hand  to  hand,  and  were  used  for  extortion  or  re 
venge  by  enabling  the  holder  to  cite  his  adversary  before  dis 
tant  courts,  under  pain  of  excommunication,  to  trump  up 
fictitious  cases,  and  to  weary  him  out  with  perpetual  annoyances 
and  endless  expenses.1  The  remonstrances  of  these  councils 
of  course,  only  deal  in  generalities,  but  from  an  epistle  of  In 
nocent  III.,  written  more  than  a  century  earlier,  we  obtain  a 
glimpse  into  the  nature  of  the  wrongs  thus  perpetrated.  That 
pontiff  complains  of  the  uses  to  which  certain  letters  of  his 
had  been  put,  and  he  endeavors  to  recall  them.  The  holder 
of  one  of  them,  failing  in  his  efforts  to  overcome  the  virtue  of 
a  young  married  woman,  used  the  papal  authority  to  cite  her 
and  her  friends  before  an  ecclesiastical  court,  under  pretext  of 
obtaining  restitution  of  certain  presents  which  he  claimed  to 
have  made  her.  Thus,  in  the  name  of  the  pope,  he  procured 
her  excommunication,  and  that  of  several  others,  including  a 
female  relative;  who  had  refused  to  act  as  procuress  for  him. 
Several  of  these  unfortunates  had  died  while  under  the  ban 
and  had  not  been  buried,  while  the  young  wife  herself  had 
only  been  able  to  obtain  absolution  on  her  death-bed  by  paying 
a  heavy  bribe  to  the  ecclesiastical  judge.  It  requires  no  effort 
of  the  imagination  to  conceive  the  amount  of  human  misery 
revealed  in  this  short  and  simple  story.  In  another  case  a 
cobbler  was  cited  and  excommunicated,  by  virtue  of  the  same 
letter,  in  a  dispute  arising  about  a  little  thread,  valued  at  less 
than  four  deniers.  The  holder  of  a  papal  letter  endeavoring 
to  force  an  entrance  into  a  certain  house  was  prevented  by  one 
of  the  servants.  Soon  after  the  domestic  was  about  to  be 
married,  when  the  other  interposed,  declared  him  excommuni- 

1  Concil.  Nu^aroliens.  can.  3. — Concil.  Avenion.  ami.  1320  can.  49. — 
Ejusd.  arm.  1337  can.  59  (Harduin.  VII.  pp.  1101,  1511-13,  1033).  Cf. 
Synod.  Amlegavens.  ami.  1272  cap.  iii.  (D'Achery  I.  731). 


ABUSE     OF     EXCOMMUNICATION  453 

cate,  and  consequently  unable  to  marry,  and  in  virtue  of  the 
powers  conferred  by  the  letter,  absolved  him  after  extorting 
ten  sols.  The  same  individual  caused  two  hundred  men  to  be 
cite-d  on  fraudulent  grounds  by  an  arch-priest,  and  then  had  the 
arch-priest  summoned  before  the  episcopal  court  because  lie 
had  not  shown  due  diligence  in  executing  the  papal  mandate  ; 
finally  forcing  him  to  buy  himself  off  with  a  heavy  fine.  With 
a  similar  threat  of  excommunication  he  extorted  fifteen  sols 
from  a  shoemaker  who,  he  asserted,  had  made  his  shoes  too 
small  ;  and  another  sum  from  the  owner  of  a  horse  which  he 
had  hired,  and  which  by  stumbling  in  a  ford  had  wet  his  cloak. 
Another  man  he  prosecuted  for  a  handful  of  vegetables,  and 
obtained  ten  sols  from  him.  In  another  case  he  harassed  with 
repeated  citations  a  young  man  who  had  caused  him  the  ex 
penditure  of  a  single  denier  by  not  keeping  an  engagement  to 
visit  with  him  a  house  of  prostitution.  Innocent  adds  that 
some  of  the  ecclesiastical  judges  were  understood  to  share  the 
booty  of  these  nefarious  transactions  ;  that  they  purposely 
cited  persons  to  appear  in  places  dangerous  to  reach,  a  failure 
to  attend  being,  by  canon  law,  punishable  with  excommunica 
tion  ;  and  that  they  freely  signed  and  sealed  letters  to  their 
friends  and  accomplices,  empowering  them  to  inflict  excom 
munication  and  grant  absolution1 — in  this,  apparently,  only 
following  the  example  set  them  by  the  pontiff'  himself.  If  such 
abuses  could  flourish  under  the  lofty  ambition  and  ceaseless 
vigilance  of  a  man  like  Innocent,  it  is  easy  to  imagine  the  con 
dition  of  affairs  under  popes  who  were  either  negligent  or  cor 
rupt,  when  Europe  was  covered  with  harpies  armed  with 
irresistible  and  irresponsible  powers,  tormenting  the  existence 
and  sucking  the  life-blood  of  whom  they  pleased.  Nicholas 
de  Claminges  describes  the  papal  collectors  who  traversed 
Europe  to  exact  the  payments  levied  upon  the  churches  by 
Rome  as  men  selected  for  their  hardness  and  arrogance,  who, 
armed  with  the  unlimited  power  of  excommunication  and  iri- 

1  Innocent.  PP.  III.  Regest.  Lib.  x.  Epist.  79. 


454  EXCOMMUNICATION. 

terdiction,  carried  ruin  and  desolation  into  whole  provinces. 
To  meet  their  insatiable  demands,  churches  were  obliged  to 

O 

sell  their  sacred  vessels  and  their  relics,  abbots  and  prelates  whose 
poverty  rendered  them  unable  to  satisfy  these  harpies,  when 
dying  were  denied  the  right  of  sepulture  and  were  thrust  into 
unconsecrated  ground ;  priests  were  forced  to  leave  their  cures  and 
gain  a  miserable  life  by  beggary  or  by  serving  laymen  in  profane 
labors,  and  few  churches  remained  that  were  not  reduced  to 
pauperism.1 

In  the  latter  half  of  the  twelfth  century,  Peter  Cantor  de 
clares  that  excommunication  was  used  generally  as  a  means  of 
extortion.  The  inferior  clergy  were  sworn  by  their  prelates 
not  to  arbitrate  between  parties  whose  quarrels  might  be  recon 
ciled,  but  to  send  all  cases  which  they  possibly  could  to  the 
ecclesiastical  courts.  Any  delay  in  obeying  a  summons  was 
promptly  visited  with  excommunication,  and  all  excommuni 
cates  before  reconciliation  were  obliged  to  take  an  oath  of  sub 
mission  to  whatever  commands  might  be  laid  on  them,  so  that 
as  soon  as  they  were  absolved  they  found  themselves  heavily 
fined  for  the  personal  benefit  of  the  prelate.2  This  system  of 
pecuniary  mulcts  as  a  condition  of  absolution  was  preserved 
until  after  the  Reformation.3  It  is  easy  thus  to  appreciate  the 
truth  of  the  objurgations  of  St.  Hildegarda,  who  flourished  a 
little  before  the  time  of  Peter  Cantor.  "  Because  they  have 
the  power  of  binding  and  loosing,  they  ravage  us  like  the  most 
ferocious  beasts.  The  weight  of  their  wickedness  falls  on  us, 
and  through  them  the  whole  church  is  withered,  for  they 
claim  that  which  is  not  just,  they  destroy  the  law,  like  wolves 
they  devour  the  lambs.  Voracious  in  gluttony,  they  perpetrate 

1  Nic.  de  Claming1,  de  Ruina  Ecclesiae  cap.  ix. 

2  Pet.  Cantor.  Verb.  Abbreviat.  cap.  xxiv.     No  declamation  of  the  Re 
formers  against  the  scandals  of  the  church  can  well  be  more  severe  than 
this  treatise  of  Peter  Cantor,  one  of  the  most  eminent  churchmen  of  his 
age,  who  twice  refused  the  episcopate,  and  who  died  in  1198  in  the  odor 
of  sanctity. 

3  Jacob.  Sirnancae  de  Cathol.  Instit.  Tit.  xxvir.  No.  5  (Romoe,  1575). 


ABUSE     OF     EXCOMMUNICATION.  455 

unnumbered  adulteries,  and  on  account  of  their  sins  they  judge 
us  without^nercy."1 

John  Gerson,  who  was  second  in  reputation  to  no  ecclesiastic 
of  the  fifteenth  century,  states  that  Urban  V.  was  in  the  habit 
of  remarking  that  the  one  thing  for  which  he  chiefly  congratu 
lated  himself  in  obtaining  the  papacy  was,  that  he  no  longer 
was  in  danger  of  excommunication  ;  to  which  Gerson  adds, 
reasonably  enough,  that  if  he  hud  loved  his  neighbor  as  him 
self,  he  would  have  used  his  power  to  remove  some  of  the 
snares  and  pitfalls  which  harassed  the  lives  of  others  less  for 
tunate.  Gerson  points  out,  moreover,  that  while  no  secular 
law  ventured  to  kill  the  body  for  simple  contumacy,  the  church, 
in  such  cases,  had  no  hesitation  in  killing  the  soul ;  and  he 
speaks  in  vehement  terms  of  the  innumerable  and  incredible 
troubles  with  which  the  ecclesiastical  functionaries  vexed  the 
existence  of  the  poor  and  friendless.2  We  can,  therefore,  well 
believe  him  when  he  declares  that  the  abuse  of  excommuni 
cation  had  wrought  confusion  in  the  church,  contempt  for  its 
spiritual  censures,  and  the  ruin  rather  than  the  salvation  of 
souls.3  It  could  hardly  be  otherwise  when  the  vicegerent  of 
Christ  himself  openly  used,  as  did  Sixtus  IV.,  his  supreme 
control  over  the  sacraments  for  the  purpose  of  extorting  money 
from  his  subordinates,  levying  arbitrary  and  enormous  subsidies 
from  the  Roman  clergy,  and  enforcing  their  payment  by  a  lib 
eral  use  of  excommunication.4 

1  S.  Hildegardre  Vision,  x.  cap.  xvi.   (Baluz.  et  Mansi  I.  444).     Sec 
Martene,  Ampliss.  Collect.  II.  1012-13,  for  an  account  of  the  approval  of 
St.  Hildegarda  by  St.  Bernard  and  successive  popes.     In  the  first  part  of 
the  Hist.^S.  Bernard!  Lib.  iv.  cap.  22,  it  is  stated  that  when  permission 
was  sought  for  publishing  the  Revelations  of  St.  Hildegarda,  Eugenius 
III.  was  consulted,  and  he,  not  confiding  in  his  own  judgment,  submitted 
his  opinion  to  the  Council  of  Rheims  for  confirmation.     (MS.  in  Arch. 
Seld.  130,  Bib.  Bodl.) 

2  Jo.  Gersoni  de  Vit,  Spirit.  Animac  Lect.  iv.  Corol.  xiv.  Prop.  2,  5. 

3  Ejusd.  de  Potestate  Eccles.  Consid.  iv. 

*  Infessurrc  Diar.  Urb.  Roman,  ami.  1484  (Eccard.  Corp.  Hist.  II. 
1940).  Sixtus,  among  other  devices,  would  sometimes  cause  a  notice  to 
be  affixed  to  the  doors  of  a  church  to  the  effect  that  unless  a  certain  sum 


456  EXCOMMUNICATION. 

A  cognate  abuse  was  that  which  authorized  and  even  com 
manded  the  priest,  in  whose  parish  a  violence  or  wrono-  was 
committed  on  an  ecclesiastic,  to  suspend  all  divine  service  until 
due  reparation  was  obtained,  thus  practically  placing  his  whole 
flock  under  interdict.  To  what  an  extent  this  was  carried  to 
gratify  the  passions  of  those  who  held  in  their  hands  the  sal 
vation  of  the  faithful  is  to  be  seen  in  the  instructions  issued  by 
the  synod  of  Prague  in  1377,  explaining  that  such  remedy  is 
not  to  be  employed  lightly  or  on  every  occasion.  It  tells  the 
priest,  for  instance,  that  if  he  lends  his  horse  and  it  is  not  re 
turned,  or  if  his  cattle  are  driven  off  for  damaging  the  pastures 
of  others,  he  must  not  thereupon  suspend  the  oflices  of  the 
church,1  showing  how  completely  the  control  of  the  sacrament 
was  perverted  to  private  ends,  and  how  minute  was  the  tyranny 
exercised  over  the  souls  of  all  whose  faith  was  sufficiently  ro 
bust  to  preserve  their  veneration  for  the  power  thus  persistently 
prostituted. 

In  the  project  of  reform  presented  to  the  council  of  Con 
stance  by  Cardinal  Zabarella  he  deplores  the  frequency  with 
which  excommunication  was  pronounced  for  trifling  injuries 
and  temporal  interests,  and  proposes  a  system  by  which  the 
immense  number  of  existing  excommunicates  should  be  re 
stored  to  the  church.  All  parish  priests  were  to  examine  into 
the  cases  of  those  living  deprived  of  communion,  and  to  report, 
them  to  the  ordinaries,  who,  under  pain  of  excommunication, 
were  to  absolve  all  who  should  be  found  legally  entitled  to  ab 
solution.2  The  project  is  eloquent  equally  as  to  the  extent  of 
the  abuse  and  the  indifference  with  which  the  censures  of  the 
church  had  come  to  be  regarded,  when  they  happened  not  to 
be  enforced  by  the  civil  authority. 

was  forthcoming  at  once,  the  church  would  be  interdicted,  and  its  minis 
ters  deprived— a  financial  expedient  which  was  abundantly  productive. 

1  Mandat.  Synodal,    ann.  1377  No.  1   (Hofler,  Concil.    Pragens.  Prag, 
1862.  p.  19).     This  was  repeated  in  1387  (Ibid.  p.  3">). 

2  Card.  Zabarellae  Capit.  Agend.  in  Cone.  Constant,  cap.  xvii.  (Von  der 
Hardt  T.  I.  P.  ix.  p.  5:29). 


f 

ABUSE     OF     EXCOMMUNICATION.  451 

The  onVy  tiling  that  was  lacking  to  complete  the  atrocity  of 
the  system  was  found  when  the  canonists  devised  the  plan  of 
making  certain  offences  punishable  with  what  was  known  as 
excommunication  ip  so  facto,  ipsojureor  latce,  sententfce.  This, 
as  its  various  names  indicate,  required  neither  judge,  trial,  nor 
sentence — the  offender  was  excommunicated  by  the  fact  of  his 
offence,  and  was  subjected  to  all  the  consequent  penalties  with 
out  warning.  It  could  be  prescribed  even  for  internal  sins  as 
well  as  for  external  acts  ;  for  thoughts  which  no  man  knew,  as 
well  as  for  crimes  notorious  to  all;1  and  thus  the  subject  of  it 
might  be  cut  off  from  the  church,  and  deprived  of  salvation 
without  his  own  knowledge  or  that  of  others.  This  fortunate 
invention  gave  so  much  additional  efficiency  to  the  spiritual 
sword  that  it  became  widely  employed.  Thus  in  the  quarterly 
cursing  which  was  proclaimed  in  the  English  parish  churches, 
until  abrogated  by  Henry  VIII.  in  1534,  almost  every  poss'Me 
infraction  of  human  and  divine  law  was  punished  by  this  ipso 
facto  excommunication,  the  severity  of  which  was  thus  carefully 
explained  by  the  officiating  priest — "  Wherfore  I  do  you  to 
understande  that  cursynge  is  such  vengeance  takyrige  that  it 
departeth  a  man  from  the  blysse  of  heven,  from  howsel,  shryl'te, 
and  al  the  Sacramentes  of  holy  churche,  and  betake  Iiyin  to 
the  devyll  and  to  the  paines  of  hell,  the  which  shal  endure 
perpetually  without  ende  ;  but  yf  he  have  grace  of  our  Lord 
bym  to  amende.  But  therfore  se  that  no  man  or  woman  say 
that  I  curse  them,  for  it  longeth  not  to  me,  but  for  to  she  we 
the  poyntes  and  the  artycles  of  the  sentence  of  cursyng.  For 
I  do  you  wel  to  wyte,  that  whoso  doth  agaynst  any  of  these 
poynts  that  I  shal  shew  you,  he  is  accursed  in  the  deed  doynge, 
of  the  Pope,  Archebysshop,  Bysshope,  and  of  al  holy  chyrche."2 

1  C.  A.  Thesauri  de  Prenis  Eccles.  P.  i.  cap.  iii.  iv.  v.     Theologians 
differed  as  to  this,  however,  on  which  see  Jacob.  Simancse  de  Cathol. 
Instit.   Tit,   XLII.,  but  the  exact   line  of  demarcation   between  mental 
heresy  and  its  external  manifestation  was  very  difficult  to  determine,  and 
gave  rise  to  much  hair-splitting. 

2  Strype's  Eccles.  Memorials,  I.  164,  and  Append.  No.  XLVI. 

39 


4-i  8  EXCOMMUNICATION. 

Then  follows  an  enumeration  of  offences  against  the  church, 
the  king,  and  the  law  ;  and  the  care  with  which  the  rights  of 
the  former  were  thus  guarded  is  shown  by  the  section  which 
curses  delinquent  tithe-payers — "And  al  that  withhold  tythes, 
or  withdraw  their  tythes  wytyngly  or  malycyously,  to  the 
harme  of  holy  chyrche  ;  or  tythes  let  to  be  gyven  of  al  the 
goodes  which  they  be  commaunded  and  ordeyned  to  be  gyven 
by  the  law  of  holy  chyrche,  that  is  to  say  of  al  fruytes  of  yerds, 
cornes,  herbes,  the  ware,  fruyes  of  trees,  of  al  nianer  ot 
beestes  that  are  newynge,  of  wol,  lambe  and  chese,  in  tyme  of 
the  yere  of  swannes,  gese,  douves,  duckes,  of  bees,  hony,  wax, 
of  hey  as  often  as  it  neweth  :  of  flax,  of  hemp,  of  wyndmylles, 
or  al  maner  of  mylles,  of  al  maner  of  marchaundise  of  cliaf- 
fryng  men  and  of  men  of  craft.  And  al  those  that  malycyously 
or  wyttyngly  ony  of  these  thynges  or  ony  other  withhold,  the 
which  ought  to  be  gyven  to  holy  chyrche  by  goddes'  law,  to 
the  harme  of  holy  chyrche,  and  al  that  therto  procure  in 
word  or  in  dede."1  It  thus  was  found  a  very  convenient 
weapon  of  defence  against  the  invasion  of  spiritualities  and 
temporalities,  and  it  was  threatened  upon  every  occasion  when 
the.  privileges  or  the  property  of  the  church  were  in  question. 
A  synod  of  Le  Mans  in  1248  naively  observes  that  many  per 
sons  are  excommunicate  without  knowing  it  or  their  neighbors 
knowing  it,  in  consequence  of  this  ipso  facto  curse,  and  it 
therefore  orders  all  parish  priests  on  the  first  Sunday  of  each 
month  to  recite  a  list  of  nineteen  offences  visited  with  this 
penalty.'2  The  number  of  the  sins  thus  punishable  increased 
with  time,  and  in  1491,  a  synod  of  Bamberg  made  an  enu 
meration  of  no  less  than  one  hundred  offences  thus  punishable 
with  ipso  facto  excommunication  by  the  canon  law,  and  it  is 
curious  to  observe  that  in  this  long  catalogue  only  twelve  are 
disconnected  with  the  direct  personal  interests  of  the  church, 
while  many  are  of  the  most  trifling  character.3  To  give  a  man 

1  Strype,  loc.  cit. 

2  Synod.  Cenornanens.  ami.  1248  (Martcne  Ampl.  Coll.  VII.  1399). 

3  Concil.  Bamberg.  ami.  1491  Tit.  LXI.  (Hartzheim  V.  634-8). 


EMANCIPATION.  459 

over  without  warning  to  Satan  for  collecting  toll  from  an  eccle 
siastic  orf  crossing  a  bridge  would  seem  but  a  slender  exercise 
of  Christian  charity,  and  yet  such  was  the  use  made  by  the 
church  of  the  illimitable  power  which  it  claimed  to  enjoy  under 
the  special  ordinance  of  God. 

As  corruption  increased,  however,  the  severity  of  these 
inflictions  was  somewhat  mitigated  by  the  facilities  afforded 
for  purchasing  absolution.  One  iniquity,  thus  to  some  extent 
neutralized  the  other,  for  the  indulgences  which  were  so  fruit 
ful  a  source  of  revenue  to  the  successors  of  St.  Peter  not  only 
remitted  sins,  but  absolved  from  excommunications  and  inter 
dicts.1  In  this  as  in  so  many  other  ways  the  central  authority 
interfered  with  the  provincial  prelates  and  speculated  on  its 
own  account  in  the  exactions  and  oppression  of  its  subordi 
nates.  If  the  one  attempted  to  make  money  by  withholding 
the  sacraments,  the  other  would  intervene  and  grasp  the  prize 
in  virtue  of  its  superior  authority. 


EMANCIPATION. 

The  warnings  of  such  men  as  Gerson  were  unheeded.  Se 
cure  in  the  possession  of  temporal  power,  the  church  became 
less  and  less  mindful  of  its  spiritual  duties,  and  its  boundless 
authority  was  constantly  devoted  more  and  more  exclusively 
to  the  purposes  of  individual  ambition  and  the  oppression  of 
Christendom.  The  reform  so  pompously  promised  at  Con- 


1  See  the  formula  of  indulgence  issued  by  the  agents  of  John  II.,  King 
of  Cyprus,  when  Nicholas  V.  granted  him  the  right  of  selling  them  for 
three  years,  as  a  convenient  mode  of  aiding  him  in  his  struggle  with  the 
Infidel.— Haeberlin,  Analecta  Mod.  ^Evi  pp.  565-8. 


400  EXCOMMUNICATION. 

stance  was  easily  evaded  •  by  the  intrigues  of  those  whose 
interests  it  would  have  compromised.  Better  things  were 
expected  at  Bale,  but  that  council  degenerated  into  an  un 
seemly  squabble  between]  the  head  and  the  body  of  the  church, 
which  exposed  both  to  contempt,  and  its  efforts  to  diminish 
the  abuse  of  excommunication  and  interdicts  were  of  little 
avail.1  Yet  though  the  revolt  of  the  Hussites  had  shown  how 
infirm  was  the  basis  on  which  was  erected  the  imposing  struc 
ture  of  sacerdotal  Christianity,  the  sounding  promises  of  refor 
mation  extorted  from  the  fears  of  the  hierarchy  were  sufficient 
to  postpone  the  dreaded  revolution  for  nearly  a  century.  The 
whole  organization  of  the  church,  however,  was  so  thoroughly 
interpenetrated  with  corruption  that  no  internal  efforts  at 
purification  could  be  successful.  The  Valley  of  the  Shadow 
of  Death  had  to  be  traversed  to  compel  the  surrender  of  the 
vested  interests,  the  privileges,  the  prerogatives  which  pro 
duced  so  abundant  a  revenue  and  gave  such  ample  liberty  for 
the  indulgence  of  passion  and  the  exercise  of  despotic  power. 
Meanwhile  the  minds  of  men  were  gradually  becoming 
emancipated.  Already,  in  1281,  a  synod  of  Anjou  deplores 
the  hardness  of  heart  which  led  many  to  remain  for  years 
recklessly  indifferent  under  the  ban  of  the  church,  and  so 
numerous  were  they  that  a  regular  inquisition  was  ordered 
throughout  the  diocese  to  ascertain  their  numbers  and  to  make 
out  lists  of  them  for  examination  by  the  bishop.  Even  this 
was  ineffectual  through  the  timidity  of  the  curates,  who 
dreaded  to  incur  the  enmity  of  these  children  of  wrath  by 
exposing  them.'2  In  the  passage  above  cited,  Gerson  alludes 
to  the  derision  to  which  the  jurisdiction  of  the  spiritual  courts 
was  exposed  by  the  selfish  use  made  of  it  in  purely  temporal 
and  worldly  affairs;  and,  as  time  wore  on,  men  began  to 
speak  more  boldly.  Even  in  the  fourteenth  century  the 
German  clergy  had  complained  that  excommunicates  were  not 

1  Concil.  Basiliens.  Sess.  xx.  cap.  2,  3. 

2  Synod.  Andeg-avens.  aim.  1381  cap.  i.;  ann.  1293  cap.  iii.   (D'Achery 
I.  733,  736). 


EMANCIPATION.  461 

deprived  pf  standing  in  the  secular  courts,  and  the  Emperor 
Charles  IV.,  in  1359,  endeavored  to  correct  this  laxity  by 
imposing  a  fine  of  fifty  pounds  of  pure  gold  on  all  who  showed 
so  little  reverence  for  the  censures  of  the  church.1  Not  long 
after  this  Saint  Brigitta  declares  that  in  Rome  itself  many 
persons  cared  no  more  for  excommunication  than  if  it  were 
benediction,  and  that  few  priests  prohibited  the  entry  of  their 
churches  to  excommunicates  or  hesftated  to  associate  openly 
with  them.2  Nicholas  de  Claminges  indignantly  alludes  to 
the  early  church,  when  the  awful  anathema  was  only  employed 
for  the  worst  crimes,  while  now,  he  says,  its  abuse  on  every 
occasion,  for  the  slightest  offence,  or  even  for  none,  has  so 
destroyed  human  respect  for  it  that  it  is  held  in  supreme  con 
tempt.3  This  tendency  continued  unchecked,  and  the  councils 
of  the  fifteenth  century  frequently  remonstrate  against  the 
growing  indifference  with  which  the  anathema  was  regarded 
by  an  irreligious  laity.  An  elaborate  formula  of  church  dis 
cipline  drawn  up,  but  not  adopted,  by  the  council  of  Constance 
alludes  to  the  fact  that  segregation  from  human  society  was 
more  dreaded  than  the  deprivation  of  the  sacraments,  and  that 
wicked  men  when  subjected  to  excommunication  were  accus 
tomed  by  force  or  fraud  to  compel  the  bestowal  of  absolution  ;4 
thus  showing  how  completely  the  thunders  of  the  church  had 
lost  their  spiritual  terrors.  Very  similar  is  the  complaint,  in 
1456,  of  the  Bishop  of  St.  Andree  to  the  provincial  council  of 
Salzburg  that  men  remained  under  excommunication  for  a 
year  and  more  without  conceiving  themselves  debarred  from 
frequenting  the  churches,  and  that  they  deterred,  with  terrible 
threats,  the  officials  from  visiting  them  with  the  canonical 
penalties.5  More  politic,  but  not  more  reverential,  was  the 

r 

1  Carol!  IV.  Constit.  de  Immunit.  Cleric.  §§  2,  7  (Goldast.  II.  92-3). 

2  S.  Brigittae  Revelat.  Lib.  iv.  cap.  33. 

3  Nic.  de  Claming,  de  Ruiria  Ecclesiae  cap.  ix. 

4  Reformator.   Concil.   Constant.   Decretal.   Lib.   I.   Tit.  ix.   (Von  der 
HardtT.  I.  P.  xii.  p.  683). 

5  Concil.  Salisburgens.  XXXVIII.  (Dalham  Concil.  Salisbury,  p.  233). 

39* 


462  EXCOMMUNICATION. 

conduct  of  the  Florentines  when  excommunicated  by  one  of 
the  worst  pontiff's  who  disgraced  the  tiara.  In  punishin^  the 

i  ~  i  n> 

conspiracy  of  the  Pazzi,  one  of  the  victims  was  the  Bishop 
of  Pisa,  who  was  hanged  with  his  accomplices.  Sixtus  IV., 
who  was  deeply  concerned  in  the  conspiracy,  seized  this  as  an 
excuse  for  launching  an  anathema  at  Florence,  but  the  com 
munity  appealed  from  the  sentence  as  unjust,  saying  that  they 
had  hanged  him  not  as  bishop  but  as  a  traitor  who  had  con- 
"spired  against  their  liberties.1  This  lack  of  reverence  for 
ecclesiastical  censures  did  not  diminish,  and  in  1491  we  find 
a  synod  of  Bamberg  re-echoing  the  complaint  that  laymen 
disregarded  the  anathema,  or  visited  with  savage  chastisement 
the  official  messengers  who  served  on  them  the  letters  of  ex 
communication  ;  while  many  priests  set  at  naught  the  sentences 
of  other  priests  and  did  not  hesitate  to  administer  the  sacra- 
inei.ts  to  excommunicates.  Evidently  distrustful  of  the  penal 
ties  which  it  threatened  against  such  infractions  of  the  canons, 
the  synod  strove  to  revive  the  fading  terrors  of  the  anathema 
by  telling  the  faithful  that  in  primitive  times  the  disobedient 
and  contumacious  who  were  ejected  from  the  church  were 
forthwith  seized  by  ravening  demons.2  Scarcely  a  synod, 
indeed,  was  held  during  the  fourteenth  and  fifteenth  centuries 
which  did  allude  to  the  subject  and  endeavor  to  devise  some 
means  whereby  the  neglect  of  ecclesiastical  censures  could  be 
overcome.  All  this  was  portentous  of  the.  future,  and  at 
length  the  open  revolt  of  Luther  stirred  up  the  spirit  of  insub 
ordination  even  among  those  who  remained  orthodox,  leading 
to  the  discussion  of  the  oppressions  of  the  sacerdotal  system 
with  the  determination  to  effect  their  removal.  At  the  Diet 
of  Niirnberg,  for  instance,  in  1522,  a  list  of  grievances  was 
drawn  up  to  be  presented  in  the  name  of  the  German  nation 

1  Infessurse   Diar.  Urb.  Roman,   aim.   1482    (Eccard.  Corp.   Hist.   II. 
1907). 

2  Synod  Bamberg.  ami.  1491,  Tit.  xi.  xii.  liii.  (Hartzheim  V.  602,  (527) 
— "  rapido   ore   daemonum    trahebantuiv  * — Cf.   Hieron.  Epist.  xiv.  ad 
ITeliodor.  cap.  8. 


EMANCIPATION.  463 

to  Adrian  VI.,  from  whom  so  much  was  expected.  In  this 
catalogue*  of  evils,  the  abuses  of  excommunication  occupy  a 
considerable  space.  The  complainants  declare  that  the  ana 
thema  was  constantly  employed  by  venal  episcopal  officials 
from  motives  of  the  basest  avarice,  and  that  for  filthy  gain 
multitudes  of  Christians  were  driven  to  desperation,  their 
property  confiscated,  and  their  souls  and  bodies  destroyed. 
To  render  their  extortions  more  productive,  the  officials  often 
included  the  neighbors  of  the  excommunicate,  so  that  when  he 
and  his  family  had  been  ruthlessly  driven  into  exile,  ten  or  a 
dozen  others  were  placed  under  ban,  if  they  had  held  the 
slightest  intercourse  with  the  offender,  in  order  that  the  re 
quired  sum  might  be  more  surely  exacted.1  To  all  remon 
strances  that  the  censures  of  the  church  are  not  to  be  em 
ployed  for  pecuniary  matters,  the  officials  replied  that  the 
punishment  was  not  for  the  money  but  for  contumacy.  If  an 
ecclesiastic  was  killed,  not  only  the  slayer  but  the. whole  town 
or  district  was  placed  under  interdict,  until  the  homicide  was 
avenged  or  paid  for;  and  if  a  quarrel  occurred  in  a  cemetery, 
resulting  in  the  shedding  of  a  single  drop  of  blood,  an  interdict 
was  forthwith  proclaimed,  until  the  people  raised  enough  money 
to  pay  for  a  new  consecration  of  the  spot.2  Suspension  of 
communion  was  mercilessly  inflicted  on  those  whose  poverty 

1  In  the  reformation  attempted  by  George  of  Bamberg,  in  1465,  he  en 
deavored  to  prevent  the  customary  exactions  by  an  established  fee  bill, 
in  which  the  price  «f  removing  an  interdict  of  sepulture  is  fixed  at  15 
denarii  and  one  pound  of  wax,  while  that  for  removal  of  a  general  inter 
dict  is  twice  the  amount.— Georgii  I.  Episc.  Bamberg.  Reform.  Consistorii 
Art.  xlii.  (Ludewig  Script.  Her.  German.  I.  p.  1183). 

2  This  was  a  complaint  of  old  standing.     In  1418  the  council  of  Salz 
burg  indignantly  denounces  the  audacity  which  led  the  laity  to  persist  in 
burying  their  dead  in  cemeteries  under  interdict  before  the  fines  were 
paid.     All  corpses  so  interred  are  ordered  to  be  dug  up  and  thrown  out 
of  consecrated  ground.— Concil.   Salisb.  XXXIV.  can.  xxxi.   (Dalham, 
pp.  184-5).     On  the  other  hand,  in  1465,  George,  Bishop  of  Bamberg, 
condemns  the  abuse  of  exacting  payment  for  sepulture,  and  orders  that 
thereafter  no  charge  should  be  made  for  burial  during  interdict. — Op. 
cit.  Art.  xxxii.  (Ludewig,  loc.  cit.  1178). 


464  EXCOMMUNICATION. 

prevented  them  from  paying  their  church-dues  to  the  day  ; 
and  at  vintage-time  the  tithers,  under  pain  of  excommunica 
tion,  forbade  the  gathering  of  the  grapes  until  they  could  select 
their  share,  while  from  this  delay  the  wretched  peasant  fre 
quently  saw  the  ruin  of  his  crop  from  frost  or  rot.  The  pre 
lates  and  religious  houses  which  were  patrons  of  livings  reserved 
to  themselves  the  larger  part  of  the  stipends,  so  that  the  incum 
bents  were  forced  to  eke  out  their  existence  by  constant  exac 
tions,  grinding  their  flocks  to  the  verge  of  destruction,  and 
enforcing  their  claims  by  a  liberal  use  of  the  anathema.  Other 
dissolute  priests  and  monks,  carrying  weapons,  brawling,  drink 
ing,  and  gambling,  retained  enough  of  their  sacred  character 
to  be  able  to  use  the  thunders  of  the  church,  and  oppressed  the 
miserable  laity  with  impunity,  forcing  them  to  submit  to  all 
manner  of  abuses,  and  to  purchase  on  their  own  terms  escape 
from  the  dreaded  censure.1  To  this  had  come  the  ideal  theoc 
racy  of  Hildebrand,  and  this  terrible  condition  of  society  was 
the  logical  result  of  conferring  irresponsible  power  on  the 
fallibility  of  human  nature. 

That  there  was  little  if  any  exaggeration  in  this  was  shown 
when  the  aspirations  of  the  orthodox  culminated  in  the  council 
of  Trent,  and  the  faithful  hoped  at  last  for  the  thorough  re 
formation  so  often  promised  and  so  long  eluded.  As  one  nation 
after  another  presented  to  the  venerable  synod  its  projects  and 
requests  for  reform,  the  abuses  of  ecclesiastical  censures  were 
dwelt  upon  with  greater  or  less  insistance,  but  with  a  unanimity 
which  showed  how  widely  spread  and  deeply  felt  they  were. 
The  Emperor  Ferdinand  urged  the  matter  with  an  iteration 
which  proves  the  importance  attached  to  it  in  the  estimation 
of  his  subjects ;  and  he  was  supported  by  the  Portuguese,  the 

1  Gravam.  German.  Nationis  ad  Hadr.  PP.  VI.  cap.  22,  23,  24,  3G,  03, 
6(5,  70  (Le  Plat  Monument.  Concil.  Trident.  II.  179-202). 

Compared  with  this,  the  complaint  seems  almost  trivial  of  the  Com 
mons  to  Henry  VIII.,  in  1529,  that  excommunications  were  granted  "  for 
small  and  light  causes"  on  ex  parte  testimony  and  without  warning,  to 
be  removed  only  on  payment  of  fees  that  were  ruinous  to  poor  men. — 
Froude's  England,  <  h.  TIT. 


EMANCIPATION.  465 

Spaniards,*the  Frencli,  and  even  the  Italians,  each  enumerat 
ing  their  own  peculiar  grievances.1  It  would  be  mere  repe 
tition  to  examine  these  in  detail ;  their  only  present  interest 
lies  in  their  confirmation  of  what  has  already  been  described 
at  length. 

The  spirit  in  which  these  propositions  were  received  by  the 
Roman  Curia  controlling  the  council  may  be  estimated  by  the 
manner  in  which  the  French  project  of  reform  was  treated. 
It  was  not  presented  until  January  3,  1563,  and  the  31st 
Article  declared  that  as  excommunication  was  the  supreme 
sword  of  the  church  it  should  not  be  invoked  on  all  occasions 
and  for  trivial  causes,  but  should  be  reserved  for  offences  of 
the  deepest  dye,  and  then  be  employed  only  after  three  or  at 
least  two  warnings.  In  reply  the  papal  legates  presiding  over 
the  council  admitted  that  it  should  not  be  made  use  of  con 
stantly,  but  yet  that  mature  consideration  was  requisite  lest  the 
church  should  be  deprived  of  the  censures  which  were  her 
principal  weapon  ;  and  with  the  same  delightful  ambiguity, 
the  college  of  cardinals,  to  whom  the  whole  was  submitted,  re 
sponded  that  the  council  should  decide  according  to  its  best 
judgment,  bearing  in  rnind  the  cases  in  which  execution  was 
impossible,  and  that  censures  were  the  only  arm  of  the  church, 
especially  against  the  absent  and  the  powerful.2 

The  demands  of  tl^e  secular  powers  for  a  thorough  reform  of 
the  church  were  so  reiterated  and  so  pressing  that  it  finally 
became  difficult  to  evade  them  longer,  and  as  the  hierarchy 
had  secured  what  it  desired  it  was  eager  to  obtain  the  consent 
of  its  imperial  and  royal  patrons  to  a  dissolution  of  the  council. 
For  this  purpose  the  papal  legates,  toward*  the  end  of  Septem 
ber,  1563,  shrewdly  submitted  a  counter-project  of  reform  for 
sovereigns,  so  artfully  drawn  up  that  it  would  have  released 
the  church  almost  entirely  from  secular  influence,  and  have 
deprived  the  monarchs  of  the  rights  of  patronage  which  they 

1  The  documents  are  in  Le  Plat,  T.  IV.  pp.  657,  759,  702,  766.— T.  V. 
pp.  85,  230,  243,  261,  266,  566,  617,  641. 

2  Postulata  Orat.  Reg-.  Gallic.  Art.  Ml  (Le  Plat  V.  641-2). 


.466  EXCOMMUNICATION. 

enjoyed  under  concordats  and  pragmatic  sanctions.  This  of 
course  drew  from  them  a  lively  protest,  and  in  the  confusion 
thence  arising  the  council  was  readily  brought  to  an  inglorious 
conclusion.  This  project,  having  served  its  purpose,  was 
speedily  cast  aside,  and  yet  it  possesses  a  certain  interest  for 
us  as  showing  how  little  the  controlling  minds  of  the  church 
proposed  to  abandon  the  advantages  arising  from  the  use  or 
abuse  of  excommunication. 

It  provided  that  all  who  appealed  to  the  secular  tribunals  in 
cases  subject  to  ecclesiastical  jurisdiction  should  be  ipso  facto 
excommunicate,  thus  perpetuating  and  intensifying  one  of  the 
worst  excesses  of  the  system  which  for  certain  specified  acts 
subjected  men  to  the  anathema  without  trial  and  even -without 
notice.  The  temporal  authorities,  moreover,  were  forbidden 
to  demand  the  absolution  or  prohibit  the  excommunication  of 
any  one,  thus  destroying  the  supervision  which  in  many  places 
the  state  was  beginning  to  exercise  over  the  ecclesiastical  courts. 
In  addition,  it  forbade,  under  pain  of  the  anathema,  ipso  facto 
and  without  notice,  all  invasions  of  the  rights  of  the  church,  all 
laws  and  statutes  to  the  contrary  notwithstanding  which  were; 
not  in  harmony  with  the  decretals  of  the  popes  and  the  consti 
tutions  and  claims  of  the  church  ;  thus  proclaiming  excommu 
nicate  even  the  princes  themselves  for  the  exercise  of  the  rights 
which  they  enjoyed  under  their  respective  concordats.1 

Inspired  by  such  a  spirit,  it  is  not  to  be  supposed  that  the 
fathers  of  the  council  were  disposed  to  abandon  any  prerogatives 
or  surrender  any  of  the  powers  of  the  church.  In  the  Decree 
of  Reformation,  therefore,  hurriedly  adopted  in  December  as 
the  council  was  breaking  up,  the  provisions  respecting  excom 
munication  gave  little  promise  of  amendment.  A  vague  com 
mand  to  distribute  the  censures  of  the  church  with  discretion 
alleges  as  a  reason  the  contempt  to  which  their  abuse  rendered 
them  liable,  and  their  use  for  extorting  evidence  or  to  obtain 

1  Cap,  de  Immun.  Cleric,  et  Reform.  Principum,  cap.  2,  4,  13.     (Le 
Plat  VI.  228,  229,  233). 


EMANCIPATION.  467 

the  restitution  of  articles  lost  or  stolen  is  to  be  exercised  only 
by  bishops  after  full  examination  and  not  in  petty  cases.  In 
either  civil  or  criminal  affairs  the  episcopal  ordinaries  are  in 
structed  not  to  issue  excommunications  where  property  real  or 
personal  can  be  seized  in  execution,  and  where  this  cannot  be 
had  the  spiritual  sword  is  only  to  be  unsheathed  in  cases  of  a 
certain  gravity  and  after  two  admonitions.  The  interference 
of  the  secular  magistrate  is  strictly  prohibited,  and  the  old  rule 
is  revived  which  authorizes  the  prosecution  for  heresy  of  any 
one  remaining  for  a  year  under  the  ban  of  the  church.1 

While  thus  there  was  a  pretence  of  removing  the  evils  against 
which  Christendom  so  loudly  protested,  there  was  the  evident 
determination  to  mantain  intact  the  pretensions  from  which 
those  evils  had  inevitably  sprung.  This  is  clearly  manifested 
by  the  council  of  Salzburg,  convened  in  15G9  for  the  publication 
of  the  council  of  Trent,  which  issued  a  series  of  canons  reor 
ganizing  the  church  in  accordance  witli  the  Tridentine  system. 
In  treating  of  the  subject  of  excommunication  it  expressly 
declares  that  the  ancient  power  of  the  church  in  inflicting  its 
censures  is  to  be  maintained  in  full  vigor,  and  only  concedes 
that  the  use  of  the  spiritual  sword  shall  be  restricted  to  cases  of 
importance  sufficient  to  warrant  its  employment.'2  The  formal 
abandonment  of  the  right  to  inflict  excommunication,  with  all 
the  prerogatives  attendant  upon  that  right,  had  indeed  not  been 
expected,  yet  men  had  hardly  anticipated  so  bold  and  so  absolute 
an  assertion  of  their  continued  and  perpetual  existence.  In 
some  respects,  indeed,  the  Tridentine  canons  riveted  anew  the 
chains  of  the  faithful,  for,  with  the  freedom  of  thought  resulting 
from  the  Reformation  even  among  the  orthodox,  there  had 
arisen  a  general  disposition  to  curb,- the  abuses  of  spiritual  cen 
sures.  Thus  when  Charles  V.  despaired  of  any  reformatory 
results  from  the  long-eluded  promise  of  a  general  council,  and 
endeavored  to  reform  for  himself  the  church  of  the  Empire,  he 

1  Concil.  Trident.  Sess.  xxv.  Decret.  Reform,  cap.  3. 

2  Concil.  Salisbury.  XLVI.  const,  xlvi.  cap.  1,  2,  3.     (Dalham,  op.  cit. 
p.  495). 


4fi8  EXCOMMUNICATION. 

had  forbidden  the  use  of  excommunication  except  in  criminal 
cases  when  the  offender  proved  incorrigible  and  had  commanded 
that,  civil  matters  should  be  confined  exclusively  to  the  juris 
diction  of  the  secular  tribunals.1  In  this  he  had  only  given 
formal  expression  to  customs  which  were  rapidly  spreading,  for 
in  many  cases  the  local  courts  had  begun  to  set  some  bounds  to 
the  oppression  of  the  courts  Christian  in  civil  matters,  and  had 
presumed  to  forbid  excommunication  and  to  command  absolution 
in  certain  cases — a  presumption  which,  as  we  have  seen,  the 
Tridentine  canons  strictly  prohibited  for  the  future.  This  was 
a  principle  of  no  little  importance.  The  celebrated  Richardot, 
Bishop  of  Arras,  in  his  address  in  1;>G4  to  the  Duchess  of 
Parma,  urging  the  adoption  of  the  council  of  Trent,  does  not 
fail  to  point  out  how  completely  the  reception  of  the  council 
would  liberate  the  ecclesiastical  courts  from  the  subjection  into 
which  they  were  falling  through  the  corruption  of  the  times.2 

The  civil  authorities,  also,  were  prompt  to  see  the  fresh 
tribulations  in  store  for  them  under  a  reformation  such  as  this. 
When  the  Duchess  of  Parma  was  striving  to  obey  the  orders 
of  Philip  II.,  and  force  the  states  of  the  Low  Countries  to 
accept  the  council,  this  point  was  one  which  called  forth  the 
unanimous  remonstrances  of  the  state  council  of  Flanders  and 
of  the  authorities  of' Hainault,  Artois,  Utrecht,  Namur,  and 
Brabant,  as  contrary  to  their  rights  and  privileges  and  the 
prerogatives  of  the  crown.3  So  in  France,  the  encroachment 
of  this  article  on  the  jurisdiction  of  the  king  and  the  parlement 
was  one  of  the  reasons  which  prevented  the  reception  of  the 
council  of  Trent.4 

The  logic  of  events,  however,  was  more  potent  than  the 
rhetoric  of  the  Tridentine  fathers.  They  might  seek  to  restore 

1  Carol!  V.  Formul.  Reformat,  cap.  xxii.  (Goldast,  II.  339). 

2  Le  Plat,  op.  cit.  T.  VII.  p.  28. 

3  Le  Plat,  T.  VII.  pp.  19,  33-t,  54,  67,  75,  88-9. 

*  See  the  Report  of  the  President  d'Espeisses  to  Henry  III.  in  1583,  and 
the  Memoire  of  the  Pi  evident  Le  Maistre  presented  to  the  Etuis  assembled 
at  Paris  by  the  League  in  1593  (Le  Plat  VII.  257,  270). 


EMANCIPATION.  469 

f 

and  to  perpetuate  the  old  order  of  things,  but  nothing  could 
efface  from  the  minds,  even  of  the  orthodox,  the  effects  of  the 
teachings  of  Luther  and  Calvin,  and  the  successful  rebellion 
of  the  Anglican  church.  The  hoary  belief  in  the  supernatural 
attributes  of  sacerdotalism  had  received  a  fatal  shock.  Men 
at  length  felt  at  liberty  to  criticize  the  scandalous  lives  of  their 
pastors,  and  medieval  veneration  was  fast  disappearing.  While 
such  a  spirit  was  abroad,  it  could  indeed  hardly  be  expected 
that  the  old  reverence  for  the  mysteries  of  religious  observance 
could  be  preserved,  when,  even  after  the  council  of  Trent, 
Gregory  XIII.  in  1573  had  to  deplore  the  fact  that  in  many 
cathedral  churches  throughout  Germany  the  priests  and  clerks 
during  divine  service  occupied  themselves  with  chatting,  laugh 
ing,  and  quarrelling,  sometimes  even  coming  to  blows ;  and 
that  dying  Christians  frequently' were  deprived  of  the  saving 
viaticum  because  the  ministers  of  the  altar  were  boozing  in 
taverns,  and  could  not  be  hunted  up  in  time,  or,  if  found,  were 
so  drunk  that  they  could  not  administer  the  sacraments,  while 
through  the  negligence  of  priests  and  bishops  extreme  unction 
had  fallen  into  almost  universal  disuse.1  When  churchmen 
themselves  showed  so  little  sense  of  responsibility  for  the 
awful  functions  entrusted  to  them,  the  laity  naturally  yielded 
to  the  infection  of  the  time,  and  began  to  regard  the  eccle 
siastic  as  an  equal  and  not  as  a  demigod.  However  humbly 
the  crown  might  thereafter  treat  the  tiara,  there  was  a  new 
and  most  potential  element  introduced  in  the  relations  between 
the  church  and  state,  none  the  less  powerful  because  not  openly 
declared.  The  new  order  of  things  was  fitly  illustrated  by 
Henry  IV.,  when,  with  the  mocking  effrontery  of  which  he 

1  Concil.  Salisbury  XL VII.  (Dalham,  p.  576).  It  would  be  difficult 
to  conceive  of  anything  better  fitted  to  destroy  the  reverence  of  the  people 
for  the  sacrament  than  another  custom  condemned  by  Gregory.  As  the 
rules  of  the  church  forbade  administering  the  Eucharist  to  those  deprived 
of  reason,  the  priests,  when  applied  to  for  communion  by  idiots  or  the 
insane,  saved  themselves  the  trouble  of  contesting  the  matter  by  giving 
an  unconsecrated  wafer— a  piece  of  jugglery  with  the  body  of  Christ 
which  the  pope  very  properly  denounced  in  fitting  terms 
40 


470  EXCOMMUNICATION. 

was  so  consummate  a  master,  he  replied  in  1605  to  one  of  the 
innumerable  petitions  of  the  Gallican  church  for  the  publica 
tion  of  the  council  of  Trent  :  "  Je  souhaite  la  publication  du 
concile  avec  la  meme  ardeur  que  vons  ;  mais  les  raisons  hu- 
maines,  comme  vous  venez  de  le  dire  fort  bien,  paroissent 
opposees  a  la  sagesse  divine.  Cependant,  je  n'epargnerai  ni 
mes  soins  ni  ma  vie  meme  pour  faire  triompher  1'eglise  et  la 
religion."1 

Thus  Richardot,  in  an  elaborate  memorial  on  the  measures 
necessary  to  restore  the  faith,  deplores  in  1566  the  neglect 
and  derision  into  which  the  censures  of  the  church  had  fallen, 
and  declares  that  even  the  heretics  were  more  exacting  than 
Catholics  in  the  conditions  imposed  on  sinners  and  backsliders 
for  readmission  into  their  damnable  conventicles.  He  attri 
butes  this  to  the  contempt  felt  for  excommunication  in  conse 
quence  of  its  frequency,  and  recommends  limitations  on  its 
employment.2  So,  in  lf>Gf>,  the  council  of  Cambrai  urged 
circumspection  in  the  use  of  the  censure,  and  complained  bit 
terly  of  the  continued  interference  of  the  secular  tribunals  ;J 
but  when  the  Bishop  of  Nainur,  as  deputy  of  the  council,  pre 
sented  to  Margaret  of  Parma  a  long  memorial  arguing  the 
supremacy  of  spiritual  censures,  the  duchess  contented  herself 
with  drily  responding  that  the  lay  judges  had  always  under 
taken  to  prevent  the  abuses  of  excommunication  -which  had 
been  forbidden  at  Trent,  and  that  if  the  clerks  would  obey  the 
council  strictly  they  would  avoid  all  occasion  for  a  conflict  of 
jurisdiction.4  Even  Philip  IT.  himself,  when  ordering  Franche 
Comte,  in  1572,  to  receive  and  publish  the  council,  points  out 
the  limitations  imposed  by  it  on  the  current  abuses  of  excom 
munication,  and  in  order  to  render  them  effectual,  directs  that 
in  future  the  sentences  of  the  spiritual  courts  shall  be  intrusted 
for  execution  not  to  their  own  officials,  but  to  those  of  the 

i  Le  Plat  T.  VII.  p.  279.  2  Ibid.  pp.  186-7, 193. 

3  Condi.  Camerac.  ann.  1565  Tit.  xiv.  cap.  3, -11  (Hartzheim  Condi. 
German.  T.  VII.  p.  111. 

4  Le  Plat  T.  VII.  pp.  127-30. 


EMANCIPATION.  471 

« 

secular  authorities.1  To  this  growing  tendency  of  the  age  is 
to  be  attributed  the  assertion  of  what  were  long  known  as  the 
liberties  of  the  Galilean  church,  and  in  1594  Pierre  Pithou 
was  able  to  enumerate  among  them  the  prohibition  of  all  ex 
communication  for  civil  matters,  except  the  recovery  of  things 
purposely  concealed.2 

The  influences  thus  manifested  could  not,  of  course,  but 
grow  stronger  with  the  progress  of  enlightenment  and  civiliza 
tion,  and  the  state  at  length  emancipated  itself  wholly  from 
the  church.  A  formidable  impulse  was  given  to  this  move 
ment  by  the  quarrel  which  Paul  V.  rashly  provoked  with  the 
republic  of  Venice,  when  he  endeavored  to  force  the  repeal  of 
two  obnoxious  laws  by  laying  an  interdict  on  the  Venetian 
territories.  The  Seignory  defiantly  retorted  by  banishing  all 
who  obeyed  the  papal  censures,  and  after  a  violent  struggle 
Rome  was  glad  to  end  the  strife  by  an  accommodation  in 
which  both  parties  simultaneously  withdrew  their  offensive 

proceedings except   that   the   Jesuits    were    abandoned    and 

remained  excluded  from  Venice.3  When,  therefore,  the 
French  monarchy  culminated  in  the  person  of  Louis  XIV., 
he  was  able,  in  his  quarrel  with  the  papacy  over  the  "  droit 
de  regale,"  to  dictate  the  celebrated  declaration  of  1682,  by 
which  his  obedient  clergy  proclaimed  to  the  world,  "  That  St. 
Peter  and  his  successors,  the  Vicars  of  Jesus  Christ,  and  even 
the  whole  church,  have  received  from  God  power  only  over 
spiritual  things,  concerning  salvation,  and  not  over  temporal 

and  civil  matters We  therefore  declare  that,  under 

the  command  of  God,  princes  and  kings  are  not  subjected  in 
temporal  affairs  to  any  ecclesiastical  authority  ;  that  they  can 
not  be  deposed,  directly  or  indirectly,  by  the  power  of  the 
keys  ;  that  their  subjects  cannot  be  released  from  the  allegi 
ance  and  obedience  due  to  them,  or  be  absolved  from  the  oath 


1  Le  Plat  T.  VII.  p.  221. 

2  Pithou,  Libertes  de  1'fi^l.  Gallicane,  art.  35. 

3  Griselini  Memorie  Spettanti  alia  vita  <li  Fra  Paolo,  P.  i.— Liinig.  Cod. 
Ital.  Diplom.  T.  II.  pp.  2013-2020. 


EXCOMMUNICATION. 

of  fidelity  ;  and  that  this  doctrine,  indispensable  to  the  public 
peace,  and  as  advantageous  to  the  church  as  to  the  state,  must 
be  invariably  followed  as  conforming  to  the  word  of  God,  to 
the  traditions  of  the  Holy  Fathers,  and  to  the  examples  given 
us  by  the  Saints."1  Nor  was  this  an  empty  boast,  though 
duly  anathematized  by  Alexander  VIII.  and  Innocent  XII., 
and  though  the  influences  which  surrounded  the  king  led  him 
formally  to  annul  it  in  1G93.2  When  a  certain  brother  Hya 
cinth,  a  Capucin  professor  of  theology  under  the  Regency, 
ventured  to  indulge  in  an  argument  to  prove  the  legality  of 
interdicts  directed  against  sovereigns,  he  was  seized  and  im 
prisoned,  and  his  brethren  had  no  little  difficulty  in  interced 
ing  for  his  pardon.3  Even  Louis,  notwithstanding  the  rapid 
advancement  of  his  Jesuit-ridden  dotage,  had  maintained  his 
position  with  sufficient  firmness.  An  ordonnance  of  1695  had 
defined  peremptorily  the  limit  of  ecclesiastical  jurisdiction  to 
spiritual  matters,  and  even  in  these  the  "  appel  comme  d'abus" 
had  given  a  superior  appellate  power  to  the  civil  courts.4 
How  thoroughly  independent  the  secular  authorities  had  be 
come  under  these  inspirations  is  shown  by  an  affair  occurring 
in  1(598.  The  "  monitoire,"  a  proclamation  by  the  episcopal 
ordinary,  threatening  excommunication  to  extort  the  revela 
tion  of  a  crime,  was  strictly  forbidden  unless  the  assent  of  the 
civil  tribunals  had  been  obtained.  In  June,  1698,  the  Due  de 
la  Meilleraie  procured  from  the  Sovereign  Council  of  Colmar 
permission  to  apply  for  such  a  document  to  the  Bishop  of 
Bale,  with  respect  to  some  trespasses  committed  on  his  estates, 
but  he  changed  his  mind  and  obtained  it  of  the  pope.  On 
causing  it  to  be  published,  the  Council  took  the  matter  up  as 
unauthorized,  and  in  December,  1698,  ordered  the  monitoire 

1  Declarat,  Cleri  Gallicani  art.  1   (Isambert,  XX.  384-).—  In  1810  this 
declaration  was  made  a  law  of  the  state  by  Napoleon,  in  response  to  the 
excommunication  launched  at  him  by  Pius  VII.     (Dupin,  Manuel  du 
Droit  Publique  Ecclesiastique,  p.  119.) 

2  Isambert,  XX.  380. 

3  Monteil,  Traite  des  Materiaux  MSS.,  II.  143. 

4  Ordonn.  d'Avril,  1695,  art.  34-37  (Isambert,  XXI.  253). 


EMANCIPATION.  473 

to  be  suppressed,  and  directed  proceedings  to  be  commenced 
against  all  concerned  in  its  publication.1 

Thus  gradually  came  to  an  end  the  alliance  between  church 
and  state  which  Charlemagne  found  so  efficient  in  his  civiliz 
ing  policy,  and  which  proved  so  disastrous  to  his  successors. 
The  pretensions  of  the  False  Decretals  led  so  inevitably  to  the 
monopoly  of  all  power  by  the  church,  that  when  they  were 
once  recognized  no  monarch  could  ask  its  assistance  in  reduc- 

O 

ing  his  subjects  to  obedience  without  himself  becoming  its 
slave.  We  have  seen  to  how  much  of  petty  tyranny  and  op 
pression  this  gave  opportunity,  yet  on  the  whole  there  can  be 
no  question  that  it  advanced  the  interests  of  civilization,  and 
that  the  average  influence  of  the  church  was  for  the  benefit  of 
the  people.  When  Innocent  III.  boldly  stood  forward  as  the 
sole  defender  of  Ingeberga  of  Denmark  against  her  powerful 
and  resolute  husband,  Philip  Augustus,  he  taught  the  reckless 
spirit  of  feudalism  that  might  does  not  always  make  right.  In 
those  turbulent  ages  it  was  only  the  church  that  could  inter 
pose  between  power  and  its  victims,  and  the  church  could  not 
do  this  unless  armed  with  the  ability  to  coerce  as  well  as  to 
persuade.  On  the  other  hand,  it  must  be  borne  in  mind  that 
many  of  the  evils  thus  combated  were  indirectly  created  by 
the  influence,  the  connivance,  or  the  supineness  of  the  church. 
If  the  laity  were  fierce  and  lawless,  it  was  because  the  church 
had  proved  false  to  its  great  mission,  and  had  employed  its 
almost  illimitable  power  not  in  softening  the  manners  of  man 
kind  and  inclining  their  hearts  to  the  truths  of  the  Gospel,  but 
in  consolidating  its  authority  and  increasing  its  worldly  pos 
sessions. 

The  weightiest  evils  of  this  incongruous  mingling  of  spiritu 
alities  and  temporalities  fell  upon  the  church  itself.  As  its 
claims  to  supremacy  became  recognized  and  admitted,  it  natu- 

1  Ordonnances  d'Alsace,  T,  I.  p.  281.  Comp.  Arret  of  1717,  prohibit 
ing  the  reception  or  publication  of  all  papal  bulls,  letters,  etc.  (except 
letters  of  penitence),  without  royal  letters  patent  (Ibid.  p.  480). 

40* 


474  EXCOMMUNICATION. 

rally  employed  its  power  for  its  own  aggrandizement.  Its 
claim  to  the  kingdom  of  heaven  became  a  stepping-stone  to 
the  kingdom  of  earth,  and  its  spiritual  privileges  were  chiefly 
valued  as  they  could  be  employed  for  the  gratification  of  worldly 
ambition.  The  sheep  were  tended  that  they  might  be  shorn. 
To  the  covetous  and  unscrupulous  an  ecclesiastical  career 
opened  the  shortest  avenue  to  success,  and  the  church  accord 
ingly  became  filled  with  the  covetous  and  unscrupulous,  bring 
ing  in  their  train  corruption  of  every  kind,  and  oppression 
which  rivalled  that  of  the  feudal  seigniory.  When  this  was 
at  length  carried  beyond  human  endurance,  Europe  arose  with 
a  universal  protest.  The  bolder  spirits  emancipated  themselves 
alike  from  the  dogmas  and  the  dominion  of  Rome  ;  the  more 
conservative  preserved  their  reverence  for  the  doctrines  of 
Latin  Christianity,  but  plainly  showed  that  their  allegiance 
was  to  be  secured  only  by  the  abandonment  of  the  prerogatives 
which  the  critical  spirit  of  inquiry  discovered  to  be  as  destitute 
of  authority  as  they  were  unsuited  to  the  new  requirements  of 
modern  civilization.  The  struggle  was  long  and  intricate. 
For  a  century  or  more  the  press,  the  pulpit,  and  the  battle 
field  were  by  turns  or  simultaneously  the  arena  on  which  the 
new  era  and  the  old  contended  for  mastery,  and  when  at 
length  physical  exhaustion  brought  about  a  truce  at  the  peace 
of  Westphalia,  although  the  Roman  church  apparently  held 
her  own,  it  was  no  longer  on  the  same  terms  as  before.  The 
princes  who  had  fought  her  battle  had  secured  their  pay.  They 
were  no  crusaders  who  had  drawn  the  sword  unselfishly  for  the 
propagation  of  the  faith,  and  if  they  had  preserved  her  exist 
ence,  their  price  for  the  service  had  been  emancipation. 

Their  emancipation  proved  to  be  likewise  the  emancipation 
of  the  church.  As  its  temporal  authority  declined,  its  spiritual 
energy  revived.  The  change,  it  is  true,  was  slow,  and  did  not 
become  fully  manifest  until  the  Revolution  of  '80  relieved  the 
hierarchy  still  further  from  the  burdens  which  kept  it  weighed 
down  to  earth.  Since  then  it  has  gained  enormously  in  all 
that  constitutes  real  power  over  the  souls  and  consciences  of 


EMANCIPATION.  475 

men.  Unfortunately,  however,  this  has  been  accomplished  in 
spite  of  itself,  and  it  still  clings  to  the  old  traditions  and  mourns 
over  the  disgraceful  glories  of  the  past. 

The  spirit  of  the  hierarchy  is  unchanged  and  apparently  un 
changeable.  According  to  Pius  IX.,  in  his  allocution  of  1849, 
the  impotence  of  the  church  to  impose  its  yoke  on  others  is 
bondage  and  shameful  servitude  ;x  and,  careless  of  the  teach 
ings  of  the  intervening  twenty  years,  he  shows  what  that  yoke 
is  by  reviving  in  18G9,  as  recorded  in  the  journals  of  the  day, 
an  obsolete  order  which  requires  all  physicians  to  cease  at 
tendance,  and  abandon  to  his  fate,  any  patient  dangerously  ill, 
who,  within  three  days  after  seeking  medical  aid,  shall  not 
have  confessed  his  sins,  and  expressed  his  willingness  to  re 
ceive  extreme  unction.  Destined  to  perdition  in  the  next 
world,  he  is  to  be  abandoned  helpless  to  his  fate  in  this,  and 
the  voice  of  humanity  is  to  be  stilled  for  him  who  cannot  be 
forced  into  dependence  on  the  spiritual  ministrations  of  the 
priest.2  When  the  Vicar  of  Christ  conceives  that  his  duty  to 
God  requires  him  to  use  such  means  to  reclaim  his  erring  chil 
dren,  we  learn  the  full  significance  of  the  principles  proclaimed 
in  the  Encyclical  and  Syllabus  of  December,  1804,  where  any 
denial  of  the  imprescriptible  rights  at  any  time  possessed  by 
the  church  is  condemned  as  absolute  heresy.  It  is  a  damnable 

1  Alloc.  Quibus  Quantisque,  1849  (Recueil  des  Alloc.  citees  dans  FEn- 
cyclique  et  le  Syllabus  de  1804,  Paris,  1805,  p.  224). 

2  The  fourth  council  of  Lateran,  in  1215  (can.  22),  ordered  all  physi 
cians,  as  soon  as  they  might  be  summoned  to  attend  a  patient,  to  urge 
him  to  confession,  alleging  as  a  reason  that  disease  was  frequently  the 
punishment   of  sin,  and  that  recovery  would  be  promoted   by  absolu 
tion.     In  1566,  Pius   V.  promulgated   the   regulation,  revived  by  Pius 
IX.,  requiring  the  physician  to  cease  attendance  when  the  patient  neg 
lects,  after  three  days'  warning,  to  send  for  a  confessor  (cap.  1  Tit.  vi. 
in  Septimo  Lib.  in.).     I  find  the  observance  of  this  regulation  enjoined 
by  Marcus  Sitticus,  Archbishop  of  Salzburg,  in  the  instructions  drawn  up 
for  the  visitation  of  his  province  in  161(5  (Statut.  Visitat.  Salisburg.  aim. 
101(5  Tit.  i.  cap.  vi.— Dalharn,  p.  003)  at  a  time  when  the  toleration  of 
Lutheranism  by  the  Duke  of  Bavaria  rendered  the  church  keen  to  employ 
every  means  for  the  repression  of  heresy. 


476  EXCOMMUNICATION. 

error  to  assert  that  the  church  has  ever  exceeded  her  rightful 
prerogatives  ;  that  the  state  should  be  independent ;  or  that  the 
church  should  not  be  allowed  to  coerce  into  submission  all  who 
may  disregard  her  authority.1 

Indeed,  the  catalogue  of  offences  entailing  ipso  facto  ex 
communication  enumerated  by  Pius  IX.  in  his  Bull  of  Oct. 
12,  1869,  reviving  and  modifying  the  Bulls  in  Ccena  Domini 
of  his  predecessors,  shows  that  the  church  is  resolute  to  main 
tain  the  old  abuse  of  power,  though  it  may  not  be  willing  to 
encourage  the  abuses  of  its  application  in  detail.  On  the  plea 
of  reducing  the  vast  accumulation  of  canons  which  denounced 
this  iniquitous  sentence,  he  proceeds  to  codii'y  and  rearrange, 
and  thus  to  bring  freshly  before  the  world,  the  fearful  censure 
which  condemns,  without  trial  and  without  appeal,  all  trans 
gressors  to  perdition.  Heretics  are  thus  reminded  of  their 
inevitable  fate  ;'2  all  who  question  the  papal  power  are  included 
in  the  ban  ;  and  the  reading  or  possession  of  any  book  prohib 
ited  by  the  Index  is  sufficient  to  involve  the  unlucky  owner  in 
the  curse.  In  the  same  mood  all  the  rights,  prerogatives,  and 
privileges  of  the  church  are  guarded  with  this  tremendous 
anathema ;  nor,  in  his  serene  assumption  of  performing  in  this 
a  work  of  charity,  does  Pius  for  a  moment  seem  to  think  of  the 
countless  millions  of  human  souls  whom  he  is  delivering  over 
helpless  unto  Satan  in  the  exercise  of  the  powers  conferred  on 
him  by  Christ  through  St.  Peter.  As  of  old  the  one  unpar 
donable  sin  is  disobedience  to  the  church  and  to  its  visible 
head  on  earth.3 

Nor  is  the  machinery  of  excommunication  as  a  means  of 
preserving  the  spiritual  and  temporal  influence  of  the  church, 

1  Syllab.  Prop.  23,  24,  41,  54,  55. 

2  In  this  Pius  is  merely  recalling  to  the  attention  of  the  world  the  for 
gotten  abuses  of  the   past.      "  Haretici   omnes  jure  pontiflcio  excom- 
municati  sunt,  et  quotannis  a  pontiiice  maximo  excommunicantur."    Jac. 
Siniancie  de  Cathol.  Instit.  Tit.  in.   No.  1 ;  Tit.  xxvn.  No.  1   (Rornae, 
1575). 

;!  Bull.  Apostolica  Sedis,  IV.  Id.  Oc-t.  1S69. 


EMANCIPATION.  477 

confined  to  the  hands  of  the  pope.  The  inferior  orders  still 
occasionally  employ  it  with  a  vigor  worthy  of  the  dark  ages. 
In  the  Belgian  Chamber  of  Deputies  a  debate  occurring  Feb.  22, 
1881,  on  the  attitude  of  the  clergy  towards  the  public  schools, 
brought  to  light  a  misuse  of  the  anathema  as  flagrant  as  any 
committed  by  Hildebrand  or  Innocent  III.  It  was  shown  that, 
not  content  with  withholding  the  sacrament  from  the  students 
of  these  schools  and  their  relatives,  excommunication  was 
freely  lavished  for  merely  boarding  the  scholars,  or  for  visit 
ing  families  whose  children  frequented  the  schools,  thus  put 
ting  in  practice  the  segregation  threatened  by  the  canons.  In 
one  case  the  whole  conseil  communal  was  excommunicated 
to  the  fourth  generation  for  appointing  a  schoolmistress  ob 
jectionable  to  the  curd.1  It  is  perhaps  hardly  to  be  wondered 
at  that  the  less  yielding  government  of  Prussia  should  (April 
19,  1882)  have  been  roused  to  take  action  on  the  subject,  and 
that  it  notified  the  Bishop  of  Ermeland  that,  as  sentences  of  ex 
communication  clash  with  the  German  law  and  affect  unfavor 
ably  the  social  status  of  those  against  whom  they  are  directed, 
in  future  governmental  permission  must  be  obtained  before 
their  fulmination.  It  is  not  so  easy  to  understand  the  good 
Bishop's  apology,  which  asserts  that  civil  honor  is  in  no  way 
affected  by  excommunication. 

The  ideal  of  Hildebrand  is  evidently  still  the  ideal  of  the 
ruling  hierarchy.  The  priest  is  still  the  supernatural  being 
set  apart  by  God,  wielding  the  full  power  of  Christ,  who  lias 
bestowed  His  authority  on  him.2  The  bishop  is  still  clothed 
by  divine  law  with  the  right  to  the  unlimited  and  unqualified 
obedience  of  the  faithful,  while  the  state  only  possesses  a 
limited  and  qualified  claim  to  the  allegiance  of  the  citizen,  and, 
when  the  two  powers  conflict,  divine  law  of  course  must  over 
ride  human  law,  the  church,  as  a  "  Divine  Institution,"  being 

1  N.  Y.  Nation,  Ap.  21,  1881,  p.  279. 

2  "  Potestas  enim  quse  in  Christo  inest,  eoquod  Deus  sit,  ab  Ipso  Sacer- 
dotibus  communicatur." — Concil.  Plenar.  Baltimor.  II.  ann.  1866  Tit.  x. 
cap.  1  No.  4r>6  (Acta  Concil.  Plen.  Bait.  II.  Baltimorse,  1868,  p.  23]). 


478  EXCOMMUNICATION. 

necessarily  the  arbiter  "  whose  authority  the  state  is  bound  to 
respect  as  supreme  in  its  sphere."1  As  of  old,  this  right  to  the 
unquestioning  submission  of  the  faithful  is  enforced  by  the 
control  over  the  sacraments,  through  which  the  gates  of  heaven 
are  closed  and  the  portals  of  hell  are  opened  to  the  eternal  and 
changeless  destiny  of  him  whose  contumacious  obstinacy  causes 
him  to  die  outside  of  the  pale  of  the  church.2  If  the  nine 
teenth  century  is  not  subjected  to  the  theocracy  which  ruled 
the  thirteenth,  it  therefore  is  through  no  abatement  in  the 
claims  of  the  church  to  universal  domination,  but  because  a 
godless  and  irreligious  generation  refuses  to  render  due  re 
verence  to  the  ordinances  of  God.  Yet  as  the  church  has 
gained  so  much  of  spiritual  vitality  in  spite  of  the  reactionary 
efforts  of  her  rulers,  we  may  not  unreasonably  hope  that  her 
progress  may  still  continue.  Her  real  friends  are  those  whom 
she  regards  as  her  worst  enemies  ;  and  in  the  possible  triumph 
of  her  avowed  policy,  however  much  the  advance  of  civiliza 
tion  might  be  retarded,  she  herself  would  be  the  greatest  sufferer. 

1  Pastoral  Letter  of  the  Plenary  Council  of  Baltimore,  §§   2,  3    (Ibid, 
pp.  cviii.-ix.).     The  direet  application  made  of  this  claim  of  obedience  to 
the  condemnation  of  the  Feuian  movement   (ubi  sup.)  shows  that  the 
supremacy  of  the  bishops  is   not  understood  as  confined  to  faith  and 
morals  alone,  but  extends  to  the  region  of  politics.     Indeed,  the  leading 
organ  of  the  church  in  America,  the  Catholic  World,  of  July,  1870,  does 
not  hesitate  to  instruct  the  faithful  that,  "  in  performing  our  duties  as 
citizens,  electors,  and  public  officers,  we  should  always  and  under  all 
circumstances  act  simply  as  Catholics.  .  .  .  The  supremacy  asserted  for 
the  church  in   matters  of  education  implies  the  additional  and  cognate 
function  of  the  censorship  of  ideas,  and  the  right  to  examine  and  approve 
or  disapprove  all  books,  publications,  writings,  and  utterances  intended 
for  public  instruction,  enlightenment,  or  entertainment,  and  the  super 
vision  of  places  of  amusement." 

2  Instruct.  Sac.  Cong,  de  Propag.  Fide  No.  1  (Ibid.  p.  cxxxvii.). 


THE    REFORMED     CHURCHES, 


479 


THE  REFORMED  CHURCHES. 

In  the  reformation  of  the  fifteenth  century,  the  Protestant 
churches  received  the  power  of  excommunication  as  part  of  the 
inheritance  which  they  divided  with  their  elder  sister,  and 
this  sketch  can  hardly  be  concluded  without  some  reference 
to  the  use  which  they  made  of  the  legacy. 

Of  course  the  first  conclusion  to  which  a  heretic  can  come 
is  that  the  power  which  seeks  to  control  him  is  illegitimate  and 
not  entitled  to  obedience.     Thus  Wickliffe  taught  that  no  one 
should  be  excommunicated    by  man  until  after  he  had  been 
excommunicated  by  God,  which  was  placing  a  serious  obstacle 
before  the  ecclesiastical  courts.     His  own  experience  had  pro 
bably  led  him   to  the  doctrine  that  any  prelate  was  a  traitor 
who  excommunicated  one  who  had  made  an  appeal  to  the  king; 
and  he  had  no  hesitation  in  asserting  that  the  anathema  of  pope 
and  prelate  alike  was  to  be  condemned.1     Wickliffe  himself, 
however,  did  not  hesitate  to  threaten  others  with  excommuni 
cation,  and   a  tract  which   passes  under  his  name  simply  con 
demns  the  abuses  of  the  censure,  regarding  it  purely  as  a  re 
medial  measure,  and  one  not  to  be  employed  either  for  revenge 
or  extortion.2     The  "  Apology  for  Lollard  Doctrines,"  attri 
buted  to  Wickliffe,  moreover,  merely  asserts  that  the   church 
may  not  curse  except  as  ordered  by  Christ,  "  but  acording  that 
man  be  cursid,  for  the  honor  of  God,  and  profit  of  himsilf,  and 
of  the  peple,  with  mani  final  leful  leke  causis  os  it  semith  of 
the  peyn  of  dampnid   men."3     A   century   later,   the  Scottish 
heretics  known  as  the  Lollards  of  Kyle  were  accused  on  their 
trial  of  asserting  that  the  censures  of  the  church  were  not  to 
be  dreaded.4     In  fact,  Wickliffe  and  his  followers  only  inter- 

1  Artie.  Daranat.  Joann.  Wickliff  No.  11,  12,  13,  20,  30,  84,-Concil. 
Constantiens.  Sess.  vn.  1415,  Maii  4. 

2  Tractat.  de  Offic.  Pastoral.  Lib.  T.  cap.  vi.  (Leipzig,  1863,  p.  14). 

3  Apology  for  Lollard  Doctrines,  pp.  17-9  (Camden  Soc.  1843). 

4  Spottiswoode,  Hist,  of  Church  of  Scotland,  I.  121  (Edinburgh,  1851). 


480  EXCOMMUNICATION. 

posed  the  right  of  private  judgment  by  which  the  offender  should 
decide  whether  the  condemnation  passed  upon  him  were  just 
or  not — a  very  natural  position  for  men  so  circumstanced,  but 
one  which  could  be  accepted  by  no  organization,  especially  in 
days  when  men  relied  on  force  alone. 

John  Huss  followed  inevitably  in  the  same  path.  He 
vehemently  denounced  the  abuses  of  the  anathema  by  which 
worldly  ecclesiastics  filled  their  purses  and  oppressed  the  peo 
ple  ;  and  he  reasonably  enough  compared  the  doctors  who 
argued  that  the  civil  authorities  should  be  employed  in  co 
ercing  the  obdurate  to  the  Scribes  and  Pharisees  who  declared 
that  they  could  not  shed  blood,  and  who  therefore  delivered 
Jesus  Christ  to  Pontius  Pilate  for  punishment.1 

It  is  well  known  how  slowly  Luther  reached  the  point  of 
disclaiming  all  allegiance  to  the  church  of  Rome.  When  in 
1517  he  offered  to  defend  in  disputation  his  celebrated  ninety- 
five  propositions,  he  had  been  fired  by  the  nameless  abuses  of 
the  system  of  indulgences  which  he  assailed,  and  he  doubtless 
believed,  as  he  professed  to  do,  that  the  papacy  and  the  church 
would  encourage  him  in  the  good  work.  The  sacerdotal  struc 
ture,  however,  had  been  erected  by  cunning  hands,  and  every 
stone  had  been  so  fitted  into  its  fellow  that  none  could  be 
disturbed  without  shaking  the  whole  edifice.  Under  the  re 
morseless  logic  of  the  scholastic  theology,  the  most  monstrous 
pretensions  of  the  hierarchy  were  the  irrefragable  conclusions 
from  premises  which  could  not  be  overthrown  without  over 
throwing  tradition,  canon,  and  decretal.  All  that  zealous 
churchmen  held  most  dear  must  be  swept  away,  and  the 
church  reduced  to  its  primitive  simplicity,  ere  Tetzel  could  be 
convicted  of  blasphemy  when  he  declared  that  the  indulgences 
offered  for  sale  would  insure  eternal  salvation,  even  if  the 

1  Concil.  Constant,  art.  Damnat,  Joann.  Huss  No.  14, 17,  18, 19  (Hartz- 
heim  V.  86-7) .  Huss's  argument  on  the  subject  at  his  trial  can  be  found 
in  Von  der  Hardt  T.  IV.  n.  320. 


THE     REFORMED     CHURCHES.  481 

purchaser  had  committed  rape  on  the  person  of  the  Mother  of 
God.1 

Luther  took  no  heed  to  this,  nor  did  he  see  how  utterly  he 
was  denying  the  power  to  bind  and  to  loose,  on  which  was 

1  Though  Tetzel  has  acquired  an  infamous  notoriety  from  happening 
to  be  the  object  which  aroused  Luther's  indignation  and  thus  led  to  the 
Reformation,  he  was  no  worse  than  his  fellows.  The  whole  system  had 
long  been  a  scandal  to  the  devout. 

Indulgences,  as  an  important  resource  for  the  church,  first  attracted 
attention  at  the  council  of  Clerrnont,  in  1095,  where  plenary  remission 
of  sins  was  offered  as  an  inducement  to  those  who  from  pious  motives 
should  join  in  the  crusade  (Con.  Claroinont.  ami.  1095  can.  ii. — Cf.  Cone. 
Synod.  Urban!  PP.  II.— Hardouiii  VI.  ir.  1718, 17:24).  The  dialectic  skill 
of  the  schoolmen  easily  proved  that  the  church  possessed  a  treasury  of 
salvation,  arising  out  of  the  sacrifice  of  Christ  and  the  superabundant 
merits  of  saints  and  martyrs,  which  it  could  dispense  at  will,  either  to 
remit  the  sins  of  the  living  or  to  shorten  the  pains  of  purgatory  (Thorn. 
Aquin.  Summ.  P.  III.  Suppl.  Art.  i.)  in  return  for  good  works  performed 
by  the  postulant  ;  and  although  in  theory  this  required  on  his  part  con 
fession  and  repentance,  the  important  point  practically  soon  assumed  the 
form  of  a  money  payment  to  be  devoted  ostensibly  to  pious  uses — a  finan 
cial  measure  which  could  not,  in  the  existing  condition  of  society,  but 
speedily  lead  to  great  abuses.  Already,  about  the  year  1200,  Csesarius  of 
Heisterbach  relates  that  the  good  monks  of  St.  Nicholas  of  Bruweiler, 
desiring  to  enlarge  their  church,  employed  some  secular  priests  skilled 
in  extracting  money,  to  travel  around  with  the  tooth  of  their  patron 
saint  |  but  these  hirelings  behaved  so  disreputably  that  the  indignant 
relic,  in  token  of  displeasure,  broke  the  crystal  in  which  it  was  set,  and 
the  monks  resolved  never  to  expose  it  to  such  contamination  again 
(Csesar.  Heisterb.  Dial.  Mirac.  Dist.  viu.  cap.  Ixviii.).  These  "par 
doners"  or  u  quaestuarii,"  indeed,  from  an  early  period,  gained  a  gener 
ally  evil  reputation.  In  1276  Gilo,  Archbishop  of  Sens,  promising  an 
indulgence  to  all  who  should  repair  to  Blois  on  the  occasion  of  the  ap 
proaching  feast  of  the  Crown  of  Thorns,  forbids  his  letters  of  indulgence 
to  be  hawked  about  by  such  means,  and  pronounced  them,  in  such  case, 
to  be  null  and  void  (Martene  Thesaur.  I.  1152-3).  Constant  efforts 
were  made  by  the  local  churches  to  restrain  these  pedlars  of  salvation 
and  limit  their  operations  (Synod.  Cenomanens.  anu.  1248 ;  Synod. 
Remens.  aim.  1303;  Synod.  Carnotens.  ann.  1325  c.  18,  aim.  1368  c. 
53— ap.  Martene  Ampl.  Collect.  VII.  1330-1,  1364,  1366,  1399)  ;  and  the 
mercantile  aspect  which  the  transaction  sometimes  assumed  is  shown  by 
a  provision  of  the  Synod  of  Liege  in  1287  prohibiting  priests  and  deans 
from  making  contracts  with  qusestuarii  about  sums  to  be  raised  in  the 
41 


482  EXCOMMUNICATION. 

founded   the  existing   theocracy,  when   he   gave  utterance  to 
such  propositions  as  these  :    "  The  Pope  has  neither  the  power 

future  (Martcnc  Thcsaur.  IV.  858).     The  light  in  which  the  pardoner 
was  viewed  by  the  laity  is  fairly  set  forth  in  Chaucer's  description  : — 

"  He  saide  he  hadde  a  gobbet  of  the  seyl 
That  Seint  Peter  had,  when  that  he  went 
Upon  the  see  till  Jesu  Christ  him  hent. 
He  had  a  crois  of  latan  ful  of  stones, 
And  in  a  glas  he  hadde  pigges  bones. 
But  with  these  relikes,  whanne  that  he  fond 
A  poure  persone  dwelling  up  on  lond, 
Upon  a  daie  he  gat  him  more  inoneie 
Than  that  the  persone  gat  in  moneths  t\veie. 
And  thus  with  fained  nattering  and  japes 
He  made  the  persone  and  the  peple  his  apes." 

Canterbury  Tales,  Prologue. 

And  nearly  two  centuries  later  Sir  David  Lyndesay  thus  presents  one  of 
them  as  vending  his  wares  : — 

"  1  am  Sir  Robert  Rome-raker  Weill  seald  with  oster-schellis  .  .  . 

Ane  pernte  publike  pardoner,  .     .  The  culum  of  Sanct  Bryd's  kow  ; 

Admittit  be  the  Paip.  The  gruntill  of  Sanct  Autonis  sow, 
Sirs,  I  sail  schow  yo\v  for  your  wage  Quilk  buir  his  haly  bell. 

My  pardons  and  my  pilgrimage,  Quahever  he  be  heiris  this  bell  clinck — 

Quilk  ye  sail  se  and  graip  .  .  .  Gif  me  ane  ducat  for  till  drink — 
.  .  .  My  patent  pardons  ye  may  se,  He  sail  never  gang  to  hell." 

Cum  fra  the  caue  of  Tartarie,  Satyre  of  the  Thrie  Estaits 

(Early  Engl.  Text  Soc.  1S69,  pp.  433-33). 

The  evil  courses  of  these  graceless  gentry  were  a  cause  of  constant 
complaint.  As  early  as  1274  a  paper  containing  matters  to  be  acted  upon 
by  the  council  of  Lyons  enumerates  the  lies  and  immorality,  the  avarice 
and  selling  of  false  relics  of  the  vendors  of  indulgences  (Martene  Ampl. 
Coll.  VII.  197).  In  1311  the  council  of  Vienna  thought  to  find  a  remedy 
for  the  evils  which  it  deplored  by  requiring  them  to  be  provided  with 
either  papal  or  episcopal  letters  of  authority  (Lib.  v.  Clement.  Tit.  ix.  c. 
2),  but  this  was  a  slight  palliative.  In  1102,  Boniface  IX.,  under  the 
guidance  of  Balthazar  Cossa  (afterwards  John  XXIII.),  sent  into  Ger 
many  and  Denmark  a  small  army  of  pardoners,  who,  according  to  an  eye 
witness,  were  wont  to  declare  that  St.  Peter  himself  had  no  more  power 
than  they  to  procure  the  remission  of  sins.  In  less  than  two  years  they 
returned  with  spoils  amounting  to  more  than  100,000  golden  florins,  and 
this  was  probably  but  a  small  portion  of  the  treasure  extracted  from  the 
pouches  of  the  faithful  (Theod.  a  Niem  de  Vit.  Joann.  XXIII.).  These 
scandals  afforded  too  favorable  a  point  of  attack  to  be  neglected  by  IIuss 
and  the  Bohemian  reformers,  and  their  denial  of  the  efficacy  of  papal 
indulgences  was  one  of  the  chief  accusations  against  them  at  the  council- 


THE     REFORMED     CHURCHES.  483 

nor  the  desire  to  remit  any  penalties  except  such  as  are  im 
posed  by  himself  or  by  the  canons."  "  The  Pope  cannot  ab- 

of  Constance.  The  indictment  against  Jerome  of  Prague  relates  that  in 
1411  he  had  caused  papal  bulls  of  indulgence  to  be  hung  on  the  breasts 
of  strumpets  who  were  paraded  in  a  wagon  with  a  contemptuous  in 
scription  and  taken  in  procession  to  the  market  place  where  the  obnoxious 
letters  were  publicly  burned  (Von  der  Hardt  T.  TV.  p.  672).  The 
orthodox  Chancellor  Gerson  was  hardly  less  outspoken  ;  he  inveighs  bit 
terly  against  the  managers  of  these  frauds  as  lying  to  God  and  man  with 
their  pretended  indulgences  and  dispensations,  preaching  falsehoods  and 
calling  good,  evil,  and  evil,  good,  and  he  predicts  that  if  these  abuses  be 
not  corrected  by  the  approaching  council  of  Constance  they  will  prove 
the  ruin  of  the  church  (De  Reform.  Eccles.  cap.  xxv.).  The  council  did 
in  fact  propose  to  abolish  them  as  an  intolerable  evil  which  pauperized 
the  community  and  was  a  direct  incentive  to  sin,  but  this,  like  all  its  other 
projects  of  reform,  was  left  undone  (Reformator.  Constant.  Decret.  ap. 
Yon  der  Hardt  T.  I.  P.  xii.  p.  751)  .  The  council  of  Bale,  so  far  from  fol 
lowing  this  up,  proposed  in  1435  to  have  recourse  to  the  sale  of  indulgences 
for  the  purpose  of  defraying  the  expenses  connected  with  the  expected 
reunion  of  the  Greek  church  ;  and  the  light  in  which  the  church's  treasure 
of  salvation  was  viewed  by  the  community  is  seen  in  a  protest  recorded 
by  the  German  section  of  the  council,  to  the  effect  that  the  indulgences 
should  be  distributed  throughout  Christendom,  and  not  confined  to  Ger 
many  alone  ;  that  to  avoid  the  suspicion  of  fraud  the  sellers  should  be  ap 
pointed  by  the  secular  authorities  and  the  money  be  paid  in  to  them  ;  that 
if  not  employed  for  the  purpose  alleged,  it  should  be  devoted  to  pious  uses  ; 
and  that,  as  a  condition  precedent,  all  other  indulgences,  including  those 
of  the  pope,  should  be  withdrawn.  If  these  conditions  were  accepted, 
then,  although  Germany  was  exhausted  by  the  Hussite  wars,  she  would 
permit  the  proposed  collection  (Martene  Ampl.  Coll.  VIII.  798).  The 
council  of  Mainz,  in  1451,  endeavored  to  impose  some  check  on  the 
abuse  by  requiring  the  sellers  of  indulgences  to  procure  the  license  of  the 
bishop  before  operating  in  any  diocese,  and  forbidding  them  from  exposing 
for  sale  any  form  of  indulgence  not  expressed  in  the  episcopal  letters 
(Cone.  Mogunt.  ann.  1451  can.  vii.  ap.  Martene  Ampl.  Coll.  VIII.  1006)  ; 
and  in  1456  the  council  of  Saltzburg  complains  that  for  one  pound  these 
pardoners  would  buy  from  a  church  a  letter  of  authority,  on  which  they 
would  manage  to  collect  forty  or  fifty  pounds  a  year,  squandering  the 
proceeds  in  all  manner  of  riotous  living,  to  the  infinite  disgust  of  all  good 
Christians  (Dalham  Concil.  Salisb.  p.  239).  The  very  next  year,  a  high 
dignitary  of  the  church  of  Mainz,  in  enumerating  the  grievances  in 
flicted  on  Germany  by  Rome,  includes  the  indulgences  which  were  per 
petually  multiplied  for  the  purpose  of  extracting  money  (Von  der  Hardt 
T.  I.  P.  v.  p.  182).  In  1491  the  synod  of  Bamberg  energetically  de- 


484  EXCOMMUNICATION. 

solve  any  sin  except  in  declaring  and  approving  its  absolution 
by  God."  "  The  Pope  in  granting  plenary  remission  of  punish 
ment  only  means  the  remission  of  that  imposed  by  himself." 
"•  The  dying  are  released  from  all  in  dying."1  Those  whom 
he  thus  attacked  were  keener  than  himself,  and  easily  per 
ceived  the  conclusions  to  be  drawn  from  such  premises.  With 
all  the  confidence  of  prescriptive  right,  they  therefore  conceived 
that  he  was  sufficiently  refuted  in  showing  that  these  princi 
ples  were  incompatible  with  the  existing  practice  of  the  church. 
Thus  in  the  counter-propositions  put  forth  in  the  name  of 
Tetzel,  the  latter  axiom  of  Luther  was  replied  to  by  pointing 
out  that  heretics,  schismatics,  and  traitors  were  excommuni 
cated  and  anathematized  even  after  death,  and  their  buried 
bones  exhumed.'2 

In  the  progress  of  the  disputation,  Luther  could  not  help 
advancing  step  by  step,  as  the  logic  of  his  adversaries  forced 
him  to  recur  to  the  fundamental  principles  of  sacerdotal  the 
ology,  since  the  refutation  of  their  conclusions  depended  on 
destroying  their  premises.  Two  sermons  preached  by  him  in 
1518  sweep  away  the  whole  system  of  canonical  penitence  ; 
and  in  another  series  of  propositions  issued  for  public  disputa 
tion,  he  advances  nearly  to  his  great  foundation-element  of 
justification  by  faith,  in  denying  emphatically  the  necessity  of 
sacerdotal  intervention  between  God  and  man  for  the  remis- 

nounced  the  lying  pardoners  who  not  only  released  men  from  all  their 
sins  but  professed  to  be  able  to  transport  souls  from  the  torments  of  Pur 
gatory  to  the  bliss  of  Paradise  ;  it  annulled  all  the  privileges  which  had 
been  granted  to  local  churches  of  issuing  letters  of  indulgence,  and  re 
quired  the  hawkers  to  be  provided  with  both  papal  and  episcopal  letters 
(Synod.  Bamberg,  aim.  1491  Tit.  Iv.  ap.  Hartzheim  V.  628).  How  little 
efficacy  there  was  in  such  measures,  we  learn  from  the  performances  of 
Tetzel.  Warned  by  these  scandals  and  their  result,  the  council  of  Trent 
repressed  the  grosser  abuses  (Concil.  Trident.  Sess.  xxi.  de  Reform,  c. 
ix.— Sess.  xxv.  Decret.  de  Indugent.),  but  the  Thomist  doctrine  on  the 
subject  remains  unchanged. 

1  Disput.  M.  Lutheri  No.  5,  6,  13,  20  (Opp.  Jenre,  1564,  T.  I.  fol.  2,  3). 

2  Primse  Disput.  Joann.  Tetzelii  Prop.  38  (Lutheri  Opp.  T.  I.  fol.  6 a). 


THE     REFORMED     CHURCHES.  485 

sion  of  sins.1  This  would  necessarily  break  down  all  the 
machinery  of  confession,  penitence,  absolution,  and  excommu 
nication  on  which  depended  the  whole  spiritual  and  temporal 
authority  of  the  hierarchy — yet  Luther  was  still  unprepared 
for  such  a  revolution.  Another  sermon  preached  about  this 
time  on  Excommunication  reveals  to  us  the  transition  state  of 
his  mind,  and  the  struggle  inevitable  between  his  efforts  to 
liberate  himself  and  the  inveterate  habit  of  obedience.  Christ 
himself,  he  exclaims,  had  not  during  life  the  power  of  cutting 
off  a  soul  from  God.  Yet  excommunication  is  the  maternal 
and  kindly  chastisement  inflicted  by  the  church,  not  to  con 
demn  to  hell  but  to  restore  to  salvation  those  who  are  hasten 
ing  to  destruction,  and  therefore  should  it  be  received  with 
gladness  and  reverence,  and  be  borne  with  exhaustless  pa 
tience.  While  rebuking  in  the  strongest  terms  the  abuses  to 
which  it  gave  occasion,  he  still  declares  that  even  when  unde 
served  it  is  to  be  endured  as  the  lovingly  intended  though  mis 
taken  punishment  inflicted  by  a  tender  mother.  Corrupt  as 
may  be  the  hands  through  which  it  is  administered — even 
those  of  a  Herod,  a  Pilate,  an  Annas,  or  a  Caiaphas — yet  are 
not  they  to  be  regarded,  but  only  the  motherly  church  from 
whose  benignant  power  it  flows.  To  bear  an  unjust  excom 
munication  is  the  noblest  of  good  works.  Yet  with  all  this 
teaching  of  implicit  obedience,  his  native  independence  flashes 
forth  at  the  end.  No  excommunication  is  to  be  obeyed  if 
obedience  leads  to  sin.  Better  to  die  excommunicate,  for 
what,  in  comparison  with  injustice,  is  a  death-bed  without  the 
sacrament  and  the  loss  of  funeral  rites  and  Christian  sepul 
ture  ?  Blessed  for  ever  is  the  just  man  who  dies  excommuni 
cate  for  adhering  to  the  right,  for  the  earthly  penalty  will  be 
rewarded  with  an  eternal  crown.2 

These    bold    assertions   were    pregnant   with    immeasurable 
revolt.      Here  was  the  right  of  private  judgment  asserted  against 

1  Opp.  T.  I.  fol.  11  sqq.  Col.  25  a. 

2  Concio  do  Viitut.  Excom.  (Opp.  T.  Col.  164-GG). 

41* 


486  EXCOMMUNICATION. 

the  universal  voice  of  the  church,  and  her  censures  were  held 
to  affect  the  body  alone.  The  soul  was  beyond  her  reach,  and 
dealt  directly  with  the  Creator.  Yet  on  March  5  of  the  fol 
lowing  year,  1519,  we  find  him  writing  to  Leo  X.  that  he  most 
fully  receives  the  Roman  church  as  supreme  over  all,  in  heaven 
and  earth,  except  Jesus  Christ  alone,  and  begs  him  to  disregard 
the  lies  of  those  who  would  persuade  him  otherwise.1 

Luther  might  deceive  himself  as  to  the  extent  of  his  rebellion, 
but  the  Roman  curia  labored  under  no  such  delusion.  By  per 
suasion  or  by  force  he  must  be  suppressed,  and  as  argument 
thus  far  only  drew  him  on  to  further  and  more  dangerous  posi 
tions,  the  long  deferred  sentence  at  length  was  pronounced. 
In  the  bull  of  excommunication,  dated  June  loth,  1520,  among 
the  damnable  errors  imputed  to  him  were  enumerated  that  he 
asserted  excommunication  to  be  only  an  external  punishment, 
which  did  not  deprive  the  convict  of  his  share  in  the  general 
prayers  of  the  church  ;  and  that  Christians  should  be  taught 
rather  to  love  than  to  fear  it.2  These  opinions  Luther  freely 
acknowledged,  saying  that  they  were  to  be  found  fully  justified 
in  his  sermon  on  excommunication,  and  that,  with  all  the  rest, 
he  pledged  himself  to  prove  these  good  Christian  doctrine, 
under  pain  of  eternal  malediction. :< 

Leo  X.,  however,  did  not  propose  to  trust  longer  to  the  wordy 
disputations  which  had  already  proved  so  unsatisfactory.  In 
his  bull  he  gave  Luther  and  his  followers  sixty  days  for  recan 
tation,  after  which  they  were  to  be  held  ipso  facto  as  under  the 
major  excommunication,  including  deposition  and  disability  for 
churchmen,  while  laymen  were  visited  with  forfeiture  of  all 
their  possessions  and  the  penalties  incident  to  heresy,  treason, 
and  outlawry.  No  one  was  to  hold  any  communication  with 
them,  to  render  them  any  assistance,  or  supply  them  with  the 

1  M.  Lutbcri  Epist.  ad  Leon.  X.  (Ibid.  fol.  2106). 

2  Bull.  Exsurge  Doinine    §  2  No.  23,  2-t  (Mag.  Bull.  Roman.  Lugd. 
1692,  T.  I.  p.  615). 

:!  Lutheri  Opp.  T.  II.  fol.  28<>-7.  305. 


THE     REFORMED     CHURCHES.  481 

necessaries  of  life.1  All  civil  and  secular  powers  were  ordered, 
under  the  same  penalties,  to  seize  and  deliver  them  to  the  papal 
officials,  receiving  rewards  for  the  service  ;  and  all  places  where 
they  might  sojourn  were  subjected  to  an  interdict  during  their 
stay,  and  for  three  days  after  their  departure.2 

Though  Leo,  in  sending,  July  8th,  1520,  a  copy  of  this  bull 
to  Luther's  patron,  the  Elector  Frederic,  was  careful  to  inform 
him  that  it  was  drafted  under  the  especial  influence  of  the  Holy 
Ghost,  which  never  was  absent  from  the  Apostolic  See,  yet  that 
sagacious  prince  did  not  in  the  least  obey  the  accompanying 
command  to  make  Luther  abjure  his  errors  or  to  deliver  him 
at  once  to  the  papal  officers.  We  have  Luther's  assertion,  in 
deed,  that  the  Elector  received  the  envoys  with  scant  courtesy 
and  drove  them  from  his  presence  with  a  sharp  reproof.3 .  The 
sentence,  in  fact,  contained  nothing  but  what,  for  at  least  three 
centuries,  the  church  had  had  an  undisputed  right  to  decree,  but 
people  were  beginning  to  think  for  themselves  and  to  criticize 
where  once  they  were  content  to  obey.  Jurists  were  found  to 
assert  that  it  was  an  infringement  of  the  privileges  of  the  Holy 
Roman  Empire  for  the  pope  to  talk  about  stripping  laymen  of 
their  fiefs  and  possessions,  and  even  Erasmus  declared  that  the 
ferocity  of  the  bull,  so  unworthy  of  Christian  charity,  disgusted 
all  right-minded  men.4 

It  was  not  until  October  3d  that  Dr.  Eck,  the  papal  nuncio, 
officially  sent  a  copy  of  the  bull  to  the  University  of  Wittem- 
berg,  but  Luther  had  already  parried  the  attack  after  his  own 
fashion,  in  his  treatise  on  the  seven  sacraments,  entitled  the 
Babylonian  Captivity  of  the  Church.  In  considering  the  sacra 
ment  of  ordination  he  pronounced  it  a  figment,  invented  for 
the  oppression  of  mankind — "We  Christians  are  all  equally 
priests.  Those  whom  we  call  priests  are  men  chosen  from 

1  Ulric  Hutten's  characteristic  gloss  on  this  passage  is  "  Etiara  matulam 
non  porrigent  "  (Lutheri  Opp.  T.  I.  fol.  484  a). 

2  Bull.  Exsurge  Domine,  §§  5-19. 

:!  M.  Lutheri  Prtefat.  (Opp.  T.  I.— T.  Tl.  fol.  '2r>7). 
<  M.  Lutheri  Opp.  T.  TL  fol.  314. 


488  EXCOMMUNICATION. 

among  us  to  act  in  our  name.  The  priesthood  is  only  a  func 
tion.  .  .  .  By  this  figment  ok'  sacramental  ordination  they  ob 
tain  the  power  to  command,  to  threaten,  to  oppress.  It  is 
simply  a  beautiful  device  to  justify  the  wrongs  which  have  been 
and  still  are  perpetrated  in  the  church.  Thus  has  Christian 
brotherhood  been  destroyed,  and  thus  our  shepherds  become 
wolves,  our  servants  tyrants,  and  our  clergy  become  more  than 
mortals."1  This  wras  a  blow7  aimed  at  the  heart  of  the  enemy. 
It  deprived  the  priest  of  his  supernatural  powers  ;  he  was  no 
longer  a  man  set  apart  from  his  fellows  by  God,  and  endowed 
with  some  of  the  attributes  of  God,  and  his  curse  or  his  bless 
ing  was  alike  impotent.  It  went  even  further  than  this,  how 
ever,  for  it  destroyed  all  the  prerogatives  and  immunities  of 
the  church.  The  ecclesiastical  power  was  no  longer  superior 
to  the  secular.  The  civil  government  was  reinstated  in  its  old 
supremacy,  and  the  clergy  were  its  subjects,  to  obey  its  laws 
and  submit  to  its  authority. 

If  the  orthodox  expected  that,  because  Luther  had  incul 
cated  patient  submission  to  unjust  excommunication,  he  would 
meekly  endure  the  censures  of  Leo,  they  egregiously  mistook 
the  combative  spirit  of  the  man.  By  December  1st  he  had  a 
hastily  prepared  answer  ready  for  publication,  in  which  he  pre 
tends  to  doubt  the  authenticity  of  the  bull,  as  it  could  only 
have  been  drawn  up  by  Antichrist.  "  What  more  can  I  ask," 
he  cries,  "  than  that  1  may  never  be  absolved,  reconciled,  or 
joined  in  communion  with  that  most  ignorant,  most  impious, 
and  most  ferocious  Antichrist  ?"  Yet,  though  his  doctrines 
had  swept  away  the  whole  theory  of  excommunication  and  of 
the  anathema,  he  does  not  hesitate,  in  the  blind  fury  of  his 
wrath,  to  retort  the  curse — "  If  the  spirit  of  Christ  and  the 
strength  of  our  faith  be  of  any  avail,  by  these  letters  we  con 
demn  you,  if  you  persist  in  your  fury  ;  and  we  deliver  you  witli 
your  bull  and  all  your  decretals  unto  Satan,  to  the  destruction 
of  the  flesh,  that  your  soul  may  be  saved  with  ours  in  the 

J  Do  Captiv.  Babylon.  Ecck-s.  (Opp.  T.  II.  fol.  2S2  b). 


THE     REFORMED     CHURCHES.  489 

day  of  the  Lord.  In  the  name  of  Jesus  Christ  whom  you 
persecute,  Amen  !  .  .  .  And  as  they,  for  their  sacrilegious 
heresy,  excommunicate  me,  so  I,  for  the  holy  truth  of  God, 
excommunicate  them.  May  Christ  be  the  judge  to  determine 
which  excommunication  is  the  better,  Amen  I"1 

This  was  not  enough.  In  Luther's  frame  of  mind  it  was 
easy  for  him  to  persuade  himself  that  a  more  defiant  proof  of 
his  contempt  for  the  censure  launched  against  him  might  be 
beneficial  to  the  cause  and  reassuring  to  his  followers.  The 
bull  had  ordered  all  Lutheran  books  and  writings  to  be  col 
lected  and  publicly  burned,  and  this  had  been  done  in  many 
orthodox  places.  He  doubtless,  therefore,  deemed  it  an  act  of 
poetical  justice  to  retort  in  kind,  and  notice  was  accordingly 
given  that  on  December  10th,  a  holocaust  would  be  made  of 
the  bull  and  of  the  papal  decretals.  On  the  appointed  day  the 
magistrates  and  citizens  of  Wittemberg,  and  the  students  of 
the  University,  then  numbering  over  five  hundred  youths,  as 
sembled  at  the  designated  spot,  near  the  poorhouse.  Learned 
professors  built  the  pile  and  lighted  it,  when  Luther  solemnly 
cast  into  the  fiarnes  the  books  of  canon  law  and  the  bull  of  ex 
communication.  As  the  latter  left  his  hand  he  exclaimed — 
"  For  that  thou  hast  persecuted  the  holy  of  the  Lord,  so  may 
the  quenchless  fire  persecute  thee!"  The  sacred  missive  of  the 
Vicegerent  of  God  disappeared  in  the  flames  ;  the  spectators 
gazed  earnestly  at  this  bold  defiance  of  all  the  powers  of  heaven 
and  earth,  and  when  the  fateful  ceremony  was  over,  Luther 
was  escorted  to  his  cell  by  the  magistrates  of  the  town  and  the 
doctors  of  the  University.2  He  had  burnt  his  ships,  and  retreat 
was  henceforth  impossible. 

Vainly  might  the  church  invoke  the  warning  example  of 
Da  than  and  Abiram.  The  earth  opened  not  to  hide  the  perpe 
trators  of  the  sacrilege  ;  and  Luther,  with  the  ominous  words  : 
"  This  is  the  beginning  of  the  tragedy.  Hitherto  I  have  only 

1  M.  Lutheri  Opp.  T.  II.  fol.  286-7,  289  a,  292  a. 

2  Ibid.  T.  II.  fol.  320  a. 


490  EXCOMMUNICATION. 

player!  and  jested  with  the  pope,"  published  a  manifesto  justi 
fying  the  auto-de-fe  by  thirty  propositions  drawn  from  the 
books  of  the  canon  law,  which  he  declared  to  be  damnable  and 
fit  only  for  the  flames.1  That  the  papalists  should  regard  the 
act  as  the  climax  of  Luther's  wickedness  was  but  natural,  and 
even  the  constitutional  phlegm  of  Adrian  VJ.  described  it  as 
"  that  incredible  madness  of  that  outlaw,  that  contemrier  and 
violator  of  all  law,  who  dared  to  commit  to  the  flames  the  most 
holy  decretals  of  the  popes  and  the  canons  of  the  church."2 

Yet  the  effect  of  all  this  was  greatly  to  abate  the  tone  of 
papal  supremacy,  and  to  encourage  the  reformers  in  despising 
the  once  dreaded  censures.  When  in  1521  the  first  rupture 
took  place  between  Francis  I.  and  Charles  V.,  and  an  excom 
munication  was  threatened  agaiast  the  former  by  Leo  X.,  the 
only  comment  made  at  the  court  of  the  Elector  Frederic  was, 
"  0  foolish  king,  if  he  fears  such  trifles  !"3  The  popes  felt  this, 
and  lowered  their  peremptory  tone.  For  four  years  Frederic 
of  Saxony  had  been  the  protector  of  Luther,  without  formally 
separating  himself  from  the  Catholic  church  or  withdrawing 
his  obedience  from  Rome.  He  was  solely  responsible  for  the 
melancholy  fact  that  Luther  had  not  long  before  perished  at 
the  stake  of  John  Iluss  and  Jerome  of  Prague;  yet  in  1522 
Adrian  VI.,  in  addressing  him  a  long  epistle  complaining  of 
Luther,  does  not  dare  to  remind  him  that  under  the  bull  of 
Leo  X.  he  and  all  his  friends  are  excommunicate,  outlawed, 
and  deprived  of  lordships  and  possessions.  On  the  contrary, 
he  is  the  pope's  dearest  son,  from  whom  the  church  still  hopes 
obedience  and  assistance  ;  and  only  vague  warnings  are  thrown 
out  of  the  fate  of  Dathan  and  Abiram,  and  only  general  inti 
mations  that,  if  he  continues  his  protection  of  heretics,  he  can 
not  expect  to  escape  punishment  in  this  world  and  the  next. 
So,  at  the  close  of  the  next  year,  December  7th,  1523,  Adrian's 
successor,  Clement  VII.,  still  addresses  the  obstinate  prince  as 

1  Lutheri  Opp.  T.  II.  fol.  319  b. 

2  Adriam  PP.  VI.  Breve  ad  Frideric.  (Hartzhcim  VI.  192). 

3  Spalatin.  Annal.  ann.  1.521. 


THE  REFORMED  CHURCHES.          491 

his  well-beloved  son,  in  the  most  friendly  strain.1  Equally  sig 
nificant  is  a  pastoral  epistle  of  January  20th,  1524,  addressed 
by  the  Bishop  of  Ermeland  to  his  flock.  To  withstand  the 
alarming  progress  of  Lutheranism  he  deals  liberally  in  impre 
cations  and  curses,  devoting  all  backsliders  to  eternal  male 
diction,  but  he  indulges  in  no  threats  of  the  temporal  penalties 
which  had  so  long  served  to  give  a  keener  edge  to  the  sword 
of  the  spirit.2  Jn  Northern  Germany,  at  least,  the  time  for 
such  manifestations  had  passed. 

In  the  heat  of  controversy  Luther  might  deny  the  power  of 
excommunication,  but  when  he  excommunicated  the  pope  he 
only  showed,  by  unconscious  example,  that  some  power  of  the 
kind  must  be  lodged  in  every  organized  church  ;  and  this  was 
recognized  when  the  Protestants,  after  completing  the  work  of 
destruction,  commenced  that  of  reconstruction.  Every  body 
of  men  must  have  the  right  to  determine  their  conditions  of 
fellowship,  and  the  power  of  expulsion  from  their  association 
must  be  lodged  somewhere,  to  be  used  with  such  moderation 
and  discretion  as  God  may  vouchsafe  to  them.  This  was 
manifested  when  the  Lutherans  came  to  draw  up  a  formal 
declaration  of  faith  and  discipline  in  the  Augsburg  Confession 
though  it  should  be  borne  in  mind  that  this  document  was 

O 

framed  in  the  hope  that  it  might  lead  to  a  reconciliation  of  the 
churches,  and  that  it  therefore  conceded  as  much  as  possible 
to  the  Catholic  views,  while  its  adoption  as  the  recognized 
standard  of  German  orthodoxy  arrested  the  development  of 
the  reform. 

The  relations  between  church  and  state,  and  the  limits  of 
the  sacerdotal  power  as  expressed  in  the  Augsburg  Confession, 
are  the  natural  results  of  Luther's  doctrines  on  the  sacrament 
of  ordination  quoted  above.  The  old  abuses  of  the  episcopal 
power,  infringing  on  the  secular  authority,  are  warmly  de 
nounced.  The  province  of  the  church  is  to  preach  the  gospel 

1  Hartzheim.  VI.  193.— Lutheri  Opp.  T.  II.  fol.  571  a. 
'i  Lutheri  Opp.  T.  III.  fol.  63  6. 


492  EXCOMMUNICATION. 

and  administer  the  sacraments,  not  to  dethrone  kings,  usurp 
temporal  power,  or  interfere  with  the  laws  of  the  land.  Church 
and  state  have  each  its  own  sphere,  and  if  the  ministers  of  the 
church  have  at  any  time  exercised  authority,  its  source  has 
not  been  divine  law,  but  the  pleasure  of  the  secular  potentate. 
To  this  is  to  be  attributed  the  supervision  of  the  bishops  over 
'marriage  and  tithes,  with  the  necessary  corollary  that  what 
lias  been  given  may  be  withdrawn.  Their  only  independent 
jurisdiction  is  found  in  the  remission  of  sins,  and  in  examining 
questions  of  faith.  They  are  to  condemn  all  doctrine  at  vari 
ance  with  Scripture,  and  to  exclude  from  communion  those 
whose  impiety  is  notorious  ;  but  this  must  be  done  by  the  word 
alone,  without  recourse  to  the  arm  of  flesh.  At  the  same  time 
the  right  of  private  judgment  is  reserved  to  the  churches, 
which  have  the  command  of  God  to  refuse  obedience  to  any 
thing  contrary  to  the  gospel.1  Melanchthon,  in  his  apology 
for  the  Augsburg  Confession,  explains  this  by  saying  that  to 
the  bishops  belongs  the  ministry  of  the  word  and  of  the  sacra 
ments,  with  the  power  of  excommunicating  those  convicted  of 
crime,  and  of  absolving  them  if  truly  contrite  ;  but  they  have 
no  power  over  the  law,  and  must  exercise  their  jurisdiction 
according  to  the  word  of  God.2 

In  1597,  after  the  Lutherans  had  had  time  to  perfect  their 
organization,  we  find  an  authoritative  exposition  of  their  doc 
trine  on  this  subject.  The  ban  of  the  church  was  not  to  be 
employed  indiscriminately  against  all  sinners  and  for  all  of 
fences,  but  only  against  public  and  notorious  delinquents,  who 
scandalized  the  church,  corrupted  others  by  their  example, 
and  caused  the  name  of  God  to  be  blasphemed  ;  and  also  those 
who  after  repeated  monitions  refused  to  undergo  penitence  and 
to  reform  their  evil  lives.  In  such  cases,  according  to  the 
command  of  Christ,  a  sentence  of  public  excommunication  was 
to  be  rendered,  ejecting  the  offender  from  the  church,  and  he 
was  to  be  threatened  with  the  wrath  of  God  and  eternal  dam- 

1  Confess.  Augustan.  P.  n.  art.  7. 

2  Melanchth.  Apol.  (Lutheri  Opp.  T.  IV.  ibl.  2666). 


THE     REFORMED    CHURCHES.  493 

nation  for  bis  obdurate  refusal  to  obtain  by  repentance  the 
remission  of  his  sins.1 

There  was  in  this  all  the  elements  of  a  new  sacerdotal  domi 
nation,  especially  as  in  principle  the  princes  and  rulers  of  the 
land  were  as  liable  as  the  humblest  peasant  to  the  infliction  of 
the  censure.  By  the  necessity  of  the  case,  however,  as  well 
as  by  the  doctrines  of  Luther  and  of  the  Augsburg  Confession, 
while  the  state  was  independent  of  the  church,  the  church  was 
dependent  on  the  state,  and  the  German  sovereigns  were  not 
likely  to  subject  themselves  to  a  new  ecclesiastical  tyranny 
similar  to  the  one  which  they  had  had  so  much  difficulty  in 
throwing  off.  The  Thirty  Years'  War,  moreover,  while  it 
stopped  the  extension  of  Protestantism,  was  not  calculated  to 
raise  the  influence  of  the  spiritual  arm.  Excommunication, 
therefore,  became  less  and  less  usual  as  a  resort,  and  towards 
the  opening  of  the  eighteenth  century  some  godless  men  were 
found  who  openly  advocated  its  abandonment,  to  the  great 
indignation  of  the  stricter  members  of  the  church.2 

Theoretically  the  Lutheran  church  thus  retained  the  ma 
chinery  of  excommunication,  but  with  the  advance  of  enlighten 
ment  and  the  more  regular  administration  of  law,  its  employ 
ment  naturally  became  rarer.  A  writer  of  the  eighteenth 
century  alludes  to  the  minor  excommunication,  or  suspension 
from  the  Eucharist,  as  a  remedy  occasionally  employed ;  but 
the  major  excommunication,  which  deprived  the  culprit  of  all 
connection  with  the  church  except  as  an  auditor,  rendered  him 
incapable  of  acting  as  sponsor,  and  excluded  him  from  Chris 
tian  burial,  though  recognized  by  canon  lawyers  as  still  exist 
ing,  was  practically  obsolete.  Only  some  special  occasion,  and 
the  consent  of  the  government,  *could  justify  proceeding  to  so 
severe  a  penalty.3 

1  Joann.  Fechtius,  de  Excom.  Eccles.  p.  13  (Rostochii,  1712) . 

2  Fecht's  work,  just  cited,  is  a  long;  and  dreary  polemical  discourse  of 
four  hundred   quarto  pages  directed  against    these    Indifferentists    or 
liberals.     He  deplores  greatly  the  growing  obsolescence  of  the  censure. 

3  Willenbergii  Tract,  de  Excess,  et  Poen.  Cleric.  Jenae,  1740,  pp.  46-7. 

42 


494  EXCOMMUNICATION. 

The  Calvinistic  theology,  with  its  views  of  election  and  re 
generation,  and  the  direct  relation  which  it  established  between 
the  believer  and  the  Creator,  would  seern  to  render  excommu 
nication  utterly  illogical  as  a  punishment  to  be  inflicted  by  the 
church.1  Calvin's  Confession  of  Faith  carefully  excludes  all 
human  devices  intended  to  bind  the  conscience  ;  it  reduces  the 
sacraments  to  two,  and  professes  implicit  obedience  to  the  sec 
ular  power,  even  if  that  power  be  infidel ;  but  excommunica 
tion  it  recognizes  as  instituted  by  Christ,  "  which  we  do  very 
well  approve  and  acknowledge  the  necessity  thereof  and  of  its 
appendages."2  Calvin's  treatment  of  Servetus,  indeed,  shows 
either  that  he  was  unwilling  to  leave  the  heretic  and  blas 
phemer  to  the  vengeance  of  an  offended  God,  or  that  he  was 
quite  willing  to  regard  the  minister  of  Christ  as  the  chosen 
instrument  of  that  vengeance.  In  either  case,  predestination 
and  reprobation  fared  badly. 

Among  the  Huguenots^,  therefore,  excommunication  was  an 
established  portion  of  church  discipline  ;  but  as  their  churches 
were  for  the  most  part  persecuted,  or,  at  the  best,  were  barely 
tolerated,  there  was  of  course  no  scope  for  the  temporal  exten 
sion  of  spiritual  penalties.  Even  within  the  church,  the  inflic 
tion  of  excommunication  was  limited  with  restrictions  carefully 
devised  to  prevent  abuse.  The  second  council  of  Paris,  in 
15(50,  drew  up  a  series  of  regulations  with  regard  to  it  which 
became  the  established  rule  of  the  church,  and  were  included 
in  its  final  code  of  discipline.  An  offence  committed  in  pri 
vate  was  visited  with  a  brotherly  admonition.  If  this  was 
disregarded,  or  if  the  offence  was  notorious,  then  the  culprit 
could  be  punished  by  suspension  from  communion,  but  the 
pastor  was  not  empowered  to  decree  it  upon  his  own  authority. 

—Only  thirty  years  previous,  in  the  time  of  Fecht,  the  minor  excommu 
nication  involved  exclusion  from  sponsorship  and  deprivation  of  Christian 
sepulture  (Op.  cit.  p.  2). 

1  Calvin's  Confession  of  Faith,  adopted  by  the  churches  of  France  in 
1559,  Arts.  xvii.  xix.  xxi.  xxii.  (Quick,  Synodicon  in  Gall.  Reform.  I.  pp. 
x.  xi.). 

2  Ibid.  Arts,  xxxiii.  xxxv.  xxxvi.  (Quick.  I.  xiii.-xv.). 


THE    REFORMED    CHURCHES.  495 

The  consistory  alone  was  competent,  and  careful  investigation 
was  required  to  precede  the  sentence.  Still  tender  of  the  feel 
ings  and  reputation  of  the  culprit,  only  in  notorious  crimes  was 
the  sentence  made  known  to  the  congregation,  and  restoration 
to  communion  could  at  any  time  be  obtained  by  confession  and 
repentance.  If  the  offender  continued  obdurate  and  impeni 
tent,  however,  then  at  length  excommunication  could  be  re 
sorted  to  :  "  But,  inasmuch  as  this  is  the  last  and  most  rigorous 
of  all  remedies,  it  shall  never  be  used  but  in  case  of  extremity, 
when  all  fair  and  gentle  means  have  proved  ineffectual."  If, 
after  repeatedly  striving  with  his  contumacious  spirit,  the  cul 
prit  was  still  found  hardened  in  guilt,  the  pastor,  on  a  Sunday, 
announced  the  impending  anathema  to  the  congregation, 
preaching  a  sermon  on  the  terrors  of  expulsion  from  the  church, 
and  begging  the  prayers  of  the  faithful  for  the  obstinate  sinner, 
whose  name  was  still  kept  concealed.  If  these  prayers  and 
the  warning  proved  alike 'unavailing,  then  on  two  successive 
Sundays  the  same  was  repeated,  with  the  announcement  of  the 
name  of  the  offender.  At  last,  on  the  fourth  Sunday,  the  pas 
tor,  in  the  name  and  with  the  consent  of  the  whole  church, 
declared  him  excommunicate  and  cut  off,  as  a  rotten  member, 
from  the  ecclesiastical  body ;  he  was  thenceforth  deprived  of 
all  spiritual  privileges,  and  the  faithful  were  exhorted  not  to 
frequent  his  company  or  to  converse  familiarly  with  him.  If 
the  excommunicate  repented  and  applied  for  readmission,  and 
if  on  examination  by  the  consistory  he  showed  fruits  of  repent 
ance,  the  pastor  announced  the  glad  tidings  to  the  congrega 
tion  ;  the  sinner  appeared  before  them,  publicly  confessed  his 
transgressions,  and  asked  pardon  of  God  and  the  church,  when 
he  was  received  back  with  joy  and  thanksgiving.1 

In  the  final  code  of  discipline,  the  consistories  were  directed 
to  use  great  discretion  and  deliberation  in  awarding  either 
suspension  or  excommunication.  Suspension  was  not  to  be 
made  public,  except  in  the  case  of  heretics,  despisers  of  God, 

1  Second  Council  of  Paris,  ami.  1505  can.  2  (Quick,  I.  57-8). 


496  EXCOMMUNICATION. 

rebels  against  the  consistory,  traitors,  those  convicted  of  public 
crimes  involving  corporal  punishment,  those  married  by  Catholic 
priests,  or  who  allowed  their  children  to  be  baptized  in  the 
Roman  church  or  to  marry  Romanists.  When  an  excommuni 
cation  was  impending,  the  pastor  was  directed,  in  his  weekly 
exhortations,  to  entreat  the  congregation  to  pray  and  use  all 
means  to  urge  the  offender  to  repentance,  so  as  to  avert  the 
dreadful  anathema  "  unto  which  we  cannot  proceed  without  a 
world  of  regret  and  grief."1 

While  in  this  there  is  to  be  recognized  and  honored  the  sin- 
cere  desire  to  deal  moderately  and  humanely  with  offenders, 
and  to  preclude  as  far  as  possible  the  abuse  of  the  penalty  for 
the  gratification  of  private  vindictiveness,  it  is  evident  that 
there  was  also  a  purpose  to  heighten  in  the  minds  of  the  faith 
ful  the  impression  of  the  awful  nature  of  the  penalty.  Indeed, 
it  is  curious  to  observe  that,  notwithstanding  the  purely  human 
character  of  the  Calvinist  priesthood,  when  they  spoke  in  the 
name  of  the  church  they  assumed  the  power  of  regulating  the 
salvation  of  the  wicked  as  fully  as  Innocent  III.,°and  of  de 
livering  him  over  to  Satan  with  as  much  certainty  as  the 
Apostle  Paul.  This  assumption  of  the  powers  of  God  is  com 
plete  in  the  form  of  excommunication  adopted  by  the  synod  of 
Alez,  in  1020,  and  embodied  as  the  authorized  formula  in  the 
Code  of  Discipline.  After  reciting  the  repeated  warnings  and 
the  hardened  impenitence  of  the  sinner,  it  proceeds 

"Wherefore,  we  ministers  of  the  Word  and  Gospel  of  our  Lord 
Jesus  Christ,  whom  God  hath  armed  with  spiritual  weapons,  mighty 
through  God  to  throw  down  the  strongholds  which  do  oppose  them 
selves  against  Him  ;  to  whom  the  Eternal  Son  of  God  hath  given 
the  power  of  binding  and  loosing  upon  earth,  declaring  that  what 
we  shall  bind  on  earth  shall  be  bound  in  Heaven,  and  being  willing 
thoroughly- to  purge  the  House  of  God,  and  to  free  His  church  of 
scandal,  and  by  pronouncing  anathema  against  the  wicked  one  to 
glorify  the  name  of  our  God  ;  In  the  name  and  by  the  authority  of 
our  Lord  Jesus,  by  the  advice  and  authority  of  the  pastors  and 

1  Cod.  Discip.  chap.  v.  can.  xv.-xvii.  (Quick,  T.  pp.  xxxi.-ii.). 


THE  REFORMED  CHURCHES.          497 

elders  assembled  in  colloquy,  and  of  the  consistory  of  this  church, 
we  have  cut  off  and  do  cut  off  the  said  N.  N  from  the  communion 
of  the  church  of  God.  We  do  excommunicate  and  deprive  him  of 
the  fellowship  of  saints,  so  that  he  may  be  unto  you  as  a  pagan  or 
publican,  and  that  among  true  believers  he  may  be  an  anathema 
and  execration.  Let  his  company  be  reputed  contagious  !  and  let 
his  example  possess  your  souls  with  astonishment,  and  cause  you  to 
tremble  under  the  mighty  hand  of  God  !  And  this  sentence  the 
Son  of  God  will  ratify  and  make  effectual,  until  such  time  as  the 
sinner,  being  confounded  and  abased  before  God,  shall  glorify  Him 
by  his  conversion.  ...  If  any  man  love  not  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ 
let  him  be  anathema  maranatha  !  Amen  !"' 

Those  who  in  persecution  could  thus  arrogate  to  themselves 
the  right  to  speak  for  God,  and  could  assume  that  their  acts 
were  His,  lacked  only  the  opportunity  to  become  as  tyrannical 
and  domineering  as  the  Latin  church  in  its  worst  days. 
Honestly,  but  fiercely,  fanatical,  they  were  troubled  with  as 
few  doubts  or  misgivings  as  Damiani  or  Torquemada,  and  in  a 
few  generations  of  unresisted  domination  their  simple  form  of 
belief  would  have  resulted  in  a  theocracy  as  absolute  as  that 
which  Hildebrand  founded.  The  rapidity  of  this  inevitable 
development  was  manifested  in  Scotland,  as  soon  as  the  Catholic 
cause  was  fairly  subdued.  John  Knox  was  Consistent  when, 
during  his  residence  in  England  he  refused,  in  1552,  the  parish 
of  Allhallows  in  London  offered  to  him  by  Cranmer,  and,  on 
being  summoned  before  the  King's  Council  to  explain  his  de 
clination  of  the  preferment,  he  gave  as  one  of  his  reasons  that 
no  ministers  in  England  had  authority  to  separate  the  Lepers 
from  the  Heal,  which  was  a  chief  point  in  his  office.2  In  the 
English  establishment  the  power  of  excommunication  was  not 
confided  to  the  hands  of  simple  pastors  and  congregations  but 
formed  part  of  the  machinery  of  ecclesiastical  courts,  and  Knox 
would  not  submit  to  be  shorn  of  the  prerogatives  which  he 
deemed  essential  to  the  office  of  the  ministry.  In  Scotland  lit 
had  full  opportunity  to  mould  the  kirk  according  to  the  Cal- 

1  Cod.  Discip.  chap.  v.  can.  xvii.  (Quick,  I.  xxxii.- iii.). 
*  Strype's  Eccles.  Memorials,  II.  39(J. 
42* 


498  EXCOMMUNICATION. 

vinist  theories,  and  the  results  were  not  long  in  becoming  ap 
parent.1  The  consistories  of  Calvin,  composed  of  the  pastor 
with  his  deacons  and  elders,  became  the  kirk-sessions,  which 
were  virtually  the  rulers  of  the  land,  and  which  maintained 
their  power  for  generations  against  the  assaults  of  papist  and 
prelatist  on  the  single  basis  of  excommunication.  A  con 
temporary  has  sketched  these  assemblies  and  their  domination  in 
no  friendly  spirit:  "  Every  parish  had  a  tyrant  who  made  the 
greatest  lord  in  his  district  stoop  to  his  authority.  The  kirk 
was  the  place  where  he  kept  his  court ;  the  pulpit  his  throne 
or  tribunal  from  which  he  issued  out  his  terrible  decrees;  and 
twelve  or  fourteen  sour,  ignorant  enthusiasts,  under  the  title  of 
elders,  composed  his  council.  If  any,  of  what  quality  soever, 
had  the  assurance  to  disobey  his  orders,  the  dreadful  sentence 
of  excommunication  was  immediately  thundered  out  against 
him,  his  goods  and  chattels  confiscated  and  seized,  and  he 
himself  being  looked  upon  as  actually  in  the  possession  of  the 
devil,  and  irretrievably  doomed  to  eternal  perdition,  all  that 
convened  with  him  were  in  no  better  esteem."2  Another  con 
temporary,  Sir  Andrew  Weldon,  an  English  traveller  who 
visited  Scotland  in  the  early  part  of  the  seventeenth  century, 
pithily  describes  the  spirit  with  which  this  rule  was  adminis 
tered  :  u  Their  Sabbath  exercises  are  a  preaching  in  the 
morning  and  a  persecuting  in  the  afternoon."3 

This  sounds  like  exaggeration,  yet,  making  allowance  for  its 
hostile  tone,  it  gives  a  reasonably  truthful  picture  of  the 
Scottish  theocracy.  While  in  many  respects  the  kirk-sessions 
formed  an  admirable  police  system,  yet  their  petty  and  all- 
pervading  tyranny  must  have  been  inexpressibly  galling  and 
odious.  All  kinds  of  offenders  were  brought  before  them,  and 
though  they  transferred  to  the  criminal  tribunals  such  crimes 
as  theft  or  murder,  yet  their  jurisdiction  seems  to  have  been 
practically  limited  only  by  their  own  discretion.  Criminal 

1  See  Knox's  First  Book  of  Discipline,  chap.  IX. 

2  Memoirs  of  Lochiell  (Spottiswoode  Miscellany,  II.  229-30). 

3  Rogers's  Scotland,  Social  arid  Domestic,  p.  2*  (Grampian  Club,  1869)  . 


THE  REFORMED  CHURCHES.  499 

judges  who  did  not  administer  justice  to  their  satisfaction, 
were  promptly  summoned  to  trial.  The  private  relations  of 
families,  the  vices  or  the  evil  disposition  of  the  individual  were 
alike  subject  to  their  inquisition  and  judgment.  Their  decrees 
were  virtually  irreversible  and  without  appeal,  and  behind  all 
lay  the  awful  power  of  excommunication,  which  seemed  to 
reduce  the  most  hardened  to  submission.  Indeed,  they  even 
assumed  legislative  as  well  as  judicial  functions,  and  local 
presbyteries  would  pass  general  laws  punishing  such  offences 
as  adultery  with  temporal  penalties.1  Home  herself  scarcely 
dared  to  organize  a  system  of  despotism  so  minute  and  so  com 
plete  ;  and  however  disinterested  and  ardent  in  the  faith  may 
have  been  the  men  who  built  it  up  and  administered  it,  human 
nature,  even  in  the  elect,  is  too  imperfect  for  us  to  imagine  that 
such  a  theocracy  could  exercise  its  power  without  causing  in 
finite  misery.  There  was  probably  less  corruption  than  under 
the  Spanish  Inquisition,  but  it  may  be  doubted  which  rule  of 
the  two  was  the  more  easy  to  be  endured.  Numerous  extracts 
have  been  printed  from  the  registers,  still  existing,  of  many 
kirk-sessions,  which  afford  us  an  insight  into  some  of  the  prac 
tical  workings  of  the  system,  showing  that  the  procedures 
established  in  the  French  churches  were  faithfully  observed, 
and  that  the  cumbrous  process  designed  to  limit  the  use  of  the 
spiritual  sword  proved  of  little  avail  among  those  who  were 
unanimously  ready  to  exercise  their  brief  authority. 

Thus  in  the  Kirk-Sessions  Register  of  Perth,  published  by 
the  Spottiswoode  Society,  we  find  under  date  of  June  29th, 
1;")75  :  "  The  whilk  day  Mr.  John  Row,  minister  of  Perth, 
denounced  Elspeth  Carnock  excommunicate,  in  presence  of 
the  whole  people,  for  subtracting  herself  from  her  repentance." 

1  Thus,  in  1586,  the  kirk-sessions  of  Glasgow  ordained  that  adulterers 
should  "satisfy  six  Sabbaths  in  the  pillory,"  bare-legged  and  in  sack 
cloth,  and  then  be  carted  through  the  town— i.  e.,  be  whipped  at  the  cart's 
tail.  The  same  body,  in  1643,  decreed  that  the  same  offence  be  punished 
with  standing  three  hours  in  the  "jaggs,"  a  public  whipping,  imprison 
ment  in  the  jail,  and  banishment  from  the  town.— Rogers,  op.  cit.  p.  364. 


500  EXCOMMUNICATION. 

A  few  months  later  a  certain  Thomas  Dundie  and  his  wife  had 
a  quarrel.  The  sessions  took  up  the  matter,  adjudged  Thomas 
to  be  in  fault,  and  ordered  the  three  admonitions  or  warnings 
to  be  given  him.  He  apparently  held  out  until  the  third 
warning,  for  after  that  there  is  no  further  notice  of  him.  Then 
there  is  a  case  of  assault  and  battery  of  which  the  sessions 
takes  cognizance,  ordering  the  bailies  to  keep  the  parties  in 
custody  until  they  perform  the  award,  under  pain  of  excommu 
nication,  for  the  bailies  were  formally  commanded  "  to  assist 
the  ordinances  of  the  kirk  and  actis  of  parliament  anentis  the 
pvnishment  of  excommunicate  persones,"  and  therefore  were 
bound  to  execute  the  spiritual  decrees  as  completely  as  in  Ger 
many  under  the  Schwabenspiegel.  Indeed,  soon  after  this  we 
find  the  bailies  themselves  threatened  with  excommunication 
within  a  fortnight  for  lukewarmness  in  executing  the  judg 
ments  of  the  sessions  ;  all  future  bailies  were  included  in  the 
threat,  and  the  existing  ones  wisely  made  their  peace  and 
escaped  the  anathema  by  prompt  submission.  This  power 
over  the  secular  magistrates  was  manifested  again  a  few  years 
later,  when  the  bailies  were  ordered,  under  pain  of  excom 
munication,  to  imprison  a  certain  Thomas  Taylor,  who  had 
neglected  the  admonition  of  the  sessions;  the  proceeding  was 
successful,  and  the  obdurate  Thomas  was  brought  before  the 
kirk  and  forced  to  perform  due  penance.  Thus  the  terrors  of 
the  spiritual  and  criminal  law  combined  were  wielded  by  the 
church,  and  were  brought  to  bear  upon  the  most  trivial  cases 
as  well  as  upon  the  most  hardened  offenders.1 

The  kirk-sessions  moreover  were  the  principal  promoters  of 
the  fearful  prosecutions  for  witchcraft,  which  perhaps  were 
worse  in  Scotland  than  in  any  other  country.  They  paid  the 
"  prickers"  who  tortured  miserable  old  women  to  obtain  proof, 
and  they  voted  supplies  of  firewood  for  the  resultant  auto-de-fe. 
While  they  rigorously  prohibited  funerals  and  marriages  on 

1  Spottiswoode   Miscellany,  II.  235,  23G,  241,   249-50,  208.— Extracts 
from  the  Records  of  the  Burgh  of  Peebles,  p.  330  (Burgh  Records  Society). 


THE  REFORMED  CHURCHES.  501 

the  Sabbath  as  a  profanation  of  the  sacredness  of  the  day, 
witch-burnings  were  deemed  a  good  work  allowable  on  the 
Lord's  day,  and  committees  of  ministers  attended  them  offi 
cially.  Zealous  ministers,  indeed,  sometimes  did  not  content 
themselves  with  simply  directing  these  proceedings.  In  1650, 
Mr.  John  Aird,  minister  of  Stow,  reported  to  his  kirk-session 
his  success  in  personally  convicting  a  witch  by  pricking  her, 
having  triumphantly  thrust  into  her  shoulder  a  pin  up  to  the 
head.1  From  this  supreme  crime  down  to  the  pettiest  offence, 
there  was  nothing  that  did  not  come  within  their  jurisdiction. 
They  regulated  the  proceedings  at  weddings,  they  prosecuted 
pipers  and  fiddlers  for  performing  at  them,  prescribed  the 
number  of  guests  to  be  invited,  and  the  quantity  of  liquor  to 
be  drunk  ;  and  when  the  feast  was  provided  by  a  publican, 
they  limited  the  amount  of  money  to  be  spent.  If  the  quaint 
carvings  on  an  old  tomb  displeased  them,  they  speedily  caused 
its  remodelling,  as  in  the  case  of  Lord  Boyd,  whom  the  Pres 
bytery  of  Irvine,  in  1G49,  ordered  to  remove  an  image  from 
the  sepulchre  of  his  ancestors,  under  pain  of  excommunication, 
and  he  incontinently  had  to  obey.  If  a  youth  chanced  to  pass 
his  father  without  lifting  his  bonnet,  the  apparent  disrespect 
was  made  the  subject  of  grave  deliberations,  as  occurred  in 
the  Presbytery  of  Glasgow  in  1598.  The  same  body  forbade 
the  marriage  of  James  Armour  to  Helen  Bar,  because  the 
bridegroom  was  in  debt ;  and  it  threatened  an  unfortunate 
piper  with  excommunication  if  he  did  not  discontinue  playing 
on  his  pipes  on  Sunday.  The  kirk-sessions  of  Stirling,  in 
1598,  ordered  the  imprisonment,  on  bread  and  water,  of  two 
persons  who  had  played  at  dice,  and  the  sessions  of  Dumfries 
fined  a  man  in  twelve  shillings  who  had  been  found  card-play 
ing.  The  sessions  of  the  Port  of  Menteith,  in  1GG8,  prosecuted 
three  persons  who  had  drunk  a  "  chapon"  of  ale  on  Sunday, 
and  sentenced  them  u  to  sit  bair  headit  beflfore  the  pulpit,  and 
after  sermon  to  acknowledge  their  scandal  on  their  knees." 

1  Rogers,  op.  cit.  pp.  29,  270,  328. 


502  EXCOMMUNICATION. 

Perhaps,  however,  the  most  capricious  exercise  of  petty  tyranny 
was  in  the  case  of  William  Howatson,  who,  on  May  6,  1G52, 
was  ordered  by  the  kirk-sessions  of  Stow  to  "  humble  himself 
before  the  session  and  crave  God's  mercy,"  because,  on  the 
preceding  Sunday,  he  had  walked  a  short  distance  to  visit  his 
sick  mother.1 

No  one  could  escape  the  searching  inquisition  of  the  system. 
In  1650  the  synod  of  Fife  ordered  every  parish  to  be  divided 
up  among  the  elders,  and  in  obedience  to  the  act  of  the  General 
Assembly  in  1G49,  each  elder  was  to  traverse  his  district  care 
fully  at  least  once  a  month,  and  report  to  his  sessions  all  cases 
of  disorders  or  offences  which  might  come  within  his  knowl 
edge.2  To  supplement  this  minute  perquisition  there  were  the 
regulations  which  prescribed  to  all  constant  attendance  in 
church  on  Sunday,  and  partaking  of  communion  at  stated 
intervals.  Thus  as  early  as  1568  the  kirk-sessions  of  Aber 
deen  imposed  a  fine  of  sixpence  on  all  absentees  from  divine 
service,  and  of  two  shillings  on  elders  and  deacons.  The  ses 
sions  of  Anstruther,  Kilrenny,  and  Pittenweem  commanded 
the  presence  of  every  one,  morning  and  afternoon,  with  an 
ascending  scale  of  penalties,  being  twelvepence  for  the  first 
offence,  two  shillings  for  the  second,  and  five  shillings  for  the 
third  and  all  after.  In  1570  the  sessions  of  St.  Andrews 
decided  to  withdraw  alms  from  all  paupers  who  did  not  present 
themselves  regularly  at  sermon  time ;  and  at  Lasswade,  in 
1615,  a  fine  was  levied  of  twenty  pence  Scots  on  servants, 
three  shillings  and  fourpence  on  yeomen,  and  six  shillings  and 
eightpence  on  gentlemen.  To  insure  the  observance  of  these 
regulations  a  minute  system  of  supervision  was  organized.  In 
1583  the  kirk-sessions  of  Perth  ordered  each  elder  to  go  around 
his  district  every  Sunday  forenoon  and  note  all  absentees,  so 
as  to  levy  on  them  the  fine  of  twenty  shillings;  and  in  1600  the 
sessions  of  Glasgow  decreed  that  the  deacons  of  the  several 

1  Rogers,  op.  cit.  pp.  18,  115,  340,  343,357,  367,  371. 

2  Ibid.  p.  374. 


THE  REFORMED  CHURCHES.          503 

crafts  should  search  among  families  of  their  freemen  for  ab 
sentees,  and  report  them  for  fining.1 

It  was  the  same  with  respect  to  attendance  at  the  Lord's 
Supper.  In  1600  the  Scottish  Parliament  passed  an  act  order 
ing  every  adult  to  partake  of  communion  at  least  twice  a  year, 
under  penalties  graduated  according  to  the  station  of  the  de 
linquent.  Thus  for  an  earl  the  mulct  was  £1000  Scots  ;  for  a 
lord,  1000  merks;  for  a  baron  or  land  owner,  300  merks  ;  for 
a  yeoman,  £40;  and  a  record  of  Aberdeen,  in  1603,  shows 
that  the  enforcement  of  this  law  was  in  the  hands  of  the  kirk- 
sessions,  and  that  the  fines  were  not  only  collected  by  legal 
process,  but  were  increased  at  the  pleasure  of  the  sessions.2 
Even  in  the  eighteenth  century,  absence  from  the  kirk  for 
three  consecutive  Sabbaths  without  a  proper  excuse,  leaving 
church  during  the  services,  or  being  present  at  communion 
without  partaking  of  it,  were  all  offences  which  entailed  the 
censures  of  the  church.3  It  evidently  was  not  easy  for  the 
carnal-minded  to  escape  the  watchful  supervision  of  the  sessions. 

No  matter  how  trivial  the  offence,  it  became  as  of  old  a 
crime  of  the  deepest  dye  if  there  was  any  slackness  of  obedi 
ence  in  submitting  to  the  commands  of  the  sessions.  Any  one 
who  failed  to  answer  when  summoned  was  at  once  proceeded 
against  with  the  three  premonitory  warnings,4  and  no  rank  or 
station  excused  the  offender.  Thus  in  1612  the  Marquis  of 
Huntley  and  the  Earl  of  Errol  were  excommunicated  by  the 
synod  of  Fife  for  not  communicating;  and  on  January  7th, 
1647,  the  Presbytery  of  Lismahago  convicted  the  Duke  of 
Hamilton  of  not  being  faithful  to  the  covenant,  and  compelled 
him  to  acknowlege  his  offence  upon  his  knees  and  to  make  full 


1  Rogers,  op.  cit.  pp.  345,  347. 

2  Ibid.  pp.  24,  346.     The  pound  Scots  was  one-twelfth  of  the  pound 
sterling  ;  the  merk  was  half  a  pound. 

3  Lander's  Ancient  Bishops  Considered,  chap.  vm.  Nos.  22,  26,  27,  46 
(Edinburgh,  1707). 

*  Spottiswoode  Miscell.  I.  251,  292-5. 


504 


EXCOMMUNICATION. 


confession  publicly  in  church.1  So  in  1638  John  Guthrie, 
Bishop  of  Moray,  was  excommunicated  by  the  Glasgow  as 
sembly  because  he  had  refused  to  perform  penance  in  Edin 
burgh  for  having  preached  before  Charles  I.  in  a  surplice.2 

The  segregation  of  the  excommunicate  was  strictly  enforced. 
"  After  which  sentence  may  no  person— his  wife  and  family 
only  excepted— have  any  kind  of  conversation  with  him,  be  it 
in  eating  or  drinking,  buying  and  selling,  yea,  in  saluting  or 
talking  with  him;  except  it  be  at  commandment  or  license  of 
the  ministry  for  his  conversion  :  that  he,  by  such  means  con 
founded,  seeing  himself  abhorred  of  the  godly  and  faithful,  may 
have  occasion  to  repent  and  so  be  saved.  The  sentence  of  ex 
communication  must  be  published  universally  throughout  the 
realm,  lest  that  any  man  should  pretend  ignorance."3  These 
regulations  were  not  mere  idle  formulas.  Cases  are  frequently 
mentioned  of  proceedings  taken  against  those  who  frequented 
with,  harbored,  or  even  spoke  to  the  recalcitrant  wretches  who 
were  under  the  ban  of  the  kirk.  From  1021  to  1645  John 
Robertson  was  minister  of  Perth,  but  notwithstanding  this  long 
and  faithful  service  he  was  deposed  in  1645  by  the  General 
Assembly  for  conversing  with  Montrose,  who  was  then  under 
excommunication,  and  though  he  was  readmitted  in  1654  he 
was  not  restored  to  his  post.4  So  great  was  the  dread  of  hold 
ing  any  relations  with  a  person  thus  anathematized,  that  when, 
in  1611,  John  Spottiswoode  of  that  ilk  killed  in  a  quarrel  his 
friend  Matthew  Sinclair  of  Longformacus,  and  the  Privy  Coun 
cil,  by  command  of  King  James,  intervened  to  pacify  the  feud, 
the  brothers  of  the  murdered  man,  in  responding  to  certain 
offers  made  by  Spottiswoode,  felt  obliged  to  place  on  record  a 
protest  to  justify  themselves  for  receiving  and  reading  any 
communications  from  an  excommunicated  man.  "  First,  we 
protest  that  we  recaued  thame  be  commandiement  of  your 
moist  hounourable  Lordschippis  sua  that  na  imputatioun  justlie 

1  Rogers,  op.  cit.  pp.  314-17.  2  Spottiswoode  Miscell.  I.  201. 

5  Knox's  First  Book  of  Discipline,  chap.  IX.  §  9. 
4  Spottiswoode  Miscellany,  II.  253,  273-4,  275,  312. 


THE     REFORMED     CHURCHES.  505 

may  be  attributed  to  ws  for  vevving  and  reiding  thairof,  pro 
ceeding  from  his  Maiestie's  rebell  and  ane  excommuriicat  per- 
sone,  and  sua  Godis  and  his  Maiestie's  enemye."1  So,  when 
Lord  Herries  was  excommunicated  by  the  Provincial  Synod 
in  1647,  two  tradesmen  who  had  business  with  him  were 
obliged  to  apply  to  the  kirk-sessions  of  Dumfries  for  permis 
sion  to  visit  him  before  they  could  venture  to  hold  converse 
with  him.2 

Even  the  children  of  the  excommunicate  were  in  some  sort 
involved  in  the  penalty  of  the  parent.  Those  who  were  born 
during  his  severance  from  the  church  were  not  admitted  to 
baptism  until  they  were  of  age  to  apply  for  it  themselves,  unless 
their  mother  or  some  near  friend  would  present  them,  together 
with  a  declaration  of  abhorrence  and  condemnation  of  the 
obstinacy  of  the  impenitent  father.3 

Strange  as  it  may  seem,  however,  the  spiritual  terrors  of  (he 
anathema  were  more  effective  than  its  temporal  penalties,  and 
men  of  the  most  hardened  natures,  who  derided  the  law,  or 
had  nothing  further  to  expect  from  it,  were  brought  to  subjec 
tion  by  the  unknown  and  awful  consequences  of  separation 
from  the  church.  Thus,  in  the  Kirk-Sessions  Register  of 
Perth,  under  date  of  November  20th,  1598,  there  is  an  entry 
showing  that  Thomas  Law,  a  desperate  rebel  who  had  broken 
jail  and  had  long  defied  the  civil  magistracy,  appeared  before 
the  sessions  and  begged  an  abandonment  of  the  proceedings 
for  the  excommunication  which  he  had  deserved,  offering  to 
render  whatever  satisfaction  might  be  desired  by  both  the 
bailies  and  the  sessions.4  Equally  significant  of  the  immense 
influence  over  men's  minds  of  this  fearful  sentence  is  an  inci 
dent  which  occurred  at  the  execution,  in  1046,  at  St.  Andrews, 
of  three  royalists,  serving  under  Montrose,  and  taken  prisoners 
at  Philiphaugh,  after  promise  of  quarter.  One  of  them,  Major 
Nathaniel  Gordon,  is  described  in  Lochiell's  Memoirs  as  a 

1  Spottiswoode  Misccll.  I.  27.  2  Rogers,  op.  cit.  p.  375. 

3  Knox's  First  Book  of  Discipline,  chap.  IX.  §  10. 
*  Spottiswoode  Miscell.  II.  277. 
43 


506  EXCOMMUNICATION. 

gentleman  "  of  great  courage  and  fortitude,"  yet  on  the  day  of 
his  execution,  when  there  was  no  further  hope  of  reprieve  or 
pardon,  he  pleaded  earnestly  for  reconciliation  to  the  church, 
in  a  written  declaration,  expressing  his  sorrow  "for  taking  up 
arms  and  shedding  much  innocent  blood  in  this  wicked  rebel 
lion  against  this  church  and  kingdom,  for  which  I  was  justly 
excommunicated  by  the  kirk  ;  I  do  therefore  humbly  beg  par 
don  and  mercy  from  God  for  the  same,  thorough  and  for  the 
merits  of  Christ  his  sonne,  desiring  earnestly  to  be  relaxed 
from  that  fearful  sentence  of  excommunication."1  The  request 
was  granted,  and  he  made  a  most  edifying  end. 

It  required,  indeed,  the  combination  of  temporal  and  spirit 
ual  terrors  attendant  upon  the  alternative  of  excommunication 
to  compel  subjection  to  the  sentences  of  penance  inflicted  upon 
every  trivial  occasion.  This  penance  was  no  light  punish 
ment  in  itself,  and  was  skilfully  graduated  to  suit  every  spe 
cies  of  crime  and  to  serve  as  a  supplement  to  the  ordinary 
penal  laws.  Every  kirk  had  its  stool  of  repentance  on  which 
the  penitent  was  obliged  to  face  the  congregation  bareheaded 
while  the  painful  minister  drew  from  his  shame  lessons  of 
edification  for  the  faithful.  Some  churches  had  not  only  a 
stool  but  a  pillar,  on  which  hardened  offenders  were  raised  to 
a  bad  eminence  for  the  benefit  of  the  spectators  ;  and  all  par 
ishes  were  required  to  possess  a  u  harden-gown"  or  "  linnens," 
a  coarse  sackcloth  cloak  in  which  the  penitent  was  enveloped. 
Even  as  late  as  1G93  an  entry  in  the  sessions  register  of  Kirk- 
michael  records  the  making  of  one  of  these  garments.  The 
character  of  the  penitence  ordinarily  enjoined  may  be  learned 
from  the  sentences  rendered  in  several  cases  of  adultery  re 
corded.  Thus  the  kirk-sessions  of  Dumfries  orders  two  cul 
prits  to  sit  in  sackcloth  seven  Sundays  on  the  stool  and  to 
stand  barefoot  at  the  church  door  on  the  first  and  last  days. 
At  Aberdeen,  in  1568,  the  offenders  were  required  to  stand 
bare-legged  and  in  sackcloth  for  three  Sundays  at  the  church 

1  Spottiswoode  Miscell.  I.  205-6. 


THE    REFORMED     CHURCHES.  507 

door  wearing  paper  crowns  on  which  their  crime  was  inscribed  ; 
when  the  preacher  began  his  sermon  they  were  to  come  to  the 
stool  of  repentance,  and,  when  service  was  over,  to  return  to 
the  church  door  until  the  congregation  had  dispersed.  In 
1G42,  the  Presbytery  of  Lanark  punished  them  by  compelling 
them  to  go  through  all  the  kirks  of  the  district  and  stand  bare 
legged  at  the  door,  from  the  second  bell  until  the  last.1 

This  ingenious  cumulation  of  shame  and  disgrace,  however, 
frequently  was  considered  insufficient,  and  it  was  supplemented 
by  physical  torments  better  fitted  to  subdue  those  who  had 
become  hardened — perhaps  by  undergoing  repeated  exhibitions 
on  the  stool  or  pillar.  One  implement  of  torture  was  called 

the  branks a  sort  of  helmet  composed  of  iron  bars,  secured 

upon  the  head  with  a  padlock,  and  furnished  with  a  triangular 
projection  which  entered  the  mouth  of  the  patient.  This  was 
particularly  provided  for  scolds  and  slanderers,  whose  penance 
on  the  stool  of  repentance  was  rendered  more  unendurable  by 
its  application.  The  kirk-sessions  of  St.  Andrews  ordered  it 
for  Isobel  Lindsay  when  she  was  convicted  of  slandering  Arch 
bishop  Sharpe ;  and  the  sessions  register  of  Dunfermline, 
March  oth,  1648,  records  a  similar  sentence  passed  on  Marga 
ret  Nicholsone  for  scolding  and  drunkenness. 

A  still  more  effective  means  of  torment  was  found  in  the 
jaggs  or  jougs  (jugum),  an  iron  collar  which  was  locked 
around  the  neck  of  the  penitent  and  secured  to  the  wall  near 
the  church  door  at  a  height  to  render  the  attitude  of  confine 
ment  painful.  Sometimes  the  length  of  punishment  was  only 
an  hour,  but  it  was  repeated  in  aggravated  cases,  some  stub 
born  offenders  being  jagged  every  Sunday  for  six  months. 
Sometimes  the  application  was  prolonged.  In  1570  the  kirk- 
sessions  of  St.  Andrews  warned  Gelis  Symson  that  she  should 
be  jagged  for  twenty-four  hours  if  she  did  not  reform  her  habits 
of  scolding  and  Sabbath-breaking.  Nor  was  this  severity  of 
punishment  at  all  unlikely,  when  in  1GOG  we  see  the  kirk- 

1  Rogers,  op.  cit.  pp.  353,  364-6. 


508  EXCOMMUNICATION. 

sessions  of  Ayr  inflict  the  jaggs  and  pillar  of  repentance  on 
John  M'Crie  for  saying  that  "  no  bodie  had  the  wyte  (blame) 
of  the  poore  folks  but  the  devill  and  the  priest."1 

This  severity  of  discipline  continued  until  the  Scottish  Par 
liament  in  1090  abolished  the  civil  penalties  of  excommunica 
tion.2  A  fatal  blow  then  was  struck  at  the  temporal  usurpations 
of  the  kirk,  and  the  abuses  which  had  flourished  so  luxuriantly 
commenced  rapidly  to  decline.  Yet  the  spirit  which  dictated 
them  has  by  no  means  ceased  to  exist,  as  is  shown  in  the  case 
of  Mr.  Ileber  Donaldson,  suspended  from  communion  in  1881 
by  the  church-sessions  of  Ernlenton,  Penna.,  for  the  offence  of 
having  danced  on  two  occasions.  Mr.  Donaldson  complained 
that  he  was  summarily  summoned  to  trial  without  any  previous 
warning,  and  that  the  sessions  refused  to  listen  to  his  proof 
that  dancing  is  not  an  infraction  of  the  law  of  God.  His  ap 
peals  to  the  Presbytery  of  Clarion  and  then  to  the  Synod  of 
Erie  were  both  unsuccessful,  when  he  carried  the  case  up  to 
the  General  Assembly,  which  threw  it  out  on  the  ground  that 
from  its  inception  it  had  been  tried  in  a  wrong  manner.  The 
Emlenton  church  then  took  it  up  again  and  again  condemned 
Mr.  Donaldson  who,  wearied  with  the  contest,  abandoned  the 
communion  into  which  he  had  been  born. 

The  Anglican  church  inherited  its  discipline  from  Rome 
more  directly  then  any  other  of  the  Protestant  denominations, 
and  its  relations  with  our  subject  are  therefore  easily  compre 
hended.  When  Henry  VIII.  threw  off  his  spiritual  allegiance 
to  Clement  VII.,  his  object  was  to  create  a  schism,  not  a 
heresy,  and  simply  to  supplant  the  tiara  by  the  crown.  As 
suming  to  himself  the  supreme  authority  wielded  by  the  pope, 
it  formed  no  part  of  his  plan  to  diminish  that  authority  in  any 
respect,  and  the  power  of  excommunication  \vas  too  precious 
an  addition  to  the  royal  prerogative  to  be  abandoned  or  even 
weakened.  Transsubstantiation,  private  masses,  and  the  sacra- 

1  Rogers,  op.  cit.  pp.  354-61.  2  n)i(l-  p,  OTG> 


THE     REFORMED    CHURCHES.  509 

ment  of  penitence  were  retained,1  which  were  quite  sufficient 
for  that  purpose  ;  and  though  Henry  did  not.  presume  to  officiate 
as  high-priest  himself,  his  control  of  those  who  did  so  placed 
the  salvation  of  his  subjects' as  completely  in  his  hands  as  it 
had  ever  been  in  those  of  Innocent  III.  or  Boniface  VIII. 
With  the  simplification  of  dogma  under  Edward  VI.  this 
spiritual  autocracy  disappeared,  but  excommunication  was  re 
tained  as  a  convenient  weapon,  and  as  its  superhuman  terrors 
were  abated,  the  temporal  pains  and  penalties  attaching  to  it 
under  the  ancient  law  were  carefully  preserved  and  strength 
ened.  In  the  projected  body  of  ecclesiastical  law,  laboriously 
prepared  in  1552,  but  which  failed  of  publication  owing  to  the 
death  of  Edward,  the  subject  of  excommunication  received 
careful  consideration.  To  prevent  its  abuse  the  ecclesiastical 
judge  pronouncing  it  was  required  to  associate  witli  him  a  jus 
tice  of  the  peace,  the  minister  of  the  parish  of  the  offender, 
and  two  or  three  learned  presbyters,  with  whose  assent  the 
sentence  was  to  be  rendered  in  writing.  When  thus  pro 
nounced,  however,  the  excommunicate  was  to  be  cut  off  from 
all  human  intercourse  except  that  of  his  own  family,  and  any 
one  eating,  drinking,  or  consorting  with  him  were  similarly 
excommunicated.  Unrepentance  under  censure  for  forty  days 
entailed  a  chancery  writ  throwing  the  offender  into  prison, 
where  he  lay  until  he  made  submission.  Reconciliation  was  a 
public  ceremony  performed  in  church  in  the  face  of  the  con 
gregation  with  details  not  a  little  humiliating  to  the  penitent.2 
This  was  the  ideal  of  church  discipline  for  the  reformers  of 
those  days,  and  its  principles  may  be  traced  in  the  standard  of 
Anglican  orthodoxy.  The  forty-two  articles  promulgated  in 
1552,  and  the  thirty-nine  articles  of  Elizabeth,  alike  enjoin 

1  Burnet's  Collections,  I.  305.     The  more  advanced  reformers  denied 
the  power  of  bishops  and  ecclesiastical  judges  to  inflict  excommunication 
— a  heresy  included  in  the  list  of  grievances  complained  of  by  the  convo 
cation   of  1536.— Protestation  of  the   Clargie  No.  33   (Strype's   Eccles. 
Memorials,  I.  Append,  p.  177). 

2  Burnet's  Reformation,  II.  201  (Ed.  1683). 

43* 


510  EXCOMMUNICATION. 

the  treatment  as  a  heathen  and  a  publican  of  any  excommuni 
cate.1  But  this  was  insufficient.  In  1562  the  bishops  in 
convocation  complained  of  the  negligence  of  the  sheriffs  in 
imprisoning  excommunicates  "  whereby  the  censures  and  cor 
rections  of  the  church  do  run  in  great  contempt, ;  and  like 
daily  to  grow  into  more,  unless  some  speedy  remedy  be  found 
in  that  behalf."2  What  was  the  disposition  of  the  more  ardent 
churchmen  in  this  respect  may  be  gathered  from  a  MS.,  printed 
by  Strype,  of  propositions  to  be  laid  before  convocation,  anno 
tations  on  which  in  Archbishop  Parker's  hand  show  it  to  be 
authoritative.  It  proposed  that  those  who  do  not  communicate 
at  least  thrice  a  year  be  severely  punished,  while  persons  not 
communicating  at  all,  and  excommunicates  remaining  unre 
conciled  for  six  months,  be  dealt  with  as  heretics.3  Another 
liberal  proposition  made  in  the  same  convocation  was  that  any 
one  notably  neglecting  to  attend  divine  service  or  to  take  com 
munion  should  Jbe  held  as  excommunicate  without  further 
process  or  promulgation  of  sentence,  and  that  (luring  his  con 
tinuance  therein  he  be  deprived  of  all  benefit  of  law,  having 
no  standing  in  court  except  as  defendant.4 

The  complaints  of  the  bishops  were  not  unheeded.  The 
writ  de  excommunicato  capiendo  imprisoned  without  bail  any 
one  remaining  under  excommunication  for  forty  days,  and  a 
statute  to  insure  its  execution  and  (o  correct  the  negligence  of 
the  sheriffs  was  passed  without  delay.  These  writs  were  made 
returnable  to  the  Court  of  Queen's  Bench,  which  was  em 
powered  to  fine  at  discretion  any  sheriff  negligent  in  the  pre 
mises.  If  the  party  excommunicated  did  not  surrender  himself 
a  second  writ  was  issued,  failure  to  obey  which  within  six  days 
was  visited  with  a  fine  of  £10.  A  third  writ  then  was  issued, 
carrying  with  it  a  fine  of  £20  ;  and  as  long  as  the  offender  was 
contumacious,  an  infinity  of  these  writs  followed  each  other, 
each  bearing  its  separate  fine  of  like  amount,  thus  rendering 

1  Bm-net's  Collections,  II.  217.  2  strype's  Annals,  I.  272,  310. 

3  Ibid,  additions  to  Vol    I.  p.  13  in  Vol.  II.  ad  calcern. 

4  Ibid.  I.  .'U6-7.     Cf.  Strype's  Grindal.  App.  p.  11. 


THE  REFORMED  CHURCHES.          511 

persistent  obduracy  a  luxury  too  expensive  even  for  tlie  most 
wealthy.1 

This  law  enumerates  the  offences  entailing  excommunication 
— as  heresy,  refusing  to  allow  a  child  to  be  baptized,  declining 
to  receive  communion  after  the  orthodox  form,  negligence  in 
attending  divine  service,  dissidence  in  belief,  incontinence, 
simony,  usury,  perjury  in  ecclesiastical  courts,  and  idolatry. 
This  was  a  tolerably  wide  and  comprehensive  field  for  censure- 
mongers,  yet  its  limitations  were  by  no  means  strictly  observed. 
We  have  seen  elsewhere  the  abuses  arising  from  the  subjuga 
tion  of  the  state  to  the  church,  and  the  yet  more  anomalous 
Anglican  theory  of  using  the  church  as  a  department  of  the 
state  was  fruitful  of  the  same  troubles.  When  Queen  Eliza 
beth,  urged  by  the  antiquarian  tastes  of  Archbishop  Parker, 
desired  to  put  a  stop  to  the  iconoclastic  tendencies  of  the  people 
in  defacing  monuments  in  the  churches,  breaking  stained 
windows,  and  stealing  the  bells  and  lead,  she  not  only  very 
properly  forbade  it  for  the  future,  but  she  ordered  an  inquisi 
tion  into  the  injuries  done  since  the  commencement  of  her 
reign,  and  required  that  they  be  made  good  under  pain  of  ex 
communication — and  this  not  by  act  of  Parliament,  but  by 
royal  proclamation  of  Sept.  19,  1559. 2  Moreover,  while  the 
bishops  in  the  convocation  of  1562  were  bemoaning  the  slack 
ness  of  the  sheriffs  in  incarcerating  unlucky  excommunicates, 
a  canonist  of  undoubted  orthodoxy,  Ralph  Lever,  presented  to 
the  queen  a  memorial  complaining  of  the  abuses  practised  by 
bishops  and  their  officials  in  excommunicating  without  cause, 
and  in  defiance  of  both  canon  and  statute  law.3  The  temper 
of  the  times  was  against  him,  however,  and  we  have  seen  how 
parliament  yielded  to  the  demands  of  the  bishops,  while  the 
attempted  limitation  of  the  subjects  for  censure  speedily  be 
came  a  dead  letter. 

1  oEliz.  ch.  23   (Statutes  at  Large,  II.  563-5).     Cf.  Blount's  Nomo- 
Lexicon,  s.  v. 

2  Strype's  Annals,  I.  185.  3  n,^].  p.  331. 


512  EXCOMMUNICATION. 

The  act  of  Io62,  in  fact,  was  not  adapted  to  diminish  current 
abuses.     They  grew  and  flourished,  rendering  the  people  dis 
contented,  and  bringing  the  church  into  disrepute.     That  the 
rising  sect  of  puritans  should  protest  and  argue  that  such  cen 
sures  were  without    foundation    in    either    the    Old    or    New 
Testament,1  was  natural  enough,  since  they  were  the  principal 
sufferers  by  the  spiritual   sword   thus  wielded  by  the   secular 
arm  ;  but  a  more  cogent  evidence  of  the  existing  evils  is  fur 
nished  by  the  convocation  of  1580,  when  the  House  of  Bishops 
earnestly  asked  the  lower  house  to  Ira  me  some  measure  whereby 
the  scandals  that  rendered  the  very  name  of  ecclesiastical  cen 
sures   odious  to  the  people   might  be  removed.     That  it  was 
only  the   name  and  not   the  reality  of  the  penalty  that  they 
desired  to  change  is  evident  from  a  paper  laid  before  the  body, 
attributed  by  Strype  to  Archbishop  Grindal,  in   which,  after 
alluding  to  the  extension  of  excommunication  to  petty  offences 
in  violation  of  ancient  custom,  it  is  suggested  that,  except  in 
cases  of  heinous  crime,   the   decree  of  excommunication   shall 
be  altered  to  a  decree  of  contumacy,  this  contumacy  carrying 
with  it  all  the  legal  penalties  and  disabilities  of  excommunica 
tion,    except  deprivation  of   the   sacrament,   and   segregation 
from   the  society  of  the  faithful.2     This  ingenious  proposition 
was   not  adopted,  and  some  six  or  seven  years  later  another 
convocation  again  deplored  the  freedom  with    which   excom 
munication  was  decreed,  often  by  persons  possessing  no  eccle 
siastical  jurisdiction,  and  in   cases  purely   temporal,   such  as 
non-payment  of  legacies,  tithes,  etc.     No  better  remedy  than 
the  previous  one,  however,  could  be  suggested— that  of  denoun 
cing  the  offender  as  contumacious  instead  of  excommunicate.3 
How  little  the  law  had  changed  by  the  change  in  religion  is 
shown  by  a  legal  treatise  of  the  time  which   describes  all  the 
disabilities  of  the  excommunicate  in  the  thirteenth  century  as 
still  in  force.     He  was  regarded  as  of  old  as  a  leper,  and  was 

1  Strype's  Annals,  I.  pp.  523,  584. 

2  Strype's  Grindal,  p.  259  ;  also  Append.  No.  xv. 

3  Ibid.  Append.  No.  xvi. 


THE     REFORMED     CHURCHES.  513 

deprived  of  all  legal  rights.1  It  is  true  that  these  laws  were 
not  in  all  cases  enforced,  and  in  Feb.  1585,  we  find  Sir  Ralph 
Sadler  then  in  charge  of  Queen  Mary  at  Tutbury  complaining 
of  the  number  of  Catholics  in  that  part  of  the  country,  and 
desiring  that  the  Bishop  of  the  diocese  "be  quickened  and 
admonished  from  her  majesty  to  look  better  to  his  flock,  so  as 
they  may  be  induced  to  come  to  the  church  according  to  the 
law,  or  else  that  they  feel  the  smart  of  the  same."  Each  sect 
naturally  desired  to  persecute  all  others,  and  when  Sir  Amias 
Poulet,  who  was  a  Puritan,  obtained  the  stewardship  of  Lord 
Paget's  forfeited  lands  in  the  neighborhood,  he  eagerly  pro 
mised  that  the  number  of  recusants  among  the  tenantry  should 
be  speedily  diminished.2 

The  people  might  complain  of  oppression,  and  religion  might 
be  rendered  odious  by  the  abuse  of  its  most  sacred  mysteries, 
but  the  tendency. of  the  governing  powers  was  towards  arbitrary 
repression,  and  enlightened  liberality  was  not  to  be  expected. 
The  royal  prerogative  sought  to  extend  itself  in  every  direc 
tion,  and  the  crown,  in  its  capacity  of  supreme  head  of  the 
church,  found  spiritual  censures  too  convenient  an  instrument 
of  tyranny  to  abandon  one  jot  of  the  advantage  which  it  thence 
derived  of  evading  or  supplementing  the  common  law.  Among 
his  other  devices  for  illegally  raising  money,  Charles  I.,  in 
1G40,  caused  the  synods  of  Canterbury  and  York  to  levy  a 
"benevolence"  on  the  clergy,  the  payment  of  which  was  en 
forced,  among  other  penalties,  by  excommunication  ;2  and  the 
system  was  recognized  as  so  intolerable  a  burden,  that  when, 
a  few  months  later,  the  Long  Parliament  met,  a  petition  from 
fifteen  thousand  citizens  of  London  described,  among  other 
grievances,  that  the  ecclesiastical  courts  "  claimed  their  calling 
immediately  from  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ;  which  is  against  the 

1  Thcloall,  Le  Digest  des  Briefes  Original,  fol.  19,  20.  Londini,  1579. 

2  Morris's  Letter  Books  of  Sir  Amias  Poulet,  London,  1874,  pp.  23,  60. 

3  This  "  benevolence"  was  carefully  kept  out  of  the  published  proceed 
ings  of  the  synods.   See  the  speeches  in  Parliament  against  it — Parl.  Hist, 
IX.  80,  85,  91-2,  etc. 


514  EXCOMMUNICATION. 

laws  of  this  kingdom,  and  derogatory  to  his  Majesty  and  liis 
state  royal,"  and  further  protested  against  "  The  multitude  of 
canons  formerly  made ;  wherein,  among  other  things,  excom 
munication,  ipso.  facto,  is  denounced  for  speaking  of  a  word 

against  the  devices  aforesaid,  or  subscription  thereunto 

XXIII.  The  great  increase  and  frequency  of  whoredoms  and 
adulteries,  occasioned  by  the  prelates'  corrupt  administration 
of  justice  in  such  cases,  who  taking  upon  themselves  the  pun 
ishment,  of  it  do  turn  all  into  monies  for  the  filling  of  their 
P'H'ses XXIV.  The  general  abuse  of  that  great  ordi 
nance  of  excommunication,  which  God  hath  left  in  his  church 
to  be  the  last  arid  greatest  punishment  the  church  can  inflict 
upon  obstinate  and  great  offenders  ;  and  the  prelates  and  their 
officers,  who  of  right  have  nothing  to  do  with  it,  do  daily  ex 
communicate  men  either  for  doing  that  which  is  lawful,  or  for 
vain,  idle,  and  trivial  matters;  as  working  or  opening  a  shop 
on  a  holy  day;  for  not  appearing,  at  every  beck,  upon  their 
summons  ;  not  paying  a  fee  or  the  like  :  yea,  they  have  made 
it  as  they  do  all  other  things,  a  hook  or  instrument  wherewith 
to  empty  men's  purses,  and  to  advance  their  own  greatness  ; 
and  so  that  sacred  ordinance  of  God,  by  their  perverting  of  it, 
becomes  contemptible  to  all  men,  and  seldom  or  never  used 
against  notorious  offenders,  who,  for  the  most  part,  are  their 
favorites."1 

Even  making  allowance  for  indignant  exaggeration,  this 
shows  how  all  the  abuses  which  led  to  the  Reformation  were 
rapidly  being  revived  and  systematized  in  the  new  establish 
ment.  A  sacerdotal  church  and  caste  were  growing  up  on 
the  pattern  of  the  ancient  hierarchy,  with  the  substitution  of  a 
king  for  a  pope— the  combination  of  spiritual  with  temporal 
tyranny  pointing  inevitably  to  the  establishment  of  a  despotism 
as  complete  as  that  of  the  Cresars.  At  this  moment,  it  is  true, 
a  fresh  impulse  had  been  given  to  popular  indignation  by  the 
action  of  the  synods  of  1640  above  referred  to;  and  a  glance 

1  Pad.  Hist.  IX.  114-20. 


THE    REFORMED     CHURCHES.  515 

at  the  canons  there  adopted  under  the  guidance  of  Laud,  and 
promulgated  by  royal  proclamation  under  the  great  seal,  will 
serve  to  show  how  efficiently  the  censures  of  the  church  were 
being  used  in  aid  of  the  Star  Chamber  and  the  Court  of  High 
Commission,  for  the  purity  of  the  faith  and  the  supremacy  of 
the  crown. 

First  in  the  order  of  the  canons  is  the  declaration  that  "  The 
most  High  and  Sacred  order  of  Kings  is  of  Divine  right,  being 
the  ordinance  of  God  himself,  founded  in  the  prime  laws  of 
nature,  and  clearly  established  by  expresse  texts  both  of  the 
Old  and  New  Testaments.  A  supream  power  is  given  to  this 

most  excellent  Order  by  God  himself  in  the  Scriptures 

The  care  of  God's  church  is  so  committed  to  Kings  in  the 
Scripture,  that  they  are  commended  when  the  Church  keeps 
the  right  way,  and  taxed  when  it  runs  arnisse,  and  therefore 

her  government  belongs  in  chief  unto  Kings For  subjects 

to  bear  arms  against  their  Kings,  offensive  or  defensive,  upon 
any  pretence  whatsoever,  is  at  the  least  to  resist  the  powers 
that  are  ordained  of  God  :  And  though  they  do  not  invade  but 
only  resist,  St.  Paul  tells  them  plainly,  They  shall  receive  to 
themselves  damnation."1  These  comfortable  doctrines  were 
ordered  to  be  read  at  least  once  a  quarter  by  every  parson, 
vicar,  curate,  and  preacher  in  the  kingdom,  and  anyone  main 
taining  the  contrary  was  ordered  to  be  excommunicated  by  the 
royal  commissioners  till  he  should  repent. 

The  precautions  for  enforcing  uniformity  of  religion  were 
still  more  efficacious.  All  Papists,  Socinians,  Anabaptists, 
Brownists,  Separatists,  Familists,  etc.,  were  warned  against 
absenting  themselves  for  a  month  from  their  parish  churches 
without  lawful  impediment,  and  churchwardens  and  sidemen 
were  instructed  to  be  on  the  watch  for  those  who  attended 
church  and  listened  to  the  sermon  without  joining  in  the  services 
or  taking  communion.  Recusants  were  to  be  reported  at  the 

1  Constitutions  and  Canons  Ecclesiastical!,  No.  1.— Published  by  his 
Majesties  Authority,  London,  1640. 


5 1 1>  EXCOMMUNICATION. 

visitations  in  order  to  their  clue  excommunication,  which  was 
to  be  repeated  every  three  months,  both  in  their  parish  church 
and  in  the  cathedral  of  their  diocese.  If  this  proved  ineffectual, 
the  obstinate  offenders  were  to  be  reported  to  the  judges  of 
assize,  and  once  a  year  the  bishops  were  ordered  to  forward  to 
the  high  court  of  chancery  a  list  of  all  who  remained  under 
excommunication  beyond  the  time  allowed  by  law,  with  a  re 
quest  that  writs  de  excommunicate  capiendo  should  forthwith 
be  issued  against  them  ;  and  the  execution  of  these  writs  with 
promptness  and  energy  was  enjoined  on  all  sheriffs  and  their 
deputies.  No  excommunicate  remaining  under  censure  beyond 
the  legal  term  could  be  absolved  by  any  ecclesiastical  court 
without  making  personal  appearance,  and  taking  the  oath 
"  De  parendo  juri  et  stando  majidatis  ecclesias,"  which  placed 
the  unlucky  penitent  completely  at  the  mercy  of  his  ghostly 
persecutors.1 

The  pestilent  invention  of  printing  was  deprived  of  its  ca 
pacity  for  evil  with  the  same  care.  Any  stationer,  printer,  or 
importer  who  might  print,  buy,  sell,  or  disperse  any  book  or 
scandalous  pamphlet  against  the  faith,  discipline,  or  government 
of  the  Church  of  England  was  excommunicate  ipso  facto,  and 
his  name  was  ordered  to  be  sent  to  the  attorney-general  for 
prosecution  "  according  to  the  late  decree  in  the  Honorable 
Court  of  Star  Chamber  against  the  spreaders  of  prohibited 
books."  Any  preacher  who  vented  such  damnable  doctrine  in 
a  sermon  was  to  be  excommunicated  for  a  first  offence,  and  de 
prived  for  a  repetition.  P^ven  the  possession  of  such  books, 
except  by  doctors  of  divinity  in  orders,  graduates  in  divinity, 
or  persons  having  episcopal  or  archidiaconal  jurisdiction,  was 
visited  with  the  same  penalties.  Some  provisions  were  added 
to  prevent  the  decree  of  excommunication  by  persons  not  prop 
erly  qualified,  but  these  were  counterbalanced  by  similar  restric 
tions  laid  on  the  granting  of  absolution.2 

1  See  the  speech  in  Parliament  of  Nathaniel  Finnes.  Rushworth's  Col 
lections,  IV.    109. 

2  Constitutions  and  Canons,  Nos.  3,  4,  5,  14,  15. 


THE     REFORMED     CHURCHES.  5  IT 

Such  regulations  as  these,  agreed  upon  in  a  conclave  of 
prelates,  and  given  the  force  of  law  by  royal  proclamation, 
betokened  a  rapid  concentration  of  spiritual  and  temporal 
despotism  to  which  Englishmen  in  that  age  were  not  likely  to 
submit.  It  is  no  wonder  then  that  one  of  the  first  efforts  of 
the  Long  Parliament  which  assembled  in  Nov.  3640,  was 
directed  against  them,  the  chief  arguments  being  levelled  at 
the  palpable  infringements  on  the  rights  of  Parliament.  So 
fierce  was  the  attack  that  when  the  matter  came  to  a  vote, 
Dec.  16th,  no  one  dared  to  record  himself  against  a  resolution 
which  declared  "  That  the  Canons  and  Constitutions  Eccle 
siastical,  treated  upon  by  the  Archbishops  of  Canterbury  and 
York,  Presidents  of  the  Convocations  for  the  respective  Pro 
vinces  of  Canterbury  and  York,  and  the  rest  of  the  Bishops 
and  Clergy  of  these  Provinces,  and  agreed  upon  with  the 
King's  Majesty's  license  in  their  several  Synods  begun  at 
London  and  York  in  the  year  1640,  do  contain  in  them  matin- 
contrary  to  the  King's  Prerogative,  to  the  fundamental  Laws 
and  Statutes  of  the  Realm,  to  the  Rights  of  Parliament,  to  the 
Property  and  Liberty  of  the  Subject,  and  Matters  tending  to 
Sedition  and  of  dangerous  consequence."1  The  proceedings 
against  Strafford  and  Laud,  with  the  pressure  of  the  tumultuous 
business  of  that  revolutionary  time,  prevented  the  early  action 
of  the  Lords  on  this  resolution,  but  at  length,  June  12th,  1641, 
it  received  their  assent,  notwithstanding  that  Hall,  Bishop  of 
Exeter,  endeavored  to  shift  to  the  shoulders  of  the  king  the 
whole  responsibility  :  "  It  is  le  Roy  le  veif.lt  that  of  Bills  makes 
Laws.  So  was  it  for  us  to  do  in  the  Matter  of  Canons ;  we 
might  propound  some  such  constitutions  as  we  should  think 
mi«-ht  be  useful ;  but  when  we  have  done  we  send  them  to  his 

73 

majesty,  who,  perusing  them  cum  avisamento  concilii  sm,  and 
approving  them  puts  Life  into  them  ;  and  of  dead  Propositions 
makes  them  Canons  :  as,  therefore,  the  Laws  are  the  King's 
laws  and  not.  ours,  so  are  the  Canons  the  King's  Canons  and 

J  Rush  worth,  IV.  112. 
44 


518  EXCOMMUNICATION. 

not  the  Clergy's.  Think  thus  of  them,  and  then  draw  what 
conclusions  you  please."1  The  conclusions  which  it  pleased 
the  Commons  to  draw  were  not  agreeable  to  the  good  bishop, 
for  on  August  3d  he  was  impeached,  with  thirteen  others,  for 
their  share  in  the  business.2 

As  the  puritan  cause  advanced,  its  ministers  naturally  sought 
to  secure  for  themselves  the  powers  which  were  slipping  from 
the  grasp  of  the  heads  of  the  established  church  ;  and  the  As 
sembly  of  Westminster,  in  1645,  asserted  the  power  of  the 
keys  by  divine  appointment  and  not  by  the  laws  of  the  land, 
with  a  distinctness  worthy  of  Rome  herself.  It  framed  accord 
ingly  a  scheme  of  church-government  which  lodged  in  each 
congregational  assembly  the  prerogative  which  we  have  seen 
exercised  by  the  kirk-sessions  of  Scotland.3  Parliament,  how 
ever,  was  not  disposed  to  abandon  any  of  its  rights  as  the 
supreme  law-making  and  law-dispensing  body,  and  an  earnest 
controversy  arose  between  it  and  the  Assembly.  To  the  great 
disgust  of  the  extreme  puritans,  this  resulted  in  the  complete 
assertion  of  secular  control  over  the  church.  An  act  was 
passed  conferring  on  the  congregational  assemblies  the  right  to 
suspend  from  communion  in  certain  specified  cases  and  in 
accordance  with  a  prescribed  form  of  trial,  but  all  persons  so 
excommunicated  were  empowered  to  appeal  to  the  classical 
assemblies,  the  synods,  and  finally  to  Parliament  itself.4  Thus 
not  only  were  the  pretensions  of  the  Jus  Divinum  scouted,  but 
the  very  exercise  of  control  over  the  sacraments  was  subordi 
nated  to  the  civil  authority. 

It  is  hardly  worth  while  to  pursue  the  subject  further,  for  all 
these  questions  were  practically  settled  by  the  Great  Rebel 
lion  ;  and,  when  the  storm  was  past,  England,  in  its  final  re 
construction,  gradually  outgrew  the  spiritual  terrors  which  yet 
lingered  on  the  statute-book.  When,  in  1667,  Cuthbert  Har- 

1  Parl.  Hist.  IX.  351-3.  2  Ibi(L  p-  407< 

3  Neal's  Hist,  of  Puritans,  Vol.  II.  p.  194,  and  Append.   No.  3  (Ed. 
1754). 

4  Rushworth,  VI.  210-12. 


THE    REFORMED     CHURCHES.  519 

rison,  who,  after  ordination  in  the  Church  of  England,  rendered 
himself  disagreeably  conspicuous  as  a  nonconformist,  was  ex 
communicated  and  forcibly  put  out  of  his  parish  church  of 
Kirkham  by  the  vicar,  named  Clegg,  the  latter  sued  him  for 
the  fine  of  twenty  shillings  per  month  for  six  months'  non- 
attendance  at  divine  service.  Harrison  proved  that  he  had 
presented  himself  once  in  every  two  months,  and  had  been 
ejected  by  the  plaintiff,  and  the  judge  in  his  charge  to  the  jury 
described  the  defendant's  position  as  "  There  is  a  fiddle  to  be 
hanged  and  a  fiddle  not  to  be  hanged,"  dwelling  upon  the  in 
consistency  of  excommunicating  a  man,  preventing  him  from 
going  to  church,  and  then  fining  him  for  not  going.  The  jury 
took  the  same  view  of  the  law,  and  found  for  the  defendant, 
with  costs  on  the  plaintiff.1  There  was  evidently  scant  en 
couragement  for  zealous  upholders  of  church  discipline,  and 
it  need  not  surprise  us  to  find,  in  the  opening  years  of  the 
eighteenth  century,  honest  Joseph  Bingham.  deploring  the 
laxity  which  had  pervaded  the  church  ever  since  men's  minds 
had  been  perverted  in  the  Rebellion.  Three  communions  per 
annum  were  still  obligatory,  and  the  pastor  was  bound  to  pre 
sent  as  notorious  delinquents  all  who  did  not  obey  the  rule; 
but  experience  showed  that,  especially  in  country  parishes  (and 
Bingham  was  a  country  parson),  it  was  impossible  to  force  the 
laity  to  obey  the  law,  and  that  it  was  equally  useless  to  present 
them  for  the  disobedience.2 

Yet  a  legal  author  of  the  latter  part  of  the  last  century  de 
scribes  all  the  old  forms  as  being  still  in  force — the  writ  de 
excommunicato  capiendo  being  issued  after  forty  days  allowed 
for  repentance,  and  the  excommunicate  being  disabled  from 
executing  a  will,  serving  on  juries,  appearing  as  a  witness,  or 
bringing  an  action  at  law.3  At  length,  in  1814,  the  change 

1  London  Athenaeum,  August  29th,  1874,  from  "Fishwick's  History  of 
the  Parish  of  Kirkham." 

2  Bingham's  Antiquities,  chap.  ix.  §§  7,  8. 

3  Burn's  Law  Dictionary,  Dublin,  1792,  p.  280. 


520  EXCOMMUNICATION. 

suggested  by  Grindal  in  1580  was  made,  of  substituting  a  writ 
de  contumace  capiendo  for  the  older  form,  but  it  worked  no 
substantial  change  in  the  principles  involved.1  Practically, 
however,  it  appears  to  be  little  more  than  providing  for  the 
ecclesiastical  courts  a  counterpart  of  the  "contempt"  with 
which  the  secular  tribunals  enforce  their  jurisdiction.  A  church 
which  is  subjected  to  a  free  state  becomes  insensibly  moulded 
to  suit  the  average  of  public  opinion  ;  and  those  who  were 
concerned  in  the  prosecution  of  Bishop  Colenso  have  probably 
acknowledged  that  in  the  nineteenth  century  it  is  not  easy  to 
bring  the  rigors  of  ecclesiastical  law  to  bear  against  any  man. 


From  this  long  history  of  oppression  and  wrong  we  may 
learn  how  easily  the  greed,  the  ambition,  or  the  bigotry  of 
man  can  convert  to  the  worst  purposes  the  most  beneficent  of 
creeds ;  and  how  unequal  is  our  weak  human  nature  to  the 
exercise  of  irresponsible  authority.  Honest  fanaticism  and 
unscrupulous  selfishness  have  vied  with  each  other  in  using  as 
a  weapon  for  the  subjugation  of  body  and  soul  the  brightest 
promises  made  by  a  benignant  Saviour  to  his  children  ;  and 
every  increase  of  power  has  been  marked  by  an  increase  in  its 
abuse.  It  is  a  saddening  thought  that  a  religion,  so  ennobling 
and  so  purifying  in  its  essence,  should  have  accomplished  so 
little  for  humanity  in  this  life,  and  that  the  ages  in  which  it 
ruled  the  heart  and  intellect  most  completely  should  be  those 
in  which  its  influence  was  the  least  efficient  for  good  and  the 
most  potent  for  evil.  Its  great  central  principles  of  love,  and 
charity,  and  self-sacrifice  seem  ever  to  have  found  their  most 
determined  enemies  in  those  who  had  assumed  its  ministry 
and  had  bound  themselves  to  its  service  ;  and  every  conquest 
made  by  its  spirit  has  been  won  against  the  earnest  resistance 
of  its  special  defenders.  Even  though  the  last  two  centuries 
have  been  marked  by  a  development  of  true  Christianity,  still 

1  53  Geo.  III.  c.  137,  §  2  (Wharton's  Law  Diet.  P.  v.). 


THE    REFORMED    CHURCHES.  521 

the  old  arrogance  and  uricharitableness  exist.  Indifferentism 
and  irreligion  are  assumed  to  be  the  motives  of  men  who  most 
earnestly  strive  to  obey  the  laws  of  Christ ;  and  it  would  scarce 
be  safer  now  than  in  the  thirteenth  century  to  intrust  temporal 
authority  to  those  who  claim  to  represent  the  Redeemer  and 
His  Apostles. 

There  is  much,  then,  to  be  done  ere  the  precepts  of  the  Gos 
pel  can  truly  be  said  to  control  the  lives  and  the  characters  of 
men  ;  and  all  who  are  earnest  in  the  good  work  can  derive 
from  the  errors  and  the  follies  of  the  past  not  only  a  noble  zeal 
of  indignation  to  nerve  them  afresh  for  the  long  struggle,  but 
also  hopeful  encouragement  for  the  future  in  measuring  the 
progress  of  these  latter  days. 


44* 


THE  EARLY  CHURCH  AND  SLAVERY. 


THE  subjects  which  we  have  been  considering  have  ex 
hibited  the  church  in  some  of  its  worst  aspects.  We 
have  seen  how  the  lusts  of  the  world  made  the  precepts  of 
Christ  minister  to  human  pride  and  ambition,  until  the  most 
absolute  of  theocracies  arose  from  a  religion  of  peace,  and  love, 
and  charity.  It  is  a  relief,  therefore,  to  turn  to  a  theme  which 
shows  the  church  in  a  different  light,  more  nearly  true  to  the 
great  principles  on  which  it  was  founded,  and  exerting  its  moral 
influence  and  its  material  power  for  the  elevation  of  man. 

That  Christ  rejected  as  incompatible  with  his  great  mission 
all  direct  interference  with  the  existing  organization  of  society 
is  self-evident.  He  preached  non-resistance  and  subordination 
to  the  powers  that  be.  His  object  was  not  to  found  a  sect  like 
Islam,  which  should  go  forth  to  conquer  the  infidel,  with  the 
gospel  in  one  hand  and  the  sword  in  the  other,  but  to  regene 
rate  human  nature,  so  that  in  the  long  succession  of  centuries 
man  should  be  purified  and  evil  suffer  a  gradual  but  a  perma 
nent  overthrow.  When  he  proclaimed  the  principle  of  the 
Golden  Rule  ;  when  St.  Paul  bade  Plrlemon  to  take  back  the 
fugitive  Onesimus  not  as  a  slave  but  above  a  slave,  a  brother 
beloved  ;  when  he  ordered  masters  to  grant  justice  and  equality 
to  slaves  for  the  sake  of  the  Master  of  all,  the  rules  of  life  were 
laid  down,  which,  conscientiously  followed,  must  render  slavery 
finally  impossible  among  Christians.  Precepts  were  thus 
enunciated  for  man's  guidance,  and  he  was  left  to  apply  them 


524     THE  EARLY  CHURCH  AND  SLAVERY. 

to  the  best  of  his  imperfect  ability.  How  imperfect  that  was, 
we  have  had  ample  proof  in  the  preceding  pages  ;  and  instead 
of  wondering,  as  some  have  done,  that  slavery  was  not  ex 
tinguished  as  soon  as  the  Christian  religion  became  dominant, 
the  only  cause  for  surprise  is  that  the  rapidly  developing  greed 
of  power  and  spirit  of  aggrandizement  did  riot  lend  themselves 
to  the  aggravation  of  slavery,  even  as  they  aided  in  the  per 
petuation  of  so  many  old  abuses  or  replaced  them  by  new  forms 
of  despotism. 

The  world  into  which  Christianity  was  born  recognized 
slavery  everywhere.  Practised  by  all  races  from  time  im 
memorial,  permitted  by  all  religions,  regulated  by  all  codes,  it 
was  apparently  an  institution  as  inseparable  from  society  as  the 
relationship  of  parent  and  child.  What  were  the  restrictions 
laid  upon  it  in  the  Mosaic  code  or  the  customs  which  guarded 
it  among  the  Greeks  are  foreign  to  my  present  purpose,  but  it 
is  worth  while  to  cast  a  glance  at  slavery  as  it  existed  in  Rome, 
whose  laws  were  dominant  and  rapidly  superseded  all  others 
throughout  the  region  destined  to  receive  and  believe  the  truths 
of  the  Gospel. 

In  Rome,  as  elsewhere,  slavery  had  its  origin  in  war.  The 
vanquished  enemy,  exposed  by  the  cruel  public  law  of  the  age 
to  the  caprice  of  the  victor,  could  be  put  to  death.  If  he  was 
allowed  to  live,  it  could  only  be  to  devote  his  forfeited  life  to 
the  service  of  him  to  whom  it  belonged,  and  the  very  name  of 
slave — servus  or  mancipium — was  derived  from  the  fact  that 
he  was  saved  from  death  or  captured  by  the  hand  of  the  master.1 
Slavery  was  not  regarded  as  the  natural  portion  of  any  race  or 
people.  In  the  abstract,  liberty  alone  was  natural,  and  slavery 
was  an  unnatural  condition,  deriving  its  existence  from  law 
and  custom  only.2  As  Ulpian  expresses  it,  although  by  the 

1  Servi  autum  ex  eo  appellati  sunt,  quod  iraperatores  captives  vendei'e 
jubent,  ac  per  hoc  servare  nee  occidere  solent :  qui  etiam  maucipia  dicti 
sunt,  eo  quod  ab  hostibus  manu  capiantur. — L.  4.  Dig.  i.  v. 

2  Libertas  est  naturalis  facultas  ejus  quod  cuique  facere  libet,  nisi  si 
quid  vi  aut  jure  prohibetur.     Servitus  est  constitutio  juris  gentium,  qua 


SLAVERY    IN     ROME. 


525 


civil  law  slaves  were  nothing,  yet  by  natural  law  all  men  are 
equal.1     Freedom  was  virtually  imprescriptible.     In  the  earlier 
ages  of  the  empire,   the   freeman   who   was    his   own   master 
could  in  no  way  be  reduced  to  slavery.     Even  if  he  sold  him 
self  into  servitude,  the    bargain   could  not   be  enforced,  and 
swindlers  were  wont  to  take  advantage  of  this  principle^  by 
personating  slaves  and  having  themselves  sold  by  an  accomplice, 
with  whom  they  shared  the  proceeds,  leaving  the  unlucky  pur 
chaser  without  redress.      This   became  so   prevalent   that  to 
suppress  it  a  law  was  enacted  under  the  empire  (probably  the 
Senatusconsultum  Claudiamim)  which  reduced  to  slavery  the 
knave  who  thus  speculated  on   the  reverence  of  the  law  for 
freedom  ;  yet  even  in  these  flagrant  cases,  the  most  scrupulous 
care  was   shown   to   guard   the  interests   of   liberty.      If    the 
sharper  were  less  than  twenty  years  old,  he  could  claim  his 
freedom  on  attaining  that  age  ;  if  the  purchaser  knew  that  he 
was  a  freeman,  or  if  the  freeman  were  ignorant  of  his  freedom, 
the  sale  was  null,  and  the  purchaser  lost  the  purchase  money. 
To  enforce  the  penalty,  moreover,  it  was  necessary  to  prove 
that  the  simulated  slave  had  received  a  share  of  the  spoils.2 
It  is  true  that  among  the  primitive  Romans  the  military  char 
acter  of  their   institutions   doomed  to  servitude  the  man  who 
endeavored  to  escape  the  obligation  of  defending  his  country  in 
arms.      The  Republic,   it  was   sternly   said,    needed  no   such 
citizens.3     As  early  as  the  close  of  the-second  century  A.  D., 
however,   Arrius  Menander  speaks  of  this  law  as  merely  an 
antiquarian  curiosity.4     In  early  times,  moreover,  penal  servi 
tude,  to  a  greater  or  less  degree,  was  also  inflicted  on  the  pro 
fessional  robber,  the  bankrupt  debtor,  and  the  citizen  who  kept 

quis  domino  alieno  contra  naturam  subjicitur.— 7&fcZ.-These  passages  are 
attributed  in  the  Digest  to  Florentine,  a  jurisconsult  who  nourished 
about  A.  D.  230. 

1  L.  32.  Dig.L.  xvii.  (Ulpian). 

2  L.  7.  Dig.  XL.  xii.— L.  1.  Dig.  XL.  xiii.  (Ulpian). 

3  Valer.  Max.i.iii.  4. 

*  L.  4.  §  10.  Dig.  XLIX.  xvi.  (Arrius  Menander). 


526     THE  EARLY  CHURCH  AND  SLAVERY. 

his  name  from  the  census,  but  with  the  softening  of  manners 
all  these  regulations  disappeared.  Suetonius  says  that  Augustus 
revived  a  forgotten  law  by  punishing  with  confiscation  and 
loss  of  liberty  a  knight  who  mutilated  his  two  sons  to  exempt 
them  from  military  service  ;T  but  Arrius  specifies  deportation 
as  the  penalty  for  this  crime  under  Trajan,2  and  the  same 
prince  decided  in  favor  of  the  freedom  of  children  exposed  by 
their  parents  and  brought  up  as  slaves  by  those  who  had  found 
them;  even  the  expenses  of  their  support  could  not  be  demanded.3 
Thus  under  the  empire  it  was  almost  impossible  for  a  freeman 
to  forfeit  his  liberty. 

There  was  but  one  way,  too,  by  which  a  woman  could  be 
reduced  to  slavery,  and  it  was  likewise  instituted  by  the  law  of 
Claudius.      If  a  woman,  knowing  herself  to  be  free,  married  a 
slave  and  refused  to  leave  him  on  being  duly  warned  by  her 
husband's   master,  she  became    his   slave;  but  if  she  believed 
herself  to  be  a  slave  she  was  not  made  to  suffer  for  her  ignorance, 
and  if  she  were  n  fill af  a  mi  lias  who  had  thus  degraded  herself 
without  the  consent  of  her  father,  she  was  likewise  protected.* 
With  such   religious   care  were   doubtful   points   construed   in 
favor  of  freedom,  that,  if  a  woman  became  a  slave  during  preg 
nancy,  her  child  was  born  free;  if  a  female  slave  was°manu- 
mitted  during  pregnancy,  the  child  was  free;  and  if  after  her 
manumission  she  relapsed  into  slavery  before  the  birth  of  her 
child,  her  momentary  freedom  was  sufficient  to  insure  the  per 
petual  freedom  of  the  offspring.5    Thus  slavery  was  merely  the 
creature  of  law,  and  the  law  was  held  in  all  cases  to  favor  the 
natural  right  of  freedom. 

Yet,  as  though  to  compensate  for  this  reverence  for  liberty, 
Roman  slavery  was  hard  and  unrelenting.  The  right  of  the 
master  was  supreme.  The  stern  and  unbending  character  of 

1  August,  xxiv. 

2  L.  4.  §  H.  Dig.  XLIX.  xvi.  (Arrius  Menander). 

3  C.  Pliu.  Secund.  Lib.  x.  Epist.72. 

4  Pauli  Lib.  ii.  Sent.  Recept.  Tit.  xxi.  A. 

5  Ejusd.  Tit.  xxiv. 


SLAVERY    IN    ROME.  527 

the  race  was  shown  in  all  its  institutions,  and  principles  once 
admitted  were  carried  out  to  their  logical  results  with  all  the 
severity  of  a  mathematical  demonstration.  I  have  just  quoted 
a  dictum  of  Ulpian's  that,  in  the  eyes  of  the  law,  slaves  were 
nothing.  From  the  primitive  days  of  the  republic,  the  power 
of  a  father  over  his  children  knew  no  limit.  Their  life  and 
death  were  in  his  hands  ;  he.could  sell  them  into  slavery,  and 
the  son  was  liberated  from  the  patria  potestas  only  by  being 
thrice  thus  sold  and  returned,  which  became  the  legal  formula 
for  emancipating  him  from  parental  control.1  That  no  limit 
should  be  placed  on  the  power  of  the  paterfamilias  over  the 
bondsman  whom  he  had  captured  in  war,  bought  with  his 
money,  or  had  born  to  him  in  his  household,  was  therefore 
but  reasonable.  No  humanizing  laws,  like  those  of  Moses,  re 
strained  the  passions  or  caprices  of  the  master.  In  those  early 
times,  indeed,  open  and  wanton  cruelty  was  probably  not  com 
mon  and  was  condemned  by  public  opinion,  the  sensitiveness 
of  which  is  shown  by  the  story  of  Antronius  Maximus.  When, 
in  A.  U.  C.  264,  previous  to  the  opening  of  the  games,  he 
drove  with  stripes  around  the  circus  a  slave  fastened  to  a 
yoke,  it  provoked  the  interposition  of  the  gods.  Jupiter  ap 
peared  in  a  vision  to  a  certain  Aunius  and  ordered  him  to 
announce  to  the  Senate  the  divine  indignation  at  the  outrage. 
As  Aunius  hesitated,  he  received  a  warning  in  the  sudden 
death  of  his  son.  A  second  vision  was  likewise  unheeded, 

1  Legg.  XII.  Tab.  iv.  (Ulpian.  Frag.  Tit.  x.  §  1).  Though  critics  may 
reasonably  object  to  the  genuineness  of  all  the  fragments  attributed  to 
the  decemviral  legislation,  there  can  be  little  doubt  that  they  reflect  the 
primitive  customs  of  the  Romans. 

In  process  of  time,  however,  this  paternal  power  of  sale  was  abrogated 
in  favor  of  the  inalienable  rights  of  freedom.  "  Qui  contemplatione  ex- 
tremse  necessitatis,  aut  alimentorum  gratia  tilios  suos  vendiderint,  statui 
ingenuitatis  eorum  non  prsejudicant :  homo  enim  liber  nullo  prcetio  cesti- 
matur."  (Pauli  Sent.  Recept.  Lib.  v.  Tit.  i.  §  1.)  Yet  the  pressure  of 
misery  continued  to  produce  such  transactions,  and  Diocletian  was  ob 
liged  to  again  assert  their  nullity  (Const.  I.  Cod.  Lib.  TV.  Tit.  xliii.), 
though  not  long  afterwards  Constantine  seems  to  have  thought  that  the 
right  had  never  existed  (Lib.  iv.  Cod.  Theod.  viii.  2). 


528     THE  EARLY  CHURCH  AND  SLAVERY. 

when  he  was  himself  attacked  with  mortal  illness.  Yielding 
at  length,  he  was  carried  to  the  Senate,  where,  on  fulfilling 
his  mission,  he  was  suddenly  restored  to  health,  and  the  Senate 
passed  the  Msevian  law,  which  added  another  day  to  the  exer 
cises  of  the  circus,  as  a  propitiation  to  the  offended  deity.1 

In  these  early  times  slaves  were  comparatively  few.  Citizens 
were  wanted  in  the  infant  state,  and  the  neighboring  tribes 
when  subdued  were  brought  to  Rome  to  increase  the  numbers 
of  the  people  and  not  to  minister  to  an  idleness  and  luxury  as 
yet  unknown  in  the  simplicity  of  manners.  As  the  Roman 
conquests  spread,  however,  the  captives  became  an  important 
portion  of  the  spoils,  and  they  were  sent  home  in  myriads  to 
gratify  the  pride  and  add  to  the  wealth  of  the  victor.  When, 
in  A.  U.  C.  544,  Fabius  sacked  Tarentum,  thirty  thousand 
slaves  were  added  to  the  population  of  Rome  ;2  and  forty  years 
later,  at  the  close  of  the  third  Macedonian  war,  L.  ^Emilius 
Paullus  reduced  to  slavery  one  hundred  and  fifty  thousand 
Epirots.3  A  slave-trade  prosecuted  on  sucli  a  scale,  co-ope 
rating  with  the  natural  increase,  rapidly  swelled  their  numbers 
to  an  extent  which  renders  not  improbable  the  assertion  of 
Athenasus  that  wealthy  proprietors  owned  sometimes  from  ten 
to  twenty  thousand,  and  even  more.4  We  learn  from  Livy 
that  portions  of  Italy,  anciently  populous  with  freemen,  were 
even  in  his  time  occupied  almost  exclusively  by  slaves  ;5  and 
when  the  Conscript  Fathers  feared  to  give  them  a  peculiar 
dress,  in  dread  of  the  possible  consequences  when  they  should 
be  enabled  to  recognize  the  comparative  fewness  of  the  free 
men,6  we  are  almost  ready  to  accept  the  calculation  of  Gibbon, 
who  estimates  that  under  Claudius  the  slave  population  was 
equal  to  the  free,  each  comprising  about  sixty  millions  of 
souls.7 

1  Macrob.  Saturnal.  i.  xi.  2  T.  Liv.  xxvu.  xvi. 

3  Ibid.  XLV.  xxxiv.  *  Deipnosoph.  vi.  vii. 

5  T.  Liv.  vi.  xii. 

6  L.  A.  Senecse  de  Clement,  i.  xxiv. 
T  Decline  and  Fall,  chap.  n. 


SLAVERY     IN     ROME.  529 

Under  such  circumstances  the  lot  of  the  bondsman  could  not 
but  become  harder.  In  the  ages  of  primitive  simplicity,  the 
slave  was  valuable,  and  was  rather  an  humble  companion  than 
a  slave.1  When  massed  in  countless  numbers,  and  sold  at  an 
inconsiderable  price,  his  position  in  the  social  scale  became 
naturally  enormously  depressed.2  In  the  early  days  of  the 
republic,  we  have  seen  that  the  unmerciful  beating  of  a  slave 
in  the  circus  was  deemed  worthy  the  interposition  of  the  gods. 
In  the  early  days  of  the  empire,  Vedius  Pollio  was  in  the 
habit  of  feeding  the  fish  intended  for  his  table  with  the  living 
slaves  who  chanced  to  displease  him.  On  one  occasion  when 
Augustus  was  supping  with  him,  Vedius  ordered  this  discipline 
for  a  slave  who  happened  to  break  a  glass.  The  unhappy 
wretch  threw  himself  at  the  Emperor's  feet  and  implored 
his  intercession  to  secure  for  him  some  less  frightful  death. 
Augustus,  who  was  not  naturally  cruel,  freed  the  slave,  and 
punished  Pollio  by  having  all  his  glass  broken  on  the  spot, 
and  causing  his  cannibal  fish-pond  to  be  filled  up.3  Juvenal, 
therefore,  can  scarcely  be  deemed  an  unfaithful  delineator  of 
the  manners  of  the  time,  when  he  makes  the  Roman  matron 
crucify  her  slaves  from  no  motive  but  the  caprice  of  the  mo 
ment,  while  she  characterizes  as  insanity  the  inquiry  whether 
he  also  was  not  a  human  being.4  The  well-known  story  of 

1  Macrob.Saturnal.  i.  xi. 

2  According  to  Horace  (Sat.  n.  vii.  43),  the  value  of  a  common  slave 
was  500  drachrmB,   equiviiL-i.it  to   about  one  hundred   dollars   of  our 
money — 

—  Quid  si  me  stultior  ipso 
Quingeutis  surnpto  drachmis  depreiideris  ? 

When  the  wealth  of  the  world  was  concentrated  in  Rome,  so  trifling  a 
value  could  offer  no  check  to  the  capricious  cruelty  of  the  master. 

3  L.  A.  Senec.  de  Clement,  i.  xviii.— de  Ira  in.  xl.—  Perhaps  the  Em 
peror  shuddered  at  the  thought  that  some  of  Pollio's  slaves  might  have 
been  served  up  to  him  in  a  matelotte. 

4  Pone  cvucem  servo. — Meruit  quo  crirnine  servns 
Supplicium?     Quis  testis  adest?     Uius  dctulit?     Audi, 
Nulla  unquam  do  morte  horniuis  cunctatio  longa  est. 
0  demeiis,  ita  servus  homo  est?     Nil  t'ecerit,  esto  ; 
Hoc  volo,  sic  jubeo,  sit  pro  ratione  voluntas. — 8at.  vi.  218. 

45 


530     THE  EARLY  CHURCH  AND  SLAVERY. 

Epictetus  aptly  illustrates  the  unlimited  despotism  to  which 
the  unfortunate  class  was  exposed.  Placed  on  the  rack  to 
gratify  a  whim  of  his  master  Epaphroditus,  the  stoic  quietly 
remarked — "  You  will  break  my  leg  presently" — and  then,  as 
the  bone  snapped,  he  added,  "  I  told  you  that  you  would  break 
rny  leg."  It  is  easy  to  understand  the  origin  of  the  Roman 
proverb,  "Totidem  esse  hostes  quot  servos,"  when  masters 
were  in  the  habit  of  exposing  their  invalid  slaves  to  escape  the 
expense  of  nursing  them,  and  the  utmost,  that  the  law  could  do 
for  them  was  to  decree  that  those  who  chanced  to  recover 
should  be  liberated  from  their  inhuman  owners.1  In  fact,  the 
L.  AquiJia  rates  slaves  literally  as  cattle,  for  whom  their  mas 
ters  were  to  be  reimbursed  at  their  full  value,  when  any  one 
else  indulged  in  the  luxury  of  maliciously  killing  them,  and 
this  would  appear  to  be  the  only  safeguard  vouchsafed  them 
by  the  law.'2 

Such  institutions  could  only  be  maintained  by  a  system  of 
rigorous  terrorism.  All  masters  of  course  were  not  equally 
cruel,  and  instances  are  not  wanting  where  slaves  heroically 
sacrificed  themselves  to  save  their  owners'  lives3,  but  most  men 
deem  it  easier  to  rule  by  force  than  by  affection,  and  the 
Roman  laws  took  it  for  granted  that  safety  was  only  to  be  ob 
tained  through  cruelty.  During  the  second  Punic  war,  twenty- 
five  slaves  detected  in  a  conspiracy  were  promptly  crucified.4 
When  the  terrible  rebellion  of  the  Sicilian  slaves  was  quenched 
in  blood,  the  miserable  remnant  of  those  spared  by  the  sword, 
a  thousand  in  number,  were  sent  to  Rome  and  devoted  to  the 
beasts  of  the  amphitheatre,  to  escape  which  they  mutually 
slaughtered  each  other  to  the  last  man.5  Of  the  seventy-five 

1  Sueton.  Claud,  xxv.— Dion.  Cass.  Hist.  Roman.  Lib.  LX.  (Ed.  1592 
p.  788). 

2  L.  2  §  1  Dig.  ix.  ii.   (Ulpian).     The  ancient  Egyptians  were  more 
humane.     According  to  Diodorus  Siculus  (Lib.  i.  cap.  77)  they  punished 
impartially  with  death  the  homicide  both  of  slaves  and  freemen. 

3  Macrob.  Saturnal.  i.  xi. — Senec.  de  Berieflc.  in.  xxiii.  sqq. 

4  T.  Liviixxn.  xxxiii. 

5  Diodor.  Sicul.  Lib.  xxxvi. 


SLAVERY     IN     ROME.  531 

thousand  who,  according  to  Livy,  were  destroyed  in  suppress 
ing  the  revolt  of  Spartacus,  thousands  were  impaled  or  crucified 
and  planted  along  the  road-sides  as  a  warning.  The  safety  of 
the  private  citizen  was  guarded  with  the  same  merciless  care. 
IF  a  master  was  murdered  in  his  own  house,  all  his  household 
slaves  were  put  to  death,  on  the  presumption  that  some  of  them 
must  have  been  privy  to  the  crime,  and  that  thus  alone  could 
all  the  guilty  be  reached  and  the  servile  population  be  taught 
that  their  master's  life  was  necessary  to  their  own.  Thus, 
in  A.  D.  62,  when  Pedaneus  Secundus,  Prefect  of  the  city, 
was  slain  under  his  own  roof  by  a  slave  whom  he  had  wronged, 
four  hundred  unfortunates  were  executed  in  obedience  to  this 
cruel  custom.  Such  instances,  however,  must  have  been  rare, 
for  the  Senate  was  urgently  called  upon  to  interfere,  and  the 
streets  had  to  be  lined  with  soldiers  to  prevent  the  populace 
from  rescuing  the  victims.1 

In  other  respects  also  the  position  of  the  slave  grew  worse  in 
the  early  years  of  the  empire,  for  difficulties  were  thrown  in  the 
way  of  manumission,  and  the  liberation  of  the  freedman  was 
compromised.  Under  the  republic,  the  master  might  liberate 
his  slave  either  by  the  ceremony  of  the  rod  (vindicta)  in  open 
court,  or  by  having  him  inscribed  in  the  quinquennial  census, 
or  by  will,  and  the  freedman  obtained  the  rights  of  citizenship.2 
When  slaves  were  few  and  valuable,  in  early  times,  this  facility 
of  manumission  produced  but  little,  evil,  but  as  their  numbers 
increased  and  their  value  diminished,  the  class  of  freedmen 
became  enormously  enlarged.  Even  in  the  second  Punic  war, 
when  the  slaughter  of  Thrasymene  and  Cannae  left  the  state 
almost  without  defenders,  the  expedient  was  adopted  of  enlist 
ing  slaves  as  volunteers,  when  eight  thousand  promptly  enrolled 
themselves  and  were  purchased  for  the  public.  They  did 
noble  service  at  Beneventum,  and  were  rewarded  with  their 


1  Tacit.  Annal.  xiv.  xlii.-xlv. 

2  Frag.  Vet.  Jcti.  de  Manumiss.  §  5  (Hugo,  Jus.  Civil.  Antejustin.  I. 
253). 


532     THE  EARLY  CHURCH  AND  SLAVERY. 

liberty.1  During  the  successive  furious  civil  wars  which 
marked  the  closing  years  of  the  republic,  this  example  was 
followed  by  the  several  factions,  which  recruited  their  armies 
with  vast  numbers  of  slaves,  liberated  for  the  purpose.  When 
Augustus  undertook  to  construct  a  new  and  stable  order  of 
things,  he  took  exception  to  this  growing  class  of  freedmen, 
and  laid  restrictions  on  the  indiscriminate  practice  of  manu 
mission,  especially  as  regards  the  rights  of  citizenship  involved 
in  it.2  Thus  the  law  jElia  Sentia,  adopted  in  A.  D.  4,  for 
bade  the  liberation  of  any  slave  under  the  age  of  thirty,  or  by 
any  master  under  the  age  of  twenty,  except  when  the  act  was 
approved  by  a  board  of  five  senators  and  five  knights  in  Rome, 
or  of  twenty  magistrates  in  the  provinces.  All  manumissions 
in  violation  of  these  provisions,  and  all  which  defrauded  credi 
tors  were  pronounced  null  and  void.3  The  expressions  of  Sue 
tonius  would  imply  moreover  greater  restrictions  than  appear 
in  the  law  as  it  has  reached  us,  and  it  is  probable  that  it  may 
have  contained  other  clauses,  or  that  still  severer  edicts  were 
promulgated  which  were  subsequently  repealed,  and  thus  have 
not  been  alluded  to  by  the  later  jurisconsults.  Another  re 
striction  of  considerable  importance  was  instituted  in  A.  D.  9 
by  the  L.  Furia  Canina^  which  prohibited  the  liberation  bv 

1  T.  Livii  xxii.  Ivii.  ;  xxiv.  xv.  xvi.  After  serving-  for  a  year,  the 
slaves  began  to  clamor  for  their  freedom.  In  the  face  of  the  enemy  at 
Beneveutum,  T.  Sempronius  Gracchus  promised  that  if  they  gained  the 
victory,  each  one  who  should  bring  him  the  head  of  a  foe  should  be  man 
umitted.  Encouraged  by  this,  they  commenced  the  attack  with  great 
fury,  but  as  each  one  dispatched  an  antagonist,  he  paused  to  cut  off  the 
head,  the  encumbrance  of  which  rendered  him  subsequently  almost  use 
less.  Gracchus,  finding  himself  on  the  point  of  defeat  from  this  cause, 
proclaimed  that  all  should  be  freed  in  the  event  of  victory.  This 
answered  the  purpose,  and  the  Carthaginians  were  defeated  with  heavy 
slaughter. 

2  Sueton.  August,  xl. 

3  Ulpian.  Frasr.   Tit.  i.  §§  11,  12.— Gaii  Lib.  i.  Tnstit.  Tit.  i.  $$  4,  5.— 
The  references  to  Gaius  are  made  to  the  older  edition,  extracted  from  the 
Breviarium  Alaricianum  (Hugo,  op.  cit.  1. 187)  as  I  have  not  access  to  the 
complete  copy  published  from  a  palimpsest  discovered  by  Niebuhr  and 
Savigny  in  1816. 


SLAVERY     IN     ROME.  533 

testament  of  more  than  a  certain  proportion  of  the  slaves  of  a 
decedent.  Thus  of  three,  but  one  could  be  set  free ;  from  three 
to  ten,  not  more  than  one-half;  from  ten  to  thirty,  but  one- 
third  ;  from  thirty  to  one  hundred,  but  one-fourth  ;  from  one 
hundred  to  five  hundred,  but  one-fifth,  while  one  hundred  was 
the  largest  number  which  any  proprietor  could  set  free  in  his 
will.1  It  is  not  difficult  to  estimate  the  influence  which  this 
must  have  had  in  restraining  the  posthumous  liberality  which 
is  so  easy,  and  which  in  Rome  had  long  been  a  favorite  with 
the  ostentatious  who  desired  their  obsequies  to  be  attended  by 
long  lines  of  freedmen  wearing  the  caps  that  denoted  their  con 
dition.2 

At  the  same  time  considerable  changes  for  the  worse  were 
introduced  in  the  condition  of  the  freedman.  The  L.  Mlia 
Sentia  created  a  class  called  dedititii.  Any  slave  guilty  of 
crime  was  prohibited  from  attaining  the  dignity  of  citizenship, 
and  on  manumission  became  a  dedititius.  He  could  never  rise 
to  citizenship,  he  was  incapable  of  receiving  legacies,  and  as  he 
could  not  execute  a  will,  whatever  property  he  accumulated 
reverted  on  his  death  to  his  former  master  or  patron.  In 
A.  D.  19,  a  third  class  of  freedmen,  known  as  Latini,  was 
created  by  the  L.  Junia  Norbana.  These  were  manumitted 
without  the  intervention  of  the  public  authorities,  by  a  simple 
declaration  or  writing  of  the  master.  They  were  not  admitted 
to  citizenship,  but  had  the  position  of  Latin  colonists.  In  cer 
tain  cases,  the  civil  magistrate  could  remand  them  into  slavery 
or  the  patron  might,  by  the  vindicta  or  by  will,  elevate  them 
to  citizenship.3  Like  the  dedititii,  they  were  incapable  of 
devising  property,  and  their  estates  reverted  to  the  patron  or 
his  family  on  their  death.4  Subsequent  laws,  however,  granted 

i   Ulpian.  Frag.  Tit,  i.  §§  24,  25.— Pauli  Sent.  Recept.  Lib.  iv.  Tit.  xiv. 

§4- 

-  Dion.  Halicar.  iv.  xxiv. 

a  Ulpian.  Frag.  Tit.   i.   §  10.— Gaii.    Lib.  I.  §§2,  4.— Frag.   Vet.  Jcti. 
§§  8-16. 

4  Instil,  in.  vii.  4. 

45* 


534     THE  EARLY  CHURCH  AND  SLAVERY. 

citizenship  to  the  Latin  us  who  served  ten  years  in  the  army, 
who  built  a  ship  of  ten  thousand  bushels  capacity  and  sailed  it 
six  years  in  bringing  corn  to  Rome,  who  constructed  a  certain 
number  of  buildings,  who  established  a  bakery,  etc.1 

These  were  not  the  only  restrictions  imposed  on  the  liberated 
slave.  Under  the  Roman  law  the  relations  between  the  freed- 
man  and  his  patron,  or  former  master,  were  peculiar.  The 
master  might  manumit  a  slave  under  conditions,  and  thus  re 
quire  the  continued  rendering  of  service;  and  even  when  the 
manumission  was  unconditional,  the  dependence  was  by  no 
means  removed.  The  slave  was  born  into  liberty  by  means  of 
his  master,  who  thus  was  his  second  father,  and  the  same 
reverence  was  due  to  him  as  to  a  parent.2  The  ingratitude  of 
a  freedman  towards  his  patron  was  therefore  a  crime  punish 
able  by  law,  and  the  magistrates  were  directed  to  chastise  any 
neglect  of  duty,  with  a  threat  of  increasing  punishment  for 
repetitions  of  offence.  Insults  were  visited  with  temporary 
exile,  and  blows  or  delation  with  condemnation  to  the  mines.3 
The  patron  had  also  claims  on  the  estate  of  the  freedman.  As 
early  as  the  laws  of  the  Twelve  Tables,  he  was  sole  heir  when 
the  freedman  died  intestate  and  without  heirs,  or  with  heirs  not 
recognized  as  legal,  or  with  a  will  and  without  heirs.  Under 
the  empire,  if  a  freedman  had  no  children,  one  half  of  his 
estate  went  to  the  patron,  and  if  his  will  neglected  to  make 
this  provision,  the  law  stepped  in  and  effected  the  partition.4 

Claudius  sought  to  render  still  more  precarious  the  illusory 
liberty  enjoyed  by  the  freedman.  He  punished  by  confiscating 
to  the  state  those  who  aspired  to  the  equestrian  order,  which 
was  beyond  the  sphere  allotted  to  them  by  law,  and  he  re 
manded  to  ^servitude  all  who  manifested  ingratitude  or  gave 
cause  of  complaint  to  their  patrons.5  Not  content  with  this, 

1  Ulpian.  Frag.  Tit,  in. 

2  L.  2.  Dig.  xxxvir.  xv.  (Julian.)     Ibid.  1.  9.   (Ulpian). 

3  L.  1.  Dig.  xxxvu.  xiv.  (Ulpian). 

4  Ulpian.  Frag.  Tit,  xxix.  §  1. 

5  Sueton.  Claud,  xxv.— The  imperial  jurisprudence  on  the  subject  of 
froedmcn  would  almost  seem  to  have  been  derived  from  the  immemorial 


SLAVERY     IN     ROME.  535 

be  put  to  death  large  numbers  of  those  who  under  Tiberius 
and  Caligula  had  turned  informers  against  their  patrons.1 

Up  to  this  time,  therefore,  the  condition  of  the  servile  classes 
had  become  steadily  worse.  The  only  efforts  in  their  favor 
were  the  L.  Petronia,  which,  in  A.  D.  11,  prohibited  the  master 
from  devoting  his  slaves  to  combat  with  the  beasts,  unless  with 
the  approval  of  a  magistrate,2  and  a  law  of  Claudius  which 
treated  as  murder  the  deliberate  killing  of  an  infirm  slave 
to  save  the  expense  of  his  cure.8  There  was  no  other  restric 
tion  on  his  absolute  control  over  life  and  limb,  and  the  sole  re 
source  of  the  slave  was  to  seek  if  possible  a  momentary  asylum 
in  some  temple  or  at  a  statue  of  the  emperor,  forcible  removal 
from  which  incurred  the  penalty  of  sacrilege  or  of  treason.4 

This  appears  to  be  the  turning  point,  as  all  subsequent  legis 
lation  tended  to  the  amelioration  of  the  servile  condition. 
Under  Nero,  Seneca  alludes  to  magistrates  whose  duty  it  was 
to  investigate  cases  of  cruelty  committed  on  slaves,  and  to  re 
press  the  severity  of  masters,  their  lusts,  and  the  avarice  which 
would  deny  to  the  slave  the  necessaries  of  life.5  This,  however, 
can  scarcely  be  regarded  as  a  formal  custom  of  the  empire, 
since  otherwise  the  reforms  of  Hadrian  would  scarcely  have 
been  called  for.  The  latter  prohibited  the  murder  of  slaves  by 
their  masters,  ordering  them  when  guilty  to  have  a  trial  before 
the  regular  judges.  He  forbade  their  sale  for  prostitution  or 
the  arena  without  cause.  He  endeavored  to  do  away  with  the 
private  dungeons  which  formed  so  horrible  a  feature  of  Roman 

legislation  of  India,  which  declared  the  complete  emancipation  of  the 
servile  class  to  be  impossible— "  A  Sudra,  even  if  manumitted  by  his 
master,  is  not  released  from  the  condition  of  servitude,  for  who  can  re 
lieve  him  from  that  condition  which  is  his  nature ?— Laws  of  Mann,  Bk. 
vni.  st.4U. 

1  Dion.  Cass.  Hist.  Roman.  Lib.  LX.  (Ed.  1593,  p.  774). 

2  L.  11,  §§  1,  2  Dig.  XLVIII.  viii.  (Modestin.) 

3  Sueton.  Claud,  xxv. 

4  Senecpe  de  Clement,  i.  xviii.     Cf.  Const,  vi.  Cod.  r.  xii.  ;  §  "2  Instit. 
i.  viii. 

•>  Senecse  de  Benef.  Lib.  m.  cap.  22. 


536     THE  EARLY  CHURCH  AND  SLAVERY. 

slavery  ;  and  he  ordered  that  where  a  master  was  killed  within 
his  own  house  only  those  slaves  whose  proximity  to  the  scene  of 
the  crime  exposed  them  to  reasonable  suspicion  should  be  held 
accountable.1  That  these  humane  provisions  were  not  merely 
theoretical  reforms  is  evident  when  he  gave  to  the  world  a  practi 
cal  illustration  of  his  detestation  for  wanton  cruelty  by  punishing 
with  five  years  of  exile  an  Umbrician  matron  who  had  maltreated 
her  slaves  with  atrocious  severity.2  About  the  year  1GO  A.  D. 
the  best  of  the  Coesars,  Antoninus  Pius,  decreed  that  the  master 
who  wantonly  killed  a  slave  should  be  subjected  to  the  same 
punishment  as  though  it  had  been  the  slave  of  another3 — the 
penalty  being  prosecution  under  the  L.  Cornelia  de  Sicariis  or 
the  L.  Aquilia*  This  put  an  end  to  the  unlimited  power  of  the 
master,  and  a  jurisconsult  of  the  period  expressly  states  that  in 
future  no  slave  can  be  put  to  death  purposely,  except  by  judi 
cial  sentence,  though  the  master  would  still  be  held  harmless 
if  the  slave  died  under  punishment  not  administered  with  that 
intention.5  Antoninus  Pius  also  decreed  that,  when  a  slave 
was  exposed  to  intolerable  oppression,  the  magistrates  on  ap 
peal  could  oblige  the  master  to  sell  him  on  reasonable  terms. 
How  great  was  this  innovation  is  shown  by  the  deprecatory 
expressions  of  the  emperor,  disclaiming  a  desire  to  interfere 
with  the  rights  of  the  master,  and  arguing  that  it  is  for  his  in 
terest  that  his  slaves  should  have  some  chance  of  escape  from 
cruelty  and  hunger.6  To  the  same  period  may  be  attributed 
the  dictum  of  the  Roman  law  that  all  doubtful  cases  involving 

1  Spartian.  Hadrian,  xvin. 

2  L.  2  Dig.  i.  vi.  (Ulpiau).  *  L.  1  Dig.  i.  vi.  (Gaius). 

4  L.  23  §  9  Dig.  ix.  ii.  (Ulpiau).    The  L.  Aquilia  permitted  the  master 
of  a  murdered  slave  to  sue  for  the  value  of  the  slave  (L.  1  Dig.  ix.  ii.). 
This  of  course  was  inapplicable  to  the  case  of  a  man  killing  his  own  slave. 
The  L.  Cornelia  originally  permitted  homicide  with  deportation  and  con 
fiscation,  but  Marcian  states  that  in  his  time  (c.  200  A.  D.)  this  was  only 
practised  with  men  of  rank.     The  middle  classes  suffered  beheading,  and 
the  rabble  were  given  to  the  wild  beasts  (L.  3  §  5  Dig.  XLVIII.  viii.). 

5  Gaii  Lib.  i.  Instit.  iii.  §  1. 

6  §  2  Instit,  i.  viii.— L.  2  Dig.  i.  vi.  (Ulpian). 


INFLUENCE     OF     CHRISTIANITY.  537 

slavery  should  be  decided  in  favor  of  libeity.1  Yet  still,  not 
withstanding  the  influence  of  the  Stoic  philosophy  which  taught 
the  common  brotherhood  of  man,  so  little  of  humanity  was 
recognized  in  the  slave  that  the  law  did  not  consider  him  able 
to  commit  incest,  even  after  manumission,  and  a  jurist  of  the 
period,  in  stating  that  a  freedman  cannot  marry  his  mother  or 
his  sister,  is  careful  to  add  that  this  prohibition  is  not  derived 
from  the  law  but  from  morals.2  Slavery  was  so  brutalizing 
that  even  the  freedman  was  still  a  brute  in  the  eyes  of  the 
legislator. 

Such  was  the  institution  of  slavery  in  the  Roman  world 
when  Christianity-  emerged  from  its  obscurity.  Slaveholding, 
if  not  approved,  was  at  least  tolerated  in  the  early  church,  and 
abundant  evidence  exists  that  it  was  in  no  sense  regarded  as 
an  infraction  of  discipline.  To  have  made  it  an  article  of  faith, 
or  a  rule  that  the  Christian  should  own  no  slaves,  would  have 
been  to  threaten  the  structure  of  civil  society,  and  to  give  color 
to  the  political  accusations  which  were  the  pretext  of  successive 
persecutions.  Yet  short  of  this  everything  was  done  to  render 
slavery  nominal. 

That  to  liberate  the  bondsman  was  recognized  and  applauded 
as  a  good  wrork  is  shown  not  only  by  the  frequent  instances  of 
those  who  at  their  baptism  gave  freedom  to  their  slaves,  as  in 
the  case  of  Chromatius  in  284, 3  but  by  Lactantius  when  he 
placed  it  in  the  same  line  of  duty  as  other  acts  of  charity.4  In 
deed,  the  liberation  of  slaves  and  of  martyrs  condemned  for 
the  faith  are  classed  in  the  same  category,  as  objects  to  be  as 
sisted  from  the  oblations  of  the  churches,  in  the  earliest  extant 
code  of  Christian  law,  dating  probably  from  the  end  of  the  third 
century.3 

1  L.  20  Dig.  L.  xvii.  (Pornporiius). 

2  L.  8  Dig.  xxiu.  ii.  (Pomponius).        3  Baron.  Annal.  ann.  284  No.  15. 

4  Lactant.  Instit.  Divin.  Lib.  vi.  cap.  12. — He  even  urges  it  upon  the 
pagans  whom  he  desires  to  convert — •'  Uncle  bestias  erais,  hinc  captos 
redirne,  unde  feras  pascis,  hinc  pauperes  ale.'' 

5  Constit.  Apostol.  Lib.  iv.  cap.  9. 


538     THE  EARLY  CHURCH  AND  SLAVERY. 

To  the  Christian  the  slave  was  no  longer  a  chattel ;  lie  was 
a  man  and  a  brother.  St.  Ambrose,  in  his  tract  on  Joseph,  is 
careful  to  show  by  the  career  of  the  patriarch,  that  the  slave 
may  be  superior  to  his  master,  and  he  laboriously  enforces  the 
conclusion  that  the  only  slavery  to  be  dreaded  is  that  of  the 
passions,  for  sin  is  the  real  servitude,  and  innocence  the  only 
freedom.1  St.  Augustine  declares  that  the  owner's  property 
in  a  slave  is  not  that  which  is  held  in  a  horse  or  a  treasure, 
and  that  the  Gospel  precept  of  non-resistance  is  not  to  be 
obeyed  when  it  might  conflict  with  his  welfare,2  thus  assuming 
it  to  be  rather  a  trust  than  an  ownership.  This  denegation  of 
the  absolute  property  of  man  in  man  was  not  a  suggestion 
merely  of  the  fifth  century,  for  it  is  shown  tacitly  but  forcibly 
in  the  Apostolic  constitutions,  where,  in  alluding  to  the  tenth 
commandment  the  man-servant  and  maid-servant  are  omitted 
in  the  enumeration,  as  if  they  were  not  possessions  which  could 
be  coveted  to  the  injury  of  a  neighbor.3 

The  only  justification  for  slavery  that  the  early  fathers  could 
suggest  was  that  it  was  a  punishment  for  transgression,  and  the 
persistence  with  which  St.  Augustine  recurs  to  this  idea  shows 
how  fully  he  realized  the  difficulty  of  reconciling  the  institution 
witli  the  goodness  and  justice  of  God.4  Yet  in  attributing  the 
origin  of  slavery  to  the  Noachian  curse,  there  was  no  belief 
felt  in  the  modern  idea  that  the  posterity  of  Ham  were  to  be 
perpetually  in  bondage.  The  sacrifice  of  Christ  was  held  to 
have  released  them,  and  they  shared  in  the  atonement  as  fully 
as  the  rest  of  mankind.5  Slaves  were  called  brothers,  and  con- 

1  S.  Ambrosii  de  Joseph  Patriarch,  cap.  iv.  §§  20,  21.     In  this  and 
similar  teachings  of  the  fathers  there  is  much  of  the  Stoic  philosophy, 
with  the  substitution  of  sinlessness  for  the  ideal  of  human  dignity  and 
self-sufficiency  which  was  the  aim  of  such  moralists  as  Epictetus. 

2  Augustin.  de  Serm.  Domini  in  Monte  Lib.  i.  cap.  30. 

3  Constit.  Apostol.  vu.  iv. 

4  Augustin.  Sentent.  clxiv.— Cf.  de   Civ.  Dei   Lib.  xix.  cap.  15.— De 
Genesi  Lib.  ix. — Qusest.  sup.  Genesim  Lib.  i.  No.  153,  etc. 

5  Justin.    Martyr.    Dial,  cum   Tryphone. — Cf.   Ambros.   Comment,  in 
Epist.  i.  ad  Corinth,  cap.  vii. ;  Augustin.  de  Verb.  Domin.  Serm.  xxvi. 


INFLUENCE     OF    CHRISTIANITY.  539 

sidered  to  be  equals.  Lactantius,  in  his  exposition  of  Christian 
doctrine  formally  addressed  to  the  Emperor  Constantine,  not 
only  assumes  this  on  general  principles,  since  all  are  children 
of  one  God,  but  asserts  in  the  most  explicit  manner  that, 
among  Christians,  slaves  and  masters  were  practically  all 
brethren  and  all  on  an  equality  j1  and  that  this  was  the  teach 
ing  of  the  church  is  shown  by  passages  in  Minucius  Felix  and 
the  Apostolic  Constitutions.'2 

This  of  course  did  not  interfere  with  the  legal  relations  be 
tween  master  and  slave,  which  were  fully  recognized  by  the 
church  ;3  but  the  authority  of  the  master  was  to  be  exercised 
as  that  of  a  parent  over  his  children,  for  the  benefit  of  those 
under  his  care.4  St.  Ignatius  found  time,  on  his  journey  to 
wards  martyrdom  in  Rome,  to  include  among  his  concise  ex 
hortations  to  the  Smyrnceans  a  few  words  urging  masters  not 
to  look  down  upon  their  slaves  and  slaves  not  to  become  proud.3 
Invidious  distinctions  between  the  classes  were  carefully  re 
moved.  Thus  among  Christians  the  slave  was  admitted  as  a 
witness  ;6  and  in  the  minute  directions  respecting  public  wor 
ship,  while  men  and  women  were  separated,  and  each  sex  was 
arranged  in  careful  gradations  as  to  age  and  position,  there  is 
no  direction  to  segregate  the  slave  from  the  freeman7 — in  the 
house  of  God  all  were  on  an  equality.  Cruelty  to  slaves  was 
reprobated  in  the  strongest  manner,  even  to  the  extent  of  re 
fusing  the  oblations  of  harsh  masters — which  was  tantamount 
to  excommunication — as  gifts  coming  from  those  hateful  to 
God,  and  as  unfit  to  be  used  in  ministering  to  the  wants  of  the 
widow  and  the  orphan.8 

1  Lactant.  Instit.  Divin.  Lib.  v.  cap.  xiv.  xv. 

2  M.  Minuc.  Felic.  Octavius.— Constit.  Apostol.  Lib.  v.  cap.  xii. 

3  Constit.  Apostol.  iv.  xii. ;  vn.  xiv. 

4  Lactant.  de  Ira  Dei  xviii. 

5  "Servos  et  ancillas  ne  despicias  :  sed  neque  ipsi  inflentiir  ;  sed  in 
gloriam  Dei  plus  serviaut,  ut  meliori  libertate  a  Deo  potiantur." — Epist. 
ad  Polycarp.  cap.  iv.  (Cure-ton,  Corp.  Ignat.  p.  8).     This  epistle,  I  be 
lieve,  is  admitted  on  all  hands  to  be  genuine. 

(i  Constit.  Apostol.  n.  liii.  "  Ibid.  n.  Ixi.  *  Ibid.  iv.  vi. 


540     THE  EARLY  CHURCH  AND  SLAVERY. 

Marriage  between  slaves,  which  in  the  eye  of  the  law  was 
merely  a  contiibernium  or  cohabiting,  was  regarded  among  the 
faithful  as  binding;  and  the  close  supervision  exercised  over 
the  welfare  of  their  dependents  is  illustrated  by  a  curious 
passage  which  directs  masters,  under  pain  of  excommunication, 
to  provide  spouses  for  those  whose  passions  would  otherwise 
lead  them  into  sin.1  Regular  prayers  in  the  Litany  were 
offered  for  brethren  enduring  the  hardships  of  servitude.2  No 
master  was  allowed  to  make  them  work  more  than  live  days  in 
the  week,  both  Saturday  and  Sunday  being  days  of  rest,  and 
numerous  additional  holidays  were  allowed  them,  including 
two  weeks  at  Easter,  all  the  principal  festivals  of  the  church, 
and  the  frequent  anniversaries  of  the  martyrs.3 

At  the  same  time  a  most  prudent  care  was  exercised  to 
avoid  increasing  the  odium  attaching  to  Christianity  by  any 
interference  with  the  legal  rights  of  those  who  still  labored  in 
the  darkness  of  paganism.  The  slave  of  an  unbeliever,  on 
being  admitted  to  the  church,  was  specially  exhorted  to  strive 
for  the  good  graces  of  his  master,  that  the  Word  of  God  might 
not  suffer  in  the  estimation  of  the  heathen,4  and  even  sin  w^as 
tolerated  when  it  was  committed  at  the  command  of  an  owner 
who  had  the  legal  power  to  enforce  it.5 

Such  being  the  tendency  of  the  church  while  it  was  com 
pelled  to  observe  extreme  circumspection  in  its  relations  with 
a  jealous  and  persecuting  system  of  society,  and  while,  under 
the  divine  precepts,  it  had  to  render  implicit  obedience  to 
hostile  laws  and  magistrates,  it  might  have  been  expected 
when  emancipated  to  use  its  influence  in  moulding  those  laws 
to  accordance  with  its  principles.  Those  principles,  as  we 
have  seen,  would  have  led  directly  to  universal  emancipation. 

Why  this  was  not  the  case,  however,  is  susceptible  of  easy 
explanation.  In  becoming  the  religion  of  the  state,  Chris- 

1  Constit.  Apostol.  vm.  xxxviii.  2  Ibid.  vin.  xiii.,  xix. 

3  Ibid.  vin.  xxxix.  *  Ibid.  vm.  xxxviii. 


Ibid.  vm.  xxxviii. 


INFLUENCE    OF    THE     CHURCH.  541 

tianity  merely  exchanged  an  external  for  an  internal  master. 
The  time  had  not  yet  come  when  it  could  control  the  state, 
and  meanwhile,  as  an  affair  of  state  it  was  necessarily  con 
trolled  by  the  state.  Even  more  ruinous  to  its  purity  was  the 
exchange  of  persecution  for  corruption.  As  long  as  there  was 
hazard  in  professing  Christianity,  the  majority  of  Christians 
were  religious  by  conviction,  and  carried  their  religion  into 
their  daily  life.  When,  however,  the  church  was  taken  into 
favor  by  the  monarch,  arid  offered  splendid  prizes  to  reward 
the  ambitious,  it  became  crowded  with  men  whose  object  was 
self-aggrandizement,  and  whose  restless  talents  speedily  enabled 
them  to  dominate  the  humble  and  conscientious.  With  wealth 
and  power  came  conservatism.  The  interest  of  the  church 
was  no  longer  identical  with  that  of  religion,  and  in  any  con 
flict  between  the  two,  the  latter  was  sure  to  succumb. 

Other  causes  were  also  at  work  to  prevent  any  earnest  efforts 
towards  so  great  a  reform  as  emancipation.  Such  ardent  souls 
as  were  not  seduced  by  the  temptations  of  ambition  had  ample 
occupation  provided  for  them.  Paganism  was  still  but  half 
overthrown  and  had  to  be  energetically  combated,  while  the 
great  heresies  which  threatened  the  existence  of  the  church 
organization  afforded  an  ample  field  for  religious  zeal  and  ag 
gressive  energy.  But,  more  than  till,  the  pure  and  unselfish 
were  fast  yielding  to  the  ascetic  spirit  which  thenceforth  was 
to  become  the  peculiar  characteristic  of  Christianity.  Mon- 
tanism  and  Catharism,  together  with  oriental  influences,  of 
which  Manichreism  is  the  most  conspicuous  example,  greatly 
strengthened  the  ascetic  tendencies  which  are  to  be  found  even 
in  the  Gospels.  The  Saviour  had  taught  us  to  despise  the  allure 
ments  of  earth  when  weighed  against  the  prospects  of  Heaven, 
and  to  look  upon  faith  and  righteousness  as  the  only  things 
worthy  of  serious  endeavor.  These  teachings  were  elaborated 
and  exaggerated  into  a  stoicism  beyond  the  reach  of  Epictetus 
himself.  The  believer  must  devote  himself  wholly  to  his  own 
salvation ;  wife,  children,  friends  must  be  set  aside,  and 
earthly  joy  and  grief  must  become  purely  indifferent.  Men 
46 


4 

542  THE     EARLY     C  II  U  R  C  II     AND     SLAVTRY. 

possessed  with  these  convictions  could  not  be  expected  to 
bestow  a  thought  on  the  fleeting  wrongs  and  woes  of  slaves. 
Even  as  early  as  the  second  century,  Tatian  boasts  of  the  in 
difference  which  he  assumes  as  to  freedom  or  slavery.1  When 
the  spirit  of  asceticism  became  dominant,  and  when  Antony 
and  Pachornius  were  peopling  the  deserts  with  thousands  of 
cenobites,  who  would  stop  to  pity  the  fate  of  a  slave  whose 
worst  extremes  of  ill-usage  were  luxury  compared  with  the 
frantic  hardships  self-inflicted  by  those  saintly  men  ? 

AVhile  thus  the  disposition  to  interfere  with  slavery  as  an 
institution  was  weakened  among  those  who  controlled  the 
church,  the  power  to  do  so  effectually  also  was  wanting.  The 
"  clinical  baptism"  of  Constantine  shows  that  worldly  motives 
had  at  least  a  part  witli  religious  conviction  in  producing  his 
conversion.  He  sought  to  consolidate  his  power  and  to  found 
a  dynasty.  The  Christians  were  active  and  hopeful,  and  were 
daily  growing  more  numerous,  and  it  was  safer  to  side  with  the 
growing  than  with  the  declining  religion.  Yet  the  reaction 
under  Julian  shows  that  parties  were  not  so  unequally  balanced 
as  to  render  it  safe  for  him  unnecessarily  to  irritate  those  whom 
he  had  deserted.  A  general  emancipation  of  the  slaves  would 
have  produced  a  social  convulsion  most  dangerous  to  his  own 
power  and  to  the  prospects  of  his  dynasty,  and  Constantine 
would  have  turned  a  deaf  ear  to  any  suggestions  of  impolitic 
fanaticism.  Without  him  the  church  could  do  nothin°r.  The 

O 

emperor  was  its  ruler  in  all  things,  temporal,  and  temporal 
things  merged  so  imperceptibly  into  spiritual,  that  even  in  the 
latter  he  was  virtually  supreme. 

These  various  causes  were  amply  sufficient  to  prevent  any 
general  measures  tending  directly  or  remotely  to  emancipation, 
and  yet  the  influence  of  Christianity  was  not  long  in  making 
itself  felt  on  the  spirit  of  legislation.  Almost  immediately 
after  his  conversion  Constantine  issued  an  edict,  which  was 
evidently  suggested  by  his  priestly  advisers,  and  which  was 
destined  to  have  a  powerful  effect  on  the  progress  of  freedom. 

1  Tatiani  Assvr.  Orat.  contra  Graecos. 


INFLUENCE     OF     THE     CHURCH.  543 

Besides  the  old  forms  of  manumission  known  to  the  Roman 
law,  he  introduced  a  new  one,  by  which  a  slave  could  be 
liberated  at  the  altar,  in  presence  of  the  bishop,  on  the  simple 
execution  of  a  paper  testifying  to  the  fact.  Subsequent  laws, 
in  31 G  and  321,  extended  and  perfected  the  system,  under 
which  citizenship  was  conferred  on  all  slaves  thus  manumitted  ; 
and,  as  a  peculiar  favor,  ecclesiastics  were  permitted  to  enfran 
chise  their  bondsmen  by  a  simple  declaration,  and  without 
either  witnesses  or  writings.1  Not  only  were  many  of  the 
obstacles  formerly  thrown  in  the  way  of  manumission  thus  re 
moved,  but  the  influence  of  religion  was  declared  to  be  altogether 
in  favor  of  liberty.  The  law  was  so  understood,  and,  a  hundred 
years  later,  Sozornen  refers  to  it  as  a  conspicuous  illustration 
of  Constantino's  piety  and  Christian  fervor.  So  thoroughly, 
indeed,  had  it  thus  become  identified  with  freedom,  that  it  was 
customarily  inscribed  at  the  head  of  all  deeds  of  manumission  :2 
and  in  process  of  time,  as  we  shall  see,  it  enabled  the  church 
to  become  the  especial  patron  and  protector  of  freedom. 

That  the  church  itself  took  a  lively  practical  interest  in  the 
matter  is  not  simply  conjectural,  for,  at  the  commencement  of 
the  fifth  century,  the  bishops  of  Africa  sent  a  special  mission 
to  Rome  to  ask  that  the  custom  might  be  extended  to  their 
province,  which,  apparently,  had  not  been  included  in  the  legis 
lation  of  Constantino.3  How  much  the  manumission  of  a  slave 
was  held  by  the  ecclesiastical  authorities  to  be  an  act  acceptable 
to  God  is  also  shown  in  the  custom  which  led  to  the  per 
formances  of  the  ceremony  during  the  solemnities  of  Easter, 
along  with  other  charitable  works.4 

1  Const.  1,  2.  Cod.  i.  xiii.— Lib.  TV.  Cod.  Theod.  vii.  1.— It  is  a  note 
worthy  fact  that  a  formula  for  manumission  at  the  altar  in  Germany,  at 
the  commencement  of  the  tenth  century,  drawn  up  to  conform  to  a  capi 
tulary  issued  by  Louis  le  Debonnaire  in  8LO,  shows  the  profound  impres 
sions  left  by  the  imperial  jurisprudence  in  declaring  that  the  slave  thus 
set  free  shall  enjoy  all  the  privileges  of  freedom  "  sicut  alii  cives  Romani." 
— Reginon.  Prumens.  Canon.  Lib.  I.  cap.  ccci. 

2  Sozomen.  Hist.  Eccles.  i.  ix. 

3  Concil.  Carthag.  ann.  401,  can.  7,  17. 

4  Gregor.  Nyssens.  Orat.  3  de  Resur.  Christ,  (ap.  Gothofred.). 


544  THE     EARLY     CHURCH     AND     SLAVERY. 

These  regulations  were  followed  by  various  laws  favoring 
liberty  and  ameliorating  the  condition  of  the  slave.     A  con 
stitution  of  314,  strengthened  by  one  in  323,  declared  that  no 
lapse  of   time  conferred  prescription   on  an    owner  who   had 
bought  or  brought  up  a  freeman  as  a  slave.1     Another  law,  of 
which  the  exact  date  is  doubtful,  sought  to  prevent  one  of  the 
most  cruel  wrongs  of  slavery,  by  forbidding  all  separation  of 
families  in  the  division  of  estates,  "  for  who,"  says  the  emperor, 
"  can  endure  that  children  shall   be   torn  from  their  parents, 
sisters  from    their  brothers,   or  wives  from   their   husbands?" 
Those  who  had  thus  abused  their  power  were  ordered  to  re 
unite    the    severed  kindred,  and    the    magistrates  were    com 
manded  to   see  that  in   future   no  cause  should  be   given  for 
complaints  on  the  subject.2     One  of  the  disabilities  attaching 
to   the   servile   condition  was  that    no   one  whose  liberty  was 
assailed   in   court  could  defend  himself,  since,  if  lie  failed  to 
prove  his  freedom,  he  would  have  been  engaged  in  a  legal  con 
test  with  his  master,  which  the  law  regarded  as  an  inadmissible 
incongruity.     Therefore,  in  all  such  cases,  the  defendant  was 
obliged  to  appear  by  an  "  assertor,"  and  it  was  not  always  easy 
for  him  to  obtain  a  freeman  to  perform  this  friendly  office.     In 
322  Constantine  issued  an  edict  which  greatly  enlarged  the 
facilities  for  procuring  a  sponsor  of  this  kind,  and  which  more 
over  inflicted  severe  penalties  on  the  claimant  if  he  failed  to 
prove  his   asserted  right.3     The  life  of  the  slave  was  further 
protected  by  edicts  in  319  and  32(>,  far  in  advance  of  the  humane 
legislation  of  the   Antonines,  for  they  denounced  as  guilty  of 
homicide  the  master  who  should  wantonly,  or  intentionally,  or 
by  any  cruel  or  unusual  punishment  cause  the  death  of  a  bonds 
man.4     A  blow,  though  an  ineffectual  one,  was  also  struck  at 
one  of  the  worst  abuses  of  Roman  slavery,  by  a  law  which  pro 
hibited  the  gladiatorial  profession,  whether  assumed  voluntarily 
or  enforced.5     A  law  of  329,  moreover,  revives  the  ancient  pro- 

1  Lib.  iv.  Cod.  Theod.  viii.  2.— Const.  3.  Cod.  vn.  xxii. 

2  Lib.  IT.  Cod.  Theod.  xxv.  »  Lib.  iv.  Cod.  Theod.  viii.  1. 
4  Lib.  iv.  Cod.  Theod.  ix.  1,  2.                5  Lib.  xv.  Cod.  Theod.  xii.  1. 


INFLUENCE     OF     THE     CHURCH.  545 

vision  that  an  infant  sold  into  slavery  by  those  loo  poor  to 
bring  it  up  could  always  be  redeemed  at  a  fair  price  ;l  and  it, 
in  331,  he  modified  the  rule  of  Trajan  which  enabled  a  found 
ling  brought  up  as  a  slave  to  claim  his  freedom,  it  was  for  the 
purpose  of  encouraging  the  preservation  of  the  numerous  un 
fortunates  exposed  in  consequence  of  the  misery  of  their  parents.  * 
These  regulations  went  far  towards  recognizing  the  slave  as 
a  human  being,  entitled  to  legal  guarantees,  and  they  removed 
some  of  the  more  abhorrent  features  of  the  Roman  slave  code. 
Yet  Constantine  was  by  no  means  consistent  in  this,  and  his 
legislation  varied,  as  perhaps  the  Christian  or  the  Pagan 
parties  predominated.  Thus  some  of  his  laws  maintain  with 
extreme  jealousy  the  rights  of  masters  and  patrons,  and  the 
worst  of  class  distinctions.  An  edict  of  314  rendered  still 
more  severe  the  odious  Senatusconsultnm  Claudianum,  which 
condemned  to  slavery  a  free  woman  with  her  offspring,  who 
voluntarily  connected  herself  with  a  slave,  for  it  abrogated  the 
necessity  of  three  preliminary  warnings  to  the  wretched  wife.3 
In  317  he  restored  the  warnings,4  and  in  320  he  introduced 
a  relaxation  in  favor  of  fiscal  slaves,  whose  wives  might  be 
free,  and  whose  children  be  Latini?  In  320,  however,  he 
issued  an  edict  of  great  severity,  by  which  a  woman  connect 
ing  herself  with  her  own  slave  was  put  to  death,  and  her  ac 
complice  burnt,  while  the  children  of  such  a  union  were 
reduced  to  simple  freedom,  without  rank  or  honors  or  capacity 
of  inheritance  ;  and  even  slaves  were  not  only  permitted  to 
bring  accusations  of  this  kind  against  their  mistresses,  but  were 
encouraged  to  do  so  by  the  offer  of  freedom.0  The  children  of 
a  female  slave  were  always  slaves,  even  when  the  father  was 
the  master,  and  in  321  Constantine  declared  that  the  sixteen 
years'  prescription  which  conferred  freedom  was  not  applica 
ble  to  cases  where  a  freeman  had  offspring  by  a  slave  and 

1  Lib.  v.  Cod.  Theod.  vii.  1.  2  Lib.  v.  Cod.  Theod.  vii.  1. 

»  Lib.  iv.  Cod.  Theod.  ix.  1.  4  Lib.  iv.  Cod.  Theod.  ix.  3. 

5  Lib.  iv.  Cod.  Theod.  ix.  3.  6  Lib.  ix.  Cod.  Theod.  ix.  1. 

40* 


54f)  THE     EARLY     CliURCH     AND     SLAVERY. 

brought  them  up  with  him  as  free.  To  them  no  length  of  time 
could  bar  the  claim  of  the  father  or  of  his  heirs.1  The  control 
of  the  patron  over  his  freedmen  was  likewise  guarded  by  the 
same  careful  legislation,  and  a  law  of  332  remanded  the  latter 
to  slavery  for  slight  and  almost  indefinable  offences  against  the 
former  master.2 

Between  Constantino  and  Justinian  little  was  done  by  the 
emperors  to  ameliorate  the  legal  condition  of  the  slave;  indeed, 
a  considerable  portion  of  the  legislation  of  the  period  mani- 
fests  a  tendency  to  reaction,  as  though  to  repress  an  increasing 
popular  feeling  in  favor  of  liberty.  Thus,  the  severe  Claudian 
law  was  re-enacted  bv  Julian  the  Apostate,  and  again  in  36(> 
by  Yalentinian  I.,  and  the  servitude  of  the  children  of  sucli 
unions  was  specially  decreed  by  the  latter.  It  is  true  that 
Arcadius  in  398  restored  the  practice  of  giving  the  unfortunate 
victim  three  warnings  before  final  proceedings  could  be  taken 
against  her  ;:i  but  in  IG8  Anthemius  went  further  than  his 
predecessors  by  prohibiting  marriages  between  freewomen  and 
their  freedmen,  under  pain  of  deportation  and  confiscation  of 
property,  while  the  offspring  were  seized  as  slaves  of  the  fisc.4 

In  the  same  spirit,  the  dependence  of  the  treed  man  on  his 
patron  was  enforced  by  successive  edicts.  By  a  law  of  Hono- 
rius  in  423  the  relationship  was  even  continued  to  the  second 
generation  of  both  parties.5  In  37G,  Gratian  denounced  the 
most  savage  penalties  against  freedmen  who  brought  accusa 
tions  against  their  patrons;  except  in  cases  of  treason  they  were 
not  to  be  listened  to,  and  their  ingratitude  was  to  be  punished 
by  the  stake.6  In  397,  Arcadius  contented  himself  with 
threatening  a  less  cruel  death,7  and  in  423,  Honorius  pro 
nounced  them  incapable  of  bearing  witness  against  their  patrons, 
and  declared  that  they  should  not  be  called  upon  to  give  evi 
dence  of  that  nature.8  In  426,  a  law  of  Theodosius  the 

1  Lib.  iv.  Cod.  Theod.  viii.  .°>.  -  Lib.  iv.  Cod.  Thcod.  xi.  2. 

3  Lib.  iv.  Cod.  Theod.  x.  4,  5,  6,  7.  *  Novell.  Anthem.  Tit.  i. 

5  Lib.  iv.  Cod.  Theod.  xi.  2.  «  Lib.  ix.  Cod.  Theod.  vi.  1,  2. 

~  Lib.  ix.  foil.  Tluod.  vi.  :?.  8  Lib.  ix.  Cod.  Theod.  vi.  4. 


INFLUENCE     OP     THE     CHURCH.  547 

Younger  and  Valentinian  II.  prohibited  them  from  aspiring  to 
any  honors  in  the  state,  and  ordered  that  even  the  rendering 
of  military  service  should  not  exonerate  them  from  being  re 
duced  to  slavery  if  guilty  of  ingratitude  to  the  patron  or  his 
heirs.1 

This  frequent  repetition  and  enactment  of  laws  is  strikingly 
suggestive  of  a  growing  public  opinion  which  rendered  them 
rapidly  nugatory.  It  would  seem  that  this  feeling  at  length 
grew  powerful  enough  to  overcome  the  prejudices  of  the  rulers, 
for  in  447  Theodosius  and  Valentinian  issued  an  edict  strongly 
in  contrast  with  their  legislation  of  426.  It  expressly  pro 
hibited  the  heirs  of  a  patron  from  endeavoring  to  reduce  his 
freedmen  to  slavery  ;  and,  while  it  granted  remedies  against 
ingratitude,  it  annulled  the  ancient  "actio  contra  ingratos" 
which  remanded  the  freedman  to  his  servile  condition.  It- 
further  gave  him  a  much  larger  control  than  he  had  pre 
viously  enjoyed  over  the  testamentary  disposition  of  his  prop 
erty,  and  even  when  he  died  intestate  and  without  issue,  the 
heirs  of  his  patron  could  only  claim  one-half  of  his  estate. 
These  provisions,  the  monarchs  declared,  arose  from  their  de 
testation  of  injustice  and  their  leaning  in  favor  of  liberty.2 

Whatever  alleviations  the  lot  of  the  slave  received  during 
this  period,  either  from  the  legislation  of  the  rulers  or  the 
growth  of  public  opinion,  may  reasonably  be  attributed  to  the 
influence  of  the  church.  That  the  church,  indeed,  was  looked 
upon  as  the  natural  protector  of  the  slave,  that  religion  favored 
his  emancipation,  and  that  his  liberation  was  regarded  as  an 
act  acceptable  to  God,  is  sufficient!}  proved  by  several  laws 
enacted  about  this  time.  Thus,  in  a  constitution  of  Theodosius 
the  Great,  the  sanctity  of  Sunday  was  enforced  by  forbidding 
any  legal  process  or  act  on  that  day,  but  manumission  was 
specially  excepted;  it  was  a  work  of  charity,  and  therefore  no 
violation  of  religious  observance.3  Somewhat  in  the  same 

1  Lib.  iv.  Cod.  Theod.  xi.  ?>.  2  Novell.  Valent.  TTI.  Tit.  xxv. 

3  Const.  2  Cod.  in.  xii. 


548    THE  EARLY  CHURCH  AND  SLAVERY. 

spirit  was  a  rescript  of  Theoclosius  the  Younger,  setting  at 
liberty  any  Christian  slave  circumcised  by  a  Jewish  master.1 
Religion  likewise  led  to  the  suppression  of  one  of  the  worst 
abuses  of  .slavery,  when  Constantius  in  343  declared  that  any 
Christian  slave  sold  to  prostitution  could  be  forcibly  redeemed 
at  a  fair  price  by  any  priest  or  Christian  man  of  good  charac 
ter  ;2  and  this  reform  was  carried  out  to  its  legitimate  result  in 
428,  by  Theodosius  the  Younger,  in  a  law  which  set  at  liberty 
any  slave  girl  employed  for  such  purposes,  and  doomed  to  exile 
and  the  mines  any  master  guilty  of  a  wrong  which  in  the  early 
days  of  the  empire  was  recognized  as  a  regular  occupation  and 
source  of  legitimate  profit.3  So  decided  an  interference  with 
the  rights  and  powers  of  slave-owners  betokened  a  steady  ad 
vance  in  the  direction  of  liberty. 

Not  only  did  religion  thus  use  its  influence  in  favor  of  the 
slave,  but  the  church  became  the  legalized  intercessor  between 
him  and  his  master.  It  thus  employed  its  right  of  asylum, 
and  in  432  it  obtained  from  Theodosius  the  Younger  a  rescript 
which  established  it  in  this  position.  Any  slave  flying  from 
his  master's  wrath  could  take  refuge  in  a  church.  After  a 
sojourn  of  twenty-four  hours  the  priests  were  bound  to  notify 
the  master,  who  could  not  withdraw  the  fugitive  until  he  had 
pledged  himself  to  a  full  pardon — though  to  prevent  abuse  the 
slave  was  required  to  be  unarmed,  for  if  armed  the  master  could 
seize  him  by  force,  and  was  held  harmless  for  any  bloodshed 
which  might  ensue.4  The  right  of  shelter  thus  obtained  by 
the  church  was  quickly  extended.  The  limit  of  twenty-four 
hours  was  not  observed;  the  slave  was  retained  until  the  owner 
could  satisfy  the  clergy,  and  if  he  subsequently  violated  his  pro 
mises  of  forgiveness,  he  was  promptly  excommunicated.5  Some 

1  Const.  1  Cod.  i.  x.  2  Lib.  xv.  Cod.  Theod.  viii.  1. 

:i  Lib.  xv.  Cod.  Theod.  viii.  2.— Cf.  Const.  12,  14  Cod.  i.  iv.  In  ;;<)4 
Arcadius  and  Honorius  had  forbidden  Christian  women  and  boys  from 
being  put  upon  the  stage.— Lib.  xv.  Cod.  Theod.  vii.  12. 

4  Lib.  ix.  Cod.  Theod.  xlv.  5. 

5  Concil.  Arausicjin.  I.  ami.  441  can.  r>. — Condi.  Arelatens.  TT.  aim. 
443  can.  2. 


THE     EASTERN     0  II  UROH.  549 

masters  were  inclined  to  regard  this  as  a  palpable  violation  of 
their  rights,  and  cases  occurred  in  which  they  sought  redress 
by  seizing  the  slaves  of  the  church  to  replace  those  who  were 
thus  detained,  but  the  church  did  not  shrink  from  the  conflict 
thus  provoked,  and  condemned  all  such  sacrilegious  offenders 
with  its  most  awful  anathema.1 

Such  was  the  position  of  slavery  when  the  Western  Empire 
was  overthrown  by  the  Barbarians,  limiting  at  once  and  for 
ages  the  humanizing  influences  which  were  gradually  under 
mining  the  institution.  Before  considering  the  effects  produced 
by  this  revulsion,  it  will  be  well  to  glance  for  a  moment  at  the 
legislation  of  the  East,  where,  for  a  while  at  least,  the  progress 
of  reform  continued  with  comparatively  little  interference  from 
external  causes. 

The  legists  whom  Justinian  assembled  to  the  great  work  of  re 
vising  and  codifying  the  imperial  jurisprudence  were  thoroughly 
imbued  with  the  love  of  freedom,  and  the  emperor  himself  lost 
no  fitting  opportunity  of  proclaiming  his  favor  for  liberty  and 
his  detestation  of  slavery.2  His  legislation,  therefore,  is  all  di 
rected  in  the  interests  of  the  slave  and  of  thefreedman.  The  door 
was  thrown  open  as  wide  as  possible  for  the  manumission  of  the 
former,  while  everything  was  done  to  elevate  the  latter  from 
his  dubious  position. 

Thus  a  presumed  slave,  either  claiming  or  defending  his 
liberty,  was  allowed  to  appear  in  person  against  his  master, 
without  the  intervention  of  the  "  assertor".  He  was  thus  given 
a  standing  in  court  equal  to  that  of  his  master,  and  was  removed 
altogether  from  the  category  of  mere  chattels.3  Successive 
edicts  abolished  all  the  restrictions  upon  manumission,  as  dis 
tinguished  from  other  legal  acts,  arising  from  either  the  age  of 

1  Concil.  Arausican.  I.  can.  (3. 

2  "  Nos  fautores  libertatis.  "  —  Const.  2  Cod.  vn.    vii.      ie  Qui    etiain 
dudum   servientium  manumissores   csse   festinavimus.  " — Novell,    xxn. 
cap   8. 

Const.  1  Cod.  vii.  xvii. 


550     THE  EARLY  CHURCH  AND  SLAVERY. 

the  master  or  that  of  the  slave.1  The  L.  Faria  Camna,  which 
limited  the  number  of  slaves  to  be  liberated  by  will,  was  re 
pealed.2  All  doubtful  questions  were  decided  in  favor  of  free 
dom,3  and  this  was  carried  so  far  as  to  entrench  upon  the  un 
doubted  rights  of  masters.  Thus  when  a  slave  belonged  to 
several  owners  in  common,  and  one  of  them  desired  to  liberate 
him,  the  rest  were  obliged  to  sell  out  their  shares  at  a  price 
fixed  by  law  ;*  and  if  one  of  the  shareholders  in  dying  left  his 
share  to  the  slave  himself,  it  was  held  that  he  intended  to  set 
tin;  bondman  free,  and  the  heirs  were  forced  to  purchase  the 
other  shares  and  manumit  him.5  If  a  man  had  children  by  a 
female  slave  and  died  without  making  special  disposition  of 
them,  the  mother  and  her  offspring  were  all  set  free.6  In  the 
same  spirit,  if  a  man  called  his  slave  his  son  in  any  legal  act, 
the  slave  was  emancipated,  whether  the  paternity  was  a  fact, 
or  the  words  were  only  used  as  an  expression  of  affection.7 
The  funerals  of  wealthy  men  were  frequently  attended  by 
crowds  of  slaves  wearing  caps — the  emblem  of  freedom — who 
were  ostentatiously  displayed  as  though  they  were  freedmen 
set  at  liberty  by  the  posthumous  charity  of  the  deceased.  Jus 
tinian  took  advantage  of  this  by  declaring  that  any  slave  who 
at  his  master's  funeral  and  in  presence  of  the  heirs  stood  at  the 
bier,  or  walked  in  the  procession  witli  a  cap,  was  emancipated 
by  the  act.8 

The  laws  concerning  marriages  between  slaves  and  free  per 
sons  were  thoroughly  reformed.  The  cruel  Senatusconsultum 
Claudianum  was  stigmatized  as  barbarous  and  was  repealed. 
Neither  a  free  woman  nor  a  freed  woman  was  liable  to  forfeit 
her  liberty  by  connection  witli  a  slave,  though  in  such  cases 
the  slave  was  subjected  to  punishment  at  the  hand  of  his  master 
or  of  a  magistrate.9  If  a  man  married  a  slave  thinking  her  to  be 

1  Const.  4  Cod.  vii.  xi.— Novell,  cxix.  cap.  2.— Const.  2  Cod.  vn.  xv. 

2  Cod.  vn.  iii.  3  See  Const.  14,  10,  17  Cod.  vii.  iv. 
*  Const.  1  Cod.  vn.  vii.                    5  Const.  2  Cod.  vii.  vii. 

6  Const.  3  Cod.  vii.  xv.  7  Const.  1  §  10  Cod.  vn.  vi. 

8  Const.  1  §  5  Cod.  vn.  vi.  9  Cod.  vn.  xxiv. 


THE     EASTERN     CHURCH.  551 

free,  the  marriage  was  annulled  and  the  parties  were  separated;1 
but  if  the  master  of  the  slave  had  connived  at  the  deception, 
the  slave  became  free,  and  the  marriage  held  good,2  or  if  the 
master  had  given  her  in  marriage  with  a  dower,  she  was,  ipso 
facto,  declared  free.3 

Penal  servitude,  which  entailed  dissolution  of  marriage,  was 
abolished.  No  man  could  be  reduced  from  freedom  to  slavery, 
nor  could  marriage  be  dissolved  on  any  such  pretext.4 

Although  Justinian  preserved  the  L.  Aelia  Sent i a,  in  so  far 
as  it  prevented  testamentary  manumissions  in  defraud  of  credi 
tors,3  still  the  careful  provisions  of  his  laws  on  this  subject 
manifest  extreme  solicitude  to  secure  the  liberation  of  as  many 
slaves  as  possible  in  the  settlement  of  insolvent  estates.6 

In  the  misery  attendant  upon  the  decline  of  the  empire,  the 
exposure  or  sale  of  new-born  children  by  parents  unable  to 
support  them  was  an  evil  of  constantly  increasing  magnitude. 
Constantino,  in  331,  had  permitted  the  purchaser,  or  whoever 
gave  shelter  and  nurture  to  the  foundling,  to  bring  him  up 
either  as  a  slave  or  a  freeman.-7  In  412,  Honorius  seems  to 
have  invoked  the  interposition  of  the  church  in  favor  of  the 
unfortunate,  when  he  required  all  such  cases  to  be  registered 
by  the  bishop  of  the  locality.8  Justinian,  however,  changed 
the  whole  nature  of  the  law,  for  he  declared,  in  529,  that  all 
foundlings,  whether  sprung  from  free  or  servile  parentage, 
should  be  freemen,  and  that  no  rights  of  ownership  should 
accrue  to  those  who  might  adopt  or  bring  them  up.9 

Favorable  as  was  all  this  legislation  to  the  slave,  the  laws  of 
Justinian  respecting  freedmen  were  not  less  liberal  and  en 
lightened.  The  old  classification,  introduced  by  Augustus, 
was  abolished.  Justinian  declares  that  the  dedititii  enjoyed 
an  empty  mockery  of  liberty  not  endurable  in  his  system  of 

1  Novell,  xxii.  cap.  x.  '2  Novell,  xxir.   cap.  xi. 

3  Const.  1   §  9  Cod.  vn.  vi.  4  Novell,  xxn.  cap.  viii. 

5  Const.  5  Cod.  vii.  ii.  6  Const.  15  Cod.  vn.  ii. 

7  Lib.  v.  Cod.  Theod.  vii.  1,  also,  viii.  1. 
s  ibid.  vii.  2.  9  Const.  3  Cod.  viii.  Hi. 


552     THE  EARLY  CHURCH  AND  SLAVERY. 

jurisprudence.1  The  freedom  of  the  Latini  was  no  freedom, 
since  it  was  lost  at  the  hour  of  death.2  Accordingly  he  ele 
vated  them  all  to  the  rank  of  citizenship,  no  matter  what  form 
might  be  employed  in  the  act  of  manumission.  In  539  he 
bestowed  on  all  future  freedmen  the  full  rights  and  privileges 
of  freemen,  even  to  the  gold  ring  which  had  previously  been 
the  mark  of  birth  and  station.3  At  the  same  time  he  removed 
all  restrictions  as  to  their  marriage,  and  even  senators  were 
permitted  to  marry  freedwomen.  Marriages  with  slaves  were 
not  allowed  ;  a  master  must  liberate  his  slave  before  he  could 
marry  her,  but  if  children  had  been  born  before  such  marriage, 
they  were  rendered  free  and  capable  of  inheritance  by  the  legal 
union  of  their  parents.4 

The  stormy  times  which  followed  the  reign  of  Justinian 
were  not  favorable  to  the  development  of  the  reforms  which  he 
had  thus  carried  so  far,  while  the  succession  of  heresies  whose 
bitter  strife  constitutes  the  ecclesiastical  history  of  the  East 
from  the  fourth  to  the  ninth  centuries,  left  the  church  little 
time  for  exerting  its  influence  in  favor  of  the  slave.  Rigid 
churchmen,  however,  gradually  came  to  regard  slave-holding 
as  sinful  in  ecclesiastics,  and  to  establish  for  themselves  the 
rule  that  it  was  permissible  only  to  the  laity.  St.  Theodore 
Studita,  about  the  year  790,  repeatedly  addresses  his  flock  on 
the  subject,  and  warns  them  that  man,  made  in  the  image  of 
his  Creator,  is  not  to  be  reduced  to  servitude  among  those  who 
are  all  servants  of  the  Lord.5  The  gathering  clouds  of  bar 
barism,  however,  ere  long  began  to  close  around  the  throne  of 
Constantine  and  Justinian.  The  empire,  wasting  by  piece 
meal  and  struggling  for  existence,  became  more  and  more  cor 
rupt.  The  savage  energy  of  Islarnism  prevented  its  conquerors 
from  yielding  to  the  influences  of  civilization  and  of  true  reli 
gion,  and  while  humanity  made  progress  in  the  West,  it  sank, 

1  Cod.  vn.  v.  2  Const.  1  Cod.  vii.  vi. 

3  Novell.  LXXVII.  cap.  i.  ii.  4  Novell.  LXXVII.  cap.  iii. 

5  S.  Theod.  Studit.  Serm.  cm.— Ejusd.  Testament. 


THE     LATIN     CHURCH.  553 

in  the   East,  century  by  century,  into  a  deeper  gloom  of  bar 
barism. 

The  Latin  church  was  eventually  more  fortunate.  The  bar 
baric  hordes  which  swept  over  the  Western  Empire  and 
threatened  to  extinguish  forever  the  light  of  civilization,  suc 
cumbed  one  by  one  to  its  influence,  and  though  the  church 
lost  much  of  softness  by  the  transfusion  of  wild  Teutonic  blood, 
yet  it  preserved  the  seeds  of  love  and  charity  which,  slowly 
growing  through  the  centuries,  promise  to  overshadow  the 
earth  in  the  fulness  of  time. 

The  new  element  thus  introduced  diverted  the  progress  of 
practical  Christianity,  and  may  be  said  to  have  postponed  for 
a  thousand  years  the  liberation  of  the  slaves  of  Europe.  The 
attainment  of  emancipation,  indeed,  might  well  appear  hope 
less  when  we  consider  the  relationship  between  master  and 
bondsman  among  the  Barbarian  tribes,  and  reflect  that  lhc. 
controlling  places  in  the  church  soon  came  to  be  filled  with 
Frankish  and  Gothic  prelates  who  carried  to  their  new  func 
tions  all  their  ancestral  customs  and  prejudices. 

The  Barbarians  had  no  such  refined  perceptions  of  the  invio 
lability  of  personal  liberty  as  those  which  form  so  remarkable 
a  feature  of  the  Roman  law.  Even  in  the  wild  freedom  of 
their  native  forests,  we  learn  from  Tacitus,  that  the  ruined 
gamester  would  frequently  place  himself  as  a  last,  desperate 
stake,  and  submit  to  be  sold  into  perpetual  slavery.1  So,  after 
their  conquest  of  the  empire,  the  path  from  freedom  to  slavery 
was  open  to  all.  The  criminal  unable  to  pay  the  fine  for  his 
offence  might  be  redeemed  by  any  one  who  fancied  him  for  a 
slave,  or  the  starving  wretch  could  sell  himself  for  food  and 
shelter.  The  number  of  formulas  extant  for  such  transactions 
show  that  they  were  by  no  means  infrequent  ;2  and  a  case 
recorded  in  the  Senchus  Mor,  or  ancient  Irish  code,  illustrates 

1  Tacit,  de  Mor.  German,  cap.  xxiv. 

2  Mareulf.   Formul.   Lib.  n.   No.   xxviii.—  Marculf.  Append.  No.  xvi. 
Iviii.— Formal.  Sirmond.  No.  x. 

47 


554  THE     EARLY     CHURCH     AND     SLAVERY. 

the  application  of  the  principle  among  the  Feini,  or  primitive 
Irish,  prior  to  their  conversion  by  St.  Patrick.  So  complete 
was  the  responsibility  of  kinship  that  Dorn  the  mother  of 
Foitline  was  adjudged  in  slavery  to  Fergus  Fergletheck,  be 
cause  her  son  had  been  concerned  in  the  murder  of  Eochaidh 
Belbhuidhe,  who  was  under  the  protection  or  guardianship  of 
Fergus.1 

Slavery  as  recognized  by  the  Barbarians  was  of  the  hardest 
kind.  Tacitus  declares  that  among  the  primitive  Germans  the 
life  of  the  slave  was  wholly  at  the  disposition  of  the  master, 
who  could  slay  him  from  anger  or  caprice  without  being  called 
to  account  in  any  way.2  After  their  settlement  in  the  Roman 
P^mpire,  all  the  Leges  Barbarorum  regard  slaves  simply  as 
property.  They  have  no  protection  for  themselves,  no  legal 
existence  indeed,  save  through  the  rights  of  the  master  or  of 
the  law  over  them.  Their  only  safeguard  is  the  damage  which 
their  murder  or  mutilation  may  occasion  to  the  owner.  Whe 
ther  the  slave  be  killed  or  stolen,  the  loss  is  the  same  to  the 
master,  and  that  loss  must  be  made  good  to  him,  with  perhaps 
some  additional  compensation  for  the  wrong  inflicted,  as  in  the 
case  of  any  other  malicious  mischief  perpetrated  on  his  posses 
sions.  In  some  codes  this  is  established  at  a  fixed  rate  ;3  in 
others,  a  variation  is  introduced  arising  from  the  rank  of  the 
master;4  in  others,  slaves  are  divided  into  classes  according  to 
their  market  value,  and  their  homicide  is  paid  for  on  the  basis 
of  the  legal  tariff;5  in  others,  again,  the  master  has  the  right 

1  Senchus  Mor,  Vol.  I.  pp.  65-9  (Hancock's  Ed.).     In  such  a  case  as 
this,  the  servitude  must  have  been  somewhat  less  absolute  than  the  ordi 
nary  kind,  for  the  tradition  proceeds  to  relate  that  Dorn  was  killed  by 
Fergus  for  ridiculing  a  blemish  on  his  face,  and  that  Fergus  was  mulcted 
in  part  of  his  estates  for  the  murder. 

2  Tacit,  op.  cit.  cap.  xxv. 

3  L.  Salic.  (Text  i.  of  Pardessus)  Tit.  x.  §  1  ;  Tit.  xxxv.  §  G. 

4  LI.  Baioarior.  Tit.  v.  §  18.— Decret.  Tassilon.  vii. 

5  LI.  Burgundior.  Tit.  x.     The  wer-gild  varied  from  30  to  150  solidi 
A  king's  slave,  however,  was  paid  for  at  a  higher  rate. 


THE     LATIN     CHURCH.  555 

of  appraising  his  loss  under  oath1 — but  in  none  is  there  any 
other  notion  apparent  beyond  the  fact  that  the  master  has  suf 
fered  a  loss  in  either  his  dignity  or  his  purse.  Under  the  Salic 
law,  when  one  slave  killed  another,  the  respective  masters 
divided  the  murderer2— either  literally,  we  may  presume,  or 
by  a  pecuniary  transaction,  as  the  whim  might  take  them,3  If 
a  man  beat  the  slave  of  another  so  as  to  cripple  him  for  forty 
days,  a  trifling  fine  paid  the  owner  for  the  loss  of  his  bonds 
man's  labor.4  A  slave  accused  of  crime  was  tortured  as  a 
matter  of  course.  If  no  confession  was  extracted  by  the  legal 
torment,  the  prosecutor,  by  depositing  a  pledge  with  the  owner, 
could  take  him  and  continue  the  torture  at  his  pleasure,  sub 
ject  only  to  the  condition  that  if  the  poor  wretch  died  on  the 
rack  his  value  must  be  made  good  out  of  the  security  given.5 
It  is  significant  that  provision  is  made  only  for  accusations 
brought  against  slaves  by  third  parties.  For  their  own  griev 
ances  masters  held  the  law  in  their  own  hands,  and  required 
no  powers  beyond  the  utter  irresponsibility  of  their  ownership. 
Under  such  a  system  the  value  of  a  slave  was  his  sole  pro- 

1  L.  Frision.  Tit.  i.  §  11  ;  Tit  iv.  §  1.  This  code,  though  later  in  date 
than  the  others,  is  perhaps  the  best  representative  of  the  primitive  cus 
toms  of  the  Barbarians. 

*  L.  Salic.  (Text,  i.)  Tit.  xxxv.  §  1.  This  provision  continues  through 
all  the  recensions  of  the  Salic  law,  down  to  the  Lex  Emendata  of  Charle 
magne,  except  in  one  (Text  iv.  of  Pardessus),  where  it  is  replaced  by  a 
pecuniary  indemnity — "  Si  servus  servum  vel  ancillam  occiderit,  MALB. 
theodilinia,  id  est,  homicida  ille  solidos  xx.  culpabilis  judicetur"  (Tit. 
Ivi.  §  1). 

3  There  need  be  no  hesitation  in  assuming  the  literal  acceptation  of 
this  law.     In  primitive  Rome,  by  the  Twelve  Tables  (Tab.  in.),  creditors 
had  a  right  to  divide  the  body  of  a  delinquent  debtor  ;  and  though  com 
mentators  have  sought  to  mitigate  the  harshness  of  the  law  by  explaining 
that  the  unlucky  wretch  was  to  be  sold  and  the  proceeds  divided,  yet  a 
passage  of  Quintilian  (Instit.  in.  vi.  84)  shows  that  originally  the  right 
of  corporeal  division  was  absolute,  until  the  advance  of  civilization  caused 
a  change. 

4  L.  Salic.  (Emendat.)  Tit.  xxxvii.  §  4. 

5  L.  Salic.  (Text.  I.)  Tit.  xl.  §§  3,  4.     This  is  preserved  even  down  to 
the  L.  Emendata,  Tit.  xlii.  §§  3,  4,  5. 


556     THE  EARLY  CHURCH  AND  SLAVERY. 

tection,  and  among  hordes  of  wandering  or  scarcely  settled 
conquerors  his  value  was  very  small.  Thus,  among  the  Salian 
Franks,  the  payment  for  stealing  or  killing  a  skilled  slave  was 
thirty  solidi,  while  for  stealing  a  tame  stag  it  was  thirty-five, 
or  a  stud-horse  forty-five  ;  for  skinning  the  carcase  of  a  horse 
without  the  owner's  consent  thirty,  and  for  riding  another's 
horse  without  permission  likewise  thirty  solidi.1  It  is  easy 
from  this  to  see  how  slender  was  the  safeguard  which  protected 
the  slave  from  the  cruelty  of  the  freeman  or  the  wanton  caprice 
of  the  owner. 

The  only  codes  which  interposed  any  barrier  between  the 
owner  and  his  property  were  the  Wisigothic  and  the  Anglo- 
Saxon.  The  Wisigothic  laws  were  founded  to  a  great  extent 
on  the  Roman  jurisprudence,  offering  in  every  respect  a  notable 
contrast  with  the  barbarian  customs  of  the  contemporary  tribes, 
and  yet  it  was  not  until  the  year  G45  that  King  Chindaswind 
issued  an  edict  in  which  he  deplored  the  frequent  murders  of 
slaves  by  their  masters,  and  forbade  it  except  under  sentence 
of  a  court.  A  master  wilfully  killing  his  slave  was,  therefore, 
to  be  fined  a  pound  of  gold  and  condemned  to  perpetual  in 
famy  ;  while  a  freeman  putting  to  death  the  slave  of  another 
forfeited  two  of  like  value  and  was  banished  for  life.2  Half  a 
century  later,  Egiza  pursued  the  reform  by  condemning  the 
practice  of  mutilation.  Any  master  or  mistress  depriving  a 
slave  of  hand,  foot,  nose,  ears,  lips,  or  eyes,  was  punished  with 
three  years  of  penitence  and  exile  under  the  supervision  of  the 
bishop  of  the  diocese.3  The  ecclesiastical  nature  of  this  penalty 
suggests  the  interposition  of  the  church  as  the  cause  of  this 
humane  policy,  and  there  can  be  little  doubt  that  this  supposi 
tion  is  true.  The  most  civilized  of  the  Barbarians  was  unques- 

1  L.  Salic.  (Text,  i.)  Tit.  xxxv.  §  6 ;  Tit.  xxxviii.  §  1 ;  Tit.  xxxiii.  §  2  ; 
Tit.  Ixv.  §  2 ;  Tit.  xxiii.     There  were  in  addition  the  legal  expenses  and 
the  claim  of  the  flsc  on  all  compositions,  which  brought  up  the  cost  of 
killing  a  slave  to  75  sol. — Tit.  xxxv.  §  7. 

2  LI.  Wisigoth.  Lib.  vi.  Tit.  v.  1.  12. 

3  LI.  Wisigoth.  Lib.  vi.  Tit.  v.  1.  13. 


THE     LATIN     CHURCH.  557 

tiouably  Theodoric  the  Ostrogoth,  and  the  code  which  he  drew 
up  for  his  countrymen  when,  two  centuries  earlier,  they  became 
masters  of  Italy,  shows  how  earnestly  he  endeavored  to  soften 
their  asperities  and  to  fuse  them  into  a  homogeneous  nation 
with  the  Romans.  Yet  in  his  time  the  church,  whether  Avian 
or  orthodox,  had  little  influence  on  the  Gothic  customs,  and  the 
most  that  Theodoric  could  do  was  to  give  the  master  of  a  mur 
dered  slave  the  option  of  prosecuting  the  murderer  either  crimi 
nally  or  civilly,  and  in  the  latter  case  conviction  only  entailed 
on  the  offender  a  fine  of  two  slaves  of  like  value  for  the  benefit 
of  the  master.1 

The  later  Anglo-Saxon  law  regarded  the  slave  as  a  human 
being.  In  Wessex  the  blood-money  of  sixty  shillings  was  paid, 
two-thirds  to  the  kindred  of  the  murdered  slave  and  only  one- 
third  to  the  master.2  Another  law,  which  probably  does  not 
long  antedate  the  Conquest,  fines  the  master  who  kills  his  slave, 
as  the  latter  owes  service  only,  and  not  life.3 

These  special  exceptions  are  of  little  moment,  and  the  bru 
tality  of  this  barbarian  servitude  finds  even  a  stronger  expres 
sion  in  the  regulations  concerning  marriages  between  slaves 
and  freemen.  In  such  unions,  the  party  who  was  free,  whether 
husband  or  wife,  became  enslaved,  and  the  offspring  were  like 
wise  slaves.4  By  the  Ripuavian  law,  however,  a  freewoman 
under  such  circumstances  had  the  legal  privilege  of  vindicating 
her  character  and  of  escaping  servitude  by  killing  her  husband 

the  king  or   the  count  offered  her  a  sword  and  a  distaff;  if 

she  took  the  former,  she  was  to  slay  the  audacious  serf ;  if  she 
chose  the  latter,  she  became  a  slave  with  him.5  One  text  of 
the  Salic  law  provides  that  if  a  woman  marry  a  slave  all  her 

1  Edict.  Theocloriei  cap.  152. 

2  LI.  Henrici  1.  Tit.  Ixx.  §§2,  4— probably  excerpted  from  the  laws  of 
Ina,  King  of  Wessex,  at  the  close  of  the  seventh  century. 

3  Ejusd.  Tit.  Ixxv.  §  3. 

*  L.  Ripuar.  Tit.  Iviii.   §  11.— L.  Salic.  Emend.  Tit.  xiv.  §§  vi.  xi.— 
Marculf.  Fprmul.  Lib.  u.  No.  29.—  Fonnul.  Bignon.  No.  10. 
3  L.  Ripuar.  Tit.  Iviii.  §  IS. 

47* 


558     THE  EARLY  CHURCH  AND  SLAVERY. 

property  is  to  be  confiscated,  any  of  her  kindred  may  kill  her 
without  paying  blood-money  either  to  the  family  or  to  the  fisc, 
any  relative  giving  her  bread  or  other  hospitality  is  fined  fif 
teen  solidi,  and  the  husband  is  put  to  death  by  the  severest 
torture.1  By  the  Lombard  law,  a  freewoman  marrying  a  slave 
might  be  put  to  death  within  the  year  by  any  of  the  kindred, 
and,  if  they  abstained  from  this,  she  became  a  slave  of  the  fisc.2 
So,  in  the  Burgundian  code,  both  parties  to  such  unions  were 
to  be  killed,  but  if  the  family  of  the  woman  did  not  see  fit  to 
put  her  to  death,  she  became  a  slave  of  the  king.3  Among  the 
pagan  Saxons,  whoever  married  above  his  station  paid  for  his 
audacity  with  his  life.4 

Such  was  the  material  upon  which  the  church  had  now  to 
act,  and  sucli  were  the  influences  to  which  it  was  exposed.  To 
its  l.onor  be  it  said  that  even  while  it  was  striving  for  its  own 
safety,  and  dexterously  fighting  the  battle  which  in  time  left 
it  master  of  its  conquerors,  it  never  abandoned  the  helpless 
multitudes  which  had  no  other  friend  or  protector.  In  those 
ages  of  tumult,  when  Prankish  and  Gothic  warriors  not  seldom 
wore  the  episcopal  mitre,  we  may  find  frequent  instances  of 
selfishness,  cases  in  which  personal  or  class  aggrandizement 
outweighed  the  precepts  of  love  and  charity  which  the  church 
never  ceased  to  preach,  but  these  human  failings  should  not 
blind  us  to  the  vast  influence  which  was  honestly  exerted  in 
favor  of  the  oppressed,  at  times  when  to  make  such  'an  effort 
was  to  risk  that  influence  itself. 

It  has  been  seen  that,  except  among  the  Wisigoths  shortly 
before  their  overthrow  by  the  Saracens,  and  among  the  Anglo- 
Saxons  of  a  late  period,  the  owner  was  absolute  master  of  the 
life  and  limb  of  his  slave.  There  was  no  court  to  which  the 

1  Leyden  MS.  (C  ip.  Extrav.  v.  of  Pardessus). 

2  LI.  Longobard.  Lib.  n.  Tit.  ix.  ].  2. 

3  L.  Burgund.  Tit.  xxxv.   §§2,  3.     This  portion   of  the  Burgundian 
Code  dates  from  the  year  471,  and  is  probably  the  most  ancient  of  all  the 
Barbarian  laws,  though  by  no  means  the.  most  barbarous.        v 

4  Adam.  Bremens.  TTist.  Krclcs.  L.  I.  cap.  <>. 


THE     LATIN    CHURCH.  559 

latter  could  appeal  for  safety  or  for  redress.  The  law  took  no 
account  of  him  save  as  his  master's  chattel.  Yet  the  church 
stood  boldly  up  between  them,  and,  in  the  name  of  a  higher 
law,  interposed  while  the  slave  was  living,  and  sought  to  pun 
ish  after  he  was  dead. 

Thus  through  all  those  troublous  times  the  church  main 
tained  the  right  of  asylum,  and  forced  the  half  heathen  Me 
rovingian  to  respect  the  prerogative  granted  by  a  forgotten 
Christian  emperor.  The  savage  Frank  had  to  forego  his  ven 
geance  ere  he  could  win  his  slave  from  the  shadow  of  the  altar, 

O 

and  if  the  plighted  faith  were  violated  the  watchful  priest 
excommunicated  him.  The  fugitive  who  once  reached  the 
sacred  porch  was  secure,  as  far  as  the  power  of  the  church 
could  bind  the  minds  and  souls  of  men  z1  and  when  the  un 
converted  Frank  or  the  mocking  Arian  was  concerned,  good 
Catholic  security  was  required  for  the  protection  of  the  slave.2 
The  clergy  themselves  were  not  excepted,  and  were  taught  by 
suspension  and  penance  to  set  a  good  example  to  their  flocks.3 
When,  indeed,  a  slave  had  been  guilty  of  some  atrocious  crime, 
his  master  was  forced  only  to  forego  all  bodily  punishment  ; 
the  criminal  might  be  disgraced  by  shaving  the  head  and  be 
brought  to  a  sense  of  his  wrong-doing  by  onerous  tasks.4  Nor 
\vere  these  simply  regulations  of  ecclesiastical  law,  for  the 
church  exerted  its  influence  and  secured  from  the  barbarian 
law-givers  the  recognition  of  its  right  of  asylum  to  slaves,  and 
procured  the  penalty  of  heavy  fines  for  all  violations  of  the 
privilege.0 

It  was  the  same  with  regard  to  the  life  of  the  slave,  whose 
master  could  no  more  be  called  before  the  tribunals  for  the 
slaughter  of  his  bondsman  than  for  that  of  his  ox  or  his  dog. 
Here  again  the  church  interposed  its  authority  and  sought 

1  Condi.  Aurelianens.  I.  ann. 511  can.  3. 

2  Condi.  Aurelianens.  V.  ann.  549  can.  '22. 
?>  Concil.  Ilcrdcns.  ann.  523  can.  8. 

4  Concil.  Epaonens.  ann.  517  can.  39. 

5  LI.  Baionr.  Tit.  i.  cap.  vii. 


560     THE  EARLY  CHURCH  AND  SLAVERY. 

to  throw  some  protection  over  the  despised  class.  Excom 
munication  or  penance  for  two  years  was  denounced  against 
him  who  should  put  his  slave  to  death  without  the  sanction  of 
a  court  51  and  though  this  punishment  may  seem  light,  it  may 
be  fairly  estimated  by  comparision  with  the  penalty  provided 
by  the  council  of  Tribur,  in  895,  for  the  wilful  murder  of  priests 
— the  most  heinous  of  offences  in  the  eyes  of  an  ecclesiastic  of 
those  turbulent  times.  The  murderer  was  only  condemned  to 
undergo  five  years  of  penitence,  and  then  after  h've  years  more 
of  exemplary  conduct  he  was  restored  to  full  communion.2  All 
these  regulations,  indeed,  show  how  soon  the  church  had  ac 
customed  itself  to  the  barbarian  carelessness  of  life.  In  305, 
before  the  conversion  of  Constantine,  the  council  of  Elvira 
had  adopted  a  canon  to  punish  jealous  mistresses  who,  in  the 
blind  fury  of  their  wrath,  might  beat  their  female  slaves  to 
death.  If  the  act  were  done  intentionally,  seven  years  of  peni 
tence  were  required  to  wipe  away  the  sin  ;  if  unintentionally, 
five  years.3 

Nor  was  it  only  with  respect  to  life  and  limb  that  the  church 
exercised  a  watchful  care  over  those  who  had  no  other  friend. 
In  650,  the  council  of  Rouen  reminded  the  faithful  that  Christ 
had  redeemed  with  his  precious  blood  the  slave  as  well  as  the 
freeman,  that  he  chose  his  Apostles  from  the  humblest  ranks, 
and  that  the  lofty  in  pride  and  station  were  hateful  to  God.  A 
stern  reproof  was  administered  to  those  who  kept  their  herds 
men  and  ploughmen  like  the  beasts  of  the  field,  allowing  them 
no  religious  privileges,  and  they  were  admonished  that  at  the 
last  great  day  they  would  be  held  responsible  for  the  souls  of 
their  slaves.4  The  same  care  was  marifested  by  another  couri- 

1  Concil.  Agathens.  ann.  506  can.  62. — Concil.  Epaonens.  aim.  517. 

2  Concil.  Tribur.  ann.  895  can.  5. — This  comparison  is  the  more  legiti 
mate  since  the  canons  of  Elvira  and  Agde  were  repeated  as  being  in  full 
lorce  by  the  council  of  Worms  in  868  (Concil.  Wormat,  ann.  868  can. 
38,  39). 

;i  Concil.  Eliberit.  ann.  305  can.  5. 
*  Concil.  Roto  mag.  ann.  650  can.  14-. 


THE     LATIN    CHURCH.  561 

cil,  the  year  previous,  in  ordering  that  no  slave  should  be  sold 
beyond  the   confines   of    the    kingdom,   and  condemning   any 
international  slave  trade  as  contrary  to  the  spirit  of  Christianity.1 
Frequent  prohibitions  were  launched  against  the    holding  of 
Christian    slaves    by    Jews.     In   581    the    council    of   Macon 
stretched  its  authority  so  far  as  to  order  that  all  such  could  be 
redeemed  or  purchased  by  Christians  for  twelve  solidi  each,  a 
price  far  below  their  value,  and  if  the  owner  refused  to  part 
with  them  they  were  declared  free.2     A  few  years  later  Gre 
gory  the  Great  went  further  and  declared  free  all  Christian 
slaves  who  might  be  bought  by  Jewish  masters  ;3  he  even  set 
free  all  heathen  slaves  who  declared  their  intention  to  be  con 
verted  to  the  true  faith,4  and  when  some  Samaritans  had  pur 
chased  heathen  slaves  and  circumcised  them,  he  ordered  them 
to  be  liberated,  expressly  forbidding  that  the  masters  should 
receive  compensation.5     It  was  doubtless  in  obedience  to  an 
impulsion  from  Gregory  that  the  fourth  council  of  Toledo  in 
597  was  authorized  by  the  royal  power  to  emancipate  all  slaves 
held  by  Jews  ;6  for  in   599  we  find  him  expressing  surprise  to 
the  kings  of  the   Franks   that   in  their  dominions  Jews  were 
allowed  to  own  Christian  slaves,  for  all  Christians  were  mem 
bers  of  Christ,  and  he  vigorously  demanded  that  so  great  an 
abuse  should  be  promptly  put  an  end  to.7     The  Merovingians 
apparently  were  not  disposed  to  obey  as  promptly  as  the  Goths 
had  done  ;  but  the  church  did  not  abandon  the  effort,  and  went 
as  far  as  it  dared  in  interfering  with  the  imprescriptible  rights 
of  masters.     In    G25    the_ council  of  Rheims  assumed  power  to 
forbid  owners,  who  were  obliged  to  part  with  their  slaves,  from 
selling  them  to  Jews  or  heathens.      All  such  transactions  were 
pronounced  void,  and  the  sellers  were  excommunicated.8 

1  Concil.  Cabilonens.  ami.  (>4:9  can.  9. 

2  Concil.  Matiscon.  I.  ami.  581  can.  10. 

3  Gratiani  Decret.  I.  Dist.  LIV.  can.  xiii.  4  Ibid.  can.  xv. 
5  Gregor.  PP.  I.  Regist.  Lib.  vi.  Epist.  33. 

'•  Concil.  Toletan.  iv.  ami.  597  can.  6G. 

f  Gregor.  PP.  I.  Regist.  Lib.  ix.  Epist.  110. 

8  Concil.  Rcmens.  ami.  625  can.  11. 


562     THE  EARLY  CHURCH  AND  SLAVERY. 

An  innovation  of  even  greater  boldness  is  found  in  the  Pen 
itential  which  passes  under  the  name  of  Theodore  of  Canter 
bury.  The  claim  of  the  master  to  the  peculium,  or  private 
earnings  of  the  slaves,  had  always  been  recognized  by  all  civil 
law,  and  yet  this  document  pronounces  the  seizure  of  it  as  un 
lawful,  commands  its  restitution  when  taken,  and  inflicts  for 
the  attempt  a  penance  at  the  discretion  of  the  priest.1 

The  church  did  not  teach,  as  some  modern  Christians  have 
done,  that  slavery  was  a  blessing.  The  greatest  ecclesiastic  of 
his  period,  Gregory  I.,  lent  the  immense  weight  of  his  name 
and  influence  to  the  cause  of  emancipation.  In  manumittin^ 
two  slaves  of  the  church,  he  expressly  declares  that  we  do  well 
when  we  restore  to  liberty  those  whom  nature  created  free, 
and  whom  the  laws  of  man  have  reduced  to  bondage,  since 
the  Saviour  himself  assumed  the  human  form  for  the  purpose  of 
breaking  our  chains  and  of  redeeming  us  all  from  captivity. 
These  pious  considerations  lie  asserts  to  be  the  motive  which 
prompts  him  to  release  the  objects  of  his  benevolence — a  mo 
tive  of  universal  application,  and  as  efficient  for  the  liberation 
of  all  slaves  as  of  one.'2  It  was,  therefore,  no  misuse  of  the 
property  of  the  church  to  employ  it  for  the  redemption  of  cap 
tives.  Gregory  even  authorized  the  Bishop  of  Fano  to  sell 
the  sacred  vessels  of  the  altar  for  this  purpose,3  and  the  council 
of  Macon,  in  f>85,  directs  that  the  tithes  shall  be  used  by 
the  priests  for  this  good  work,  as  well  as  for  the  relief  of  the 
poor/  The  council  of  Chalons  in  645,  indeed,  declared  that 


1  Theodor.  Cantuar.  Penitent,  cap.  xix.  §  30.     (Thorpe,  II.  19.)     Of. 
Haddan  &  Stubbs's  Councils  of  Great  Britain, -I.  pp.  xiii.  xiv. 

2  Gregor.  PP.  I.   Regist.  Lib.  vi.   Epist.  12.— Gregory,  however,  had 
three  years  before  bestowed  a  slave  on  his  counsellor  Theodore  (Lib.  in. 
Epist.  18),  and  he  was  prompt  in  following  up  and  reclaiming  the  fugi 
tive  slaves  of  the  church  (Lib.  xn.  Epist.  36),  showing  that  he  was  by 
no  means  prepared  for  the  logical  application  of  the  principles  which  he 
so  broadly  enunciated. 

:!  Ejusd.  Lib.  vn.  Epist,  12,  88. 

*  Condi.  Matiscon.  II.  ann.  585  can.  5. 


THE     LATIN     CHURCH.  5C3 

the  liberation  of  captives  was  the  highest  duty  of  Christians,1 
and  the  contemporary  ha^iology  shows  that  the  church  taught 
by  example  as  well  as  by  precept.2  A  legend  of  the  period 
well  illustrates  the  manner  in  which  the  populations  were 
trained  in  the  exercise  of  this  practical  charity,  and  how  the 
special  interposition  of  heaven  was  vouchsafed  in  its  behalf. 
A  woman  who  concealed  her  grasping  avarice  under  an  ap 
pearance  of  great  outward  sanctity  was  in  the  custom  of  re 
ceiving  from  the  faithful  daily  offerings  to  be  applied  to  the 
redemption  of  captives,  and  these  contributions  she  hoarded, 
in  place  of  applying  them  to  their  holy  purpose,  until  she  had 
accumulated  an  immense  treasure.  On  her  death,  the  pile  of 
gold  was  discovered  cunningly  hid  away,  and  the  bishop  of  the 
place  decided  that  money  so  iniquitously  acquired  was  pol 
luted.  It  was  accordingly  thrown  into  her  coffin  and  buried 
with  her.  For  days  thereafter  the  most  agonizing  shrieks 
were  heard  to  issue  from  her  tomb,  until  the  people  could 
endure  the  horror  no  longer.  When  the  grave  was  opened, 
the  gold  was  found  molten  and  running  in  a  fiery  stream  down 
the  throat  of  the  corpse,  which  exhaled  a  sulphurous  vapor — a 
solemn  warning  of  the  punishment  in  store  for  those  who  di 
verted  funds  from  so  pious  a  use.3  This  abuse  of  Christian 
charity  was  sufficiently  frequent  to  extort  from  St.  Patrick  a 
special  canon  condemning  its  perpetrators  to  excommunication 
and  three  years  penance  ;  and,  to  prevent  its  recurrence,  he 
decreed  that  no  one  should  make  collections  for  the  redemption 
of  captives  without  the  special  permission  of  the  bishop — thus 
placing  the  whole  matter  under  the  patronage  and  protection 
of  the  church.4 

In   every  way  the   influence  of  the  church  was  brought  to 
bear  for  the  liberation  of  the  slave.      Men  were  taught  that  to 

1  Concil.  Cabilonens.  ann.  645  can.  9. 

2  See,   for  instance,  Greg.  Turon.   Hist.   Franc.  Lib.  vi.  cap.  8  ;  Lib. 
vii.  cap.  1. 

3  Greg.  Turon.  de  Glor.  Martyr,  cap.  106. 

4  Abedoc  et  Ethelvulfi  Canon.  Lib.  XLI.  cap.  23. 


564     THE  EARLY  CHURCH  AND  SLAVERY. 

set  free  their  bondsmen  was  an  act  acceptable  to  God,  for 
which  they  could  expect  a  return  in  this  world  or  the  next, 
and  both  the  pure  and  the  selfish  impulses  of  the  laity  were 
laboriously  enlisted  in  the  cause.  That  these  teachings  were 
not  unfruitful  is  shown  by  the  numerous  charters  of  emancipa 
tion  and  formulas  for  such  acts,  which  were  habitually  drafted 
by  ecclesiastics,  embodying  the  principles  which  they  incul 
cated — and  these  express  almost  universally  that  the  slave  is 
set  free  for  the  remission  of  the  sins  of  the  master  and  for  the 
benefit  of  his  soul.1  How  earnestly  this  was  taught  and  be 
lieved  is  shown  by  two  formulas  of  the  Merovingian  period,  in 
which  a  king,  on  the  birth  of  a  son,  sets  at  liberty  three  slaves 
of  each  sex  in  every  one  of  his  villa.s,  to  propitiate  God  and 
secure  the  life  of  his  infant.2  The  form  of  liberation  at  the 
altar,  instituted  by  Constantine,  was  carefully  preserved,  and 
the  archives  of  the  churches  became  the  records  of  liberty  of 
those  who  had  been  freed  in  honor  of  their  patron  saints;3  but 
even  when  the  barbarian  form  was  used,  of  striking,  in  the 
presence  of  the  king,  a  piece  of  .money  from  the  hand  of  the 
slave  to  be  liberated,  which  conferred  the  highest  giade  of 
freedom,  the  act  was  done  in  the  name  of  God,  who  was  in 
voked  to  protect  the  liberty  thus  conferred.*  So,  whenever  the 
church  succeeded  in  inducing  the  abandonment  of  the  atrocious 
custom  which  doomed  to  slavery  the  woman  who  married  a 
slave,  the  owner  renounced  his  rights  over  her  and  her  chil 
dren  in  the  name  of  God  and  for  the  pardon  of  his  sins.5  All 

1  Marculf.  Formul.  Lib.  IT.  No.  32,  33,  34.— Marculf.  Append.  No.  13. 
— Formul.  Sirrnond.  No.  12. — Formul.  Bignon.  No.  1. — Formul.  Linden- 
brog.  No.  90,  91,  92,  94,  95,  96,  etc.     These  forms  were  preserved  at  least 
until  the  commencement  of  the  twelfth  century.     See  Reginon.  Canon. 
Lib.  i.   cap.   402.— Burchard.  Lib.  ir.  cap.  30.— Ivon.  Carnot.  Decret.  P. 
VI.  cap.  131. 

2  Marculf.  Lib.  i.  No.  39  ;  Lib.  IT.  52. 

3  Some  of  these,  extending  to  the  eleventh  century,  have  been  printed 
by  Haddan  &  Stubbs,  Councils  of  Great  Britain,  T.  670,  688. 

4  Marculf.  Lib.  i.  No.  22. 

5  Formul.  Lindenbrog.  No,  85. 


THE     LATIN     CHURCH.  565 

these,  it  is  true,  were  mere  formulas,  but  they  represent  the 
assiduous  teaching  which,  continued  for  centuries,  gradually 
ameliorated  the  condition  of  the  bondsman  and  eventually 
rendered  servitude  impossible. 

Yet  the  church  was  not  unselfish  enough  to  give  practical 
application,  even  in  its  own  sphere,  to  the  principles  which  it 
thus  promulgated.  Nor,  indeed,  could  this  be  expected  in  an 
age  of  lawless  violence,  when  the  poor  and  friendless  were  glad 
to  gain  protection  at  any  price,  and  were  in  the  habit  of  sur 
rendering  themselves  as  slaves  to  some  powerful  neighbor  or 
wealthy  monastery.  The  church  held  many  slaves,  and  while 
their  treatment  in  general  was  sufficiently  humane  to  cause  the 
number  to  grow  by  voluntary  accretion,  yet  it  had  no  scruple 
in  asserting  vigorously  its  claims  to  their  ownership.  When 
the  papal  church  granted  a  slave  to  a  monastery,  the  dread 
anathema,  involving  eternal  perdition,  was  pronounced  against 
any  one  daring  to  interfere  with  the  gift;1  and  those  who  were 
appointed  to  take  charge  of  the  lands  and  farms  of  the  church, 
were  especially  instructed  that  it  was  part  of  their  duty  to  pur 
sue  and  recapture  fugitive  bondsmen.2  Manumissions,  how 
ever,  were  frequent,  and,  considering  all  circumstances,  were 
greatly  favored. 

As  the  church  grew  wealthy,  the  management  of  its  prop 
erty  became  a  source  of  no  little  care  and  perplexity.  Its  pos 
sessions  were  peculiarly  liable  to  dilapidation  at  the  hands 
of  unfaithful  stewards,  and  from  an  early  period  stringent 
regulations  were  found  necessary  to  prevent  their  alienation 
by  those  to  whose  care  they  were  entrusted.  Thus,  in  401,  a 
council  of  Carthage  prohibited  the  bishop  from  selling  any 
ecclesiastical  property  of  his  diocese,  except  is  case  of  extreme 
necessity,  when  the  matter  was  to  be  submitted  to  the  metro 
politan  and  a  certain  number  of  bishops,  who  examined  the 

1  Lib.  Diurn.  Roman.  Pontif.  Cap.  vir.  Tit.  xvi.     One  of  the  formulas 
for  the  gift  of  a  slave,  however,  provides  that  he  shall  be  set  at  liberty 
after  the  death  of  the  recipient.     (Ibid.  Cap.  vi.  Tit.  xvi.) 

2  Ibid.  Cap.  vi.  Tit.  v. 

48 


586     THE  EARLY  CHURCH  AND  SLAVERY. 

circumstances  and  gave  or  withheld  permission  ;  while,  if  the 
urgency  would  not  permit  this  delay,  at  least  the  neighboring 
bishops  had  to  be  called  in  consultation ;  and  any  infraction  of 
this  rule  was  termed  a  crime  against  God,  for  which  the 
offender  forfeited  his  position.1  A  few  years  earlier,  a  canon 
had  been  promulgated  forbidding  bishops  or  priests  to  give  away 
or  sell  the  property  of  their  dioceses  or  benefices,  and  unless 
they  made  compensation  or  restitution  their  acts  were  declared 
invalid.  It  is  a  noteworthy  fact  that  an  exception  was  made 
in  favor  of  slaves  whom  they  emancipated,  provided  those 
slaves  remained  as  freedmen  of  the  church  and  devoted  to  its 
service.2 

It  would  thus  appear  that  the  ecclesiastic  in  charge  of  a 
church  was  empowered  at  his  discretion  to  manumit  the  slaves 
entrusted  to  him.  In  506  the  council  of  Agde  went  further 
than  this,  and  authorised  bishops  not  only  to  liberate  slaves 
but  to  endow  them  with  a  moderate  amount  either  of  money 
or  land,  the  sole  restriction  being  that  if  the  specified  limit  of 
the  gift  were  exceeded,  the  excess  could  be  recalled  after  the 
death  of  the  manuraittor.3  To  any  one  who  is  familiar  with 
the  constant  and  jealous  care  exercised  to  prevent  any  aliena 
tion  of  ecclesiastical  property,  this  concession  in  favor  of  the 
liberated  slave  may  well  appear  extraordinary. 

It  is  true  that,  a  few  years  later,  in  517,  the  council  of 
Epaone  prohibited  abbots  from  emancipating  the  slaves  of  their 
monasteries.  At  this  period  the  life  of  a  monk  was  assumed 
to  be  one  of  labor,  and  the  reason  given  for  the  prohibition 
was  that  the  idleness  of  the  freedman  offered  an  unpleasant 
contrast  to  the  toil  of  the  hard-working  brethren.4  A  century 
later,  the  council  of  Rheims,  in  interdicting  the  posthumous 
alienation  of  slaves,  did  not  restrict  their  manumission.5 

1  Cod.  Eccles   African,  can.  2<>  (Concil.  Carthag.  V.  can.  4). 

2  Statut.  Eccles.  Antiq.  can.  31  (Concil.  Carthag.  IV.  arm.  398). 

3  Concil.  Agatheiis.  ann.  oOG  can.  8,  49. 
*  Concil.  Epaonens.  ann.  517  can.  8. 

5  Concil.  Remens.  ann.  025  can.  13. 


THE     LATIN     0  II  U  K  C  II .  5(>7 

In  Spain,  the  subject  was  one  which  gave  rise  to  prolonged 
trouble.  The  third  council  of  Toledo,  in  589,  confirmed  the 
right  of  the  bishops  to  liberate  slaves  according  to  the  ancient 
canons  ;x  but  the  abuses  committed  in  some  dioceses  where  the 
property  of  the  church  was  dilapidated  through  carelessness  or 
nepotism  created  a  strong  feeling  in  favor  of  restricting  all 
episcopal  liberalities.  In  the  following  year  a  violent  contest 
arose  in  the  council  of  Seville  over  the  acts  of  Gaudentius, 
late  Bishop  of  Ecija,  who  had  prodigally  manumitted  slaves  or 
had  given  them  to  his  kindred,  and  the  decision  arrived  at  was 
adverse  to  the  freedmen.2  This  seems  to  have  settled  the 
policy  of  the  Gothic  church,  and  it  was  so  established  by  the 
fourth  council  of  Toledo,  in  597,  which  stigmatized  as  robbers 
of  the  poor  those  bishops  who  manumitted  the  slaves  of  the 
church  without  rendering  an  equivalent,  and  their  successors 
were  ordered  to  reclaim  all  who  had  been  set  free  under  such 
circumstances.  At  the  same  time,  prelates  who  had  benefited 
their  dioceses  in  any  way  were  allowed  to  exercise  the  power 
of  manumission,  but  the  right  of  patronage  over  the  freedmen 
and  their  posterity  was  carefully  reserved.3  Notwithstanding 
this  formal  enunciation  of  church  policy,  bishops  continued  to 
emancipate,  and  freedmen  endeavored  to  throw  off  their  alle 
giance  to  their  holy  patron.  Until  the  conquest  of  Spain  by 
the  Saracens,  the  councils  were  continually  obliged  to  repeat 
the  canons  and  devise  new  modes  of  protecting  the  rights  of 
the  church  against  the  audacious  attempts  of  the  liberated 
slaves.4 

If  thus  jealous  of  ecclesiastical  rights,  the  church  showed 
itself  equally  vigilant  in  defending  those  of  freedmen  in  gene- 

1  Concil.  Toletan.  III.  ami.  589  can.  6. 

2  Concil.  Hispalens.  I.  arm.  590  can.  1,  2. 

3  ConciJ.  Toletan.  IV.  aim.  597  can.  67,  68,  69,  70,  71. 

4  Concil.  Hispalens.  II.  aim.  618  can.  8.— Toletan.  VI.  aim.  688  can. 
9?  10.— Toletan.  IX.  aim.  655  can.  12,  13,  14,   15,  16.— Emeritens.  ami. 
660  can.  20.— Cgesaraugustan.  III.  ann.  691  can.  4. 


568     THE  EARLY  CHURCH  AND  SLAVERY. 

ral.  A  striking  instance  of  the  power  which  it  claimed,  and 
the  vigor  with  which  that  power  was  exercised,  was  fur 
nished  by  Gregory  the  Great  in  595.  A  slave  who  had  been 
emancipated  at  the  altar  of  the  church  of  Messina  married 
a  slave-girl,  by  whom  he  had  a  numerous  family,  when  she 
was  taken  from  him  and  sold.  Instinctively  he  went  to  Rome 
to  Jay  his  wrongs  and  sorrows  before  the  Vicegerent  of  Christ. 
Gregory  listened  to  the  story  of  his  humble  petitioner,  and  forth 
with  dispatched  him  to  Maximian,  Bishop  of  Syracuse,  with  a 
letter  in  which  the  pontiff  enlarged  upon  the  unheard-of  cruelty 
that  had  been  committed.  He  ordered  Maximian  at  once  to 
have  the  wife  restored  to  her  husband,  and  to  punish  those 
guilty  of  the  crime  in  such  a  manner  as  would  avert  the  anger 
of  God  ;  telling  him,  moreover,  to  warn  the  Bishop  of  Messina 
that  if  such  actions  were  allowed  within  his  jurisdiction  without 
exemplary  chastisement,  due  retribution  for  them  should  be 
visited  on  his  own  head.1  Gregory  felt  that  the  church  would 
belie  its  character  and  forfeit  its  claims  on  human  veneration 
if  it  should  neglect  to  vindicate  the  rights  of  the  miserable  and 
oppressed. 

The  practice;  of  freeing  slaves  in  churches  seemed  to  place 
them  in  some  sort  under  ecclesiastical  guardianship,  and  we 
have  already  seen  that  this  custom  was  carefully  retained.  In 
deed,  it  became  universally  recognized  by  law,  as  the  Roman 
mode  of  manumission,  whether  the  master  released  his  bonds 
men  for  a  specified  price  or  for  the  remission  of  his  own  sins  ;2 
and  thus  the  church  came  at  length  to  throw  its  protecting  arm 
over  the  whole  class.  Kven  before  the  subversion  of  the  Wes 
tern  Empire,  the  proceedings  of  several  councils  show  that  this 
protection  was  extended  over  those  who  were  freed  by  will  as 
well  as  those  manumitted  at  the  altar.  Any  attempt  to  re 
mand  them  to  slavery  was  prohibited  under  pain  of  ecclesias 
tical  censure,  and  patrons  who  attacked  them  on  the  plea  of 


1  (iiegor.  PP.  I.  Lib.  iv.  Epist.  12. 

2  L.  Ripuarior.  Tit.  Iviii.  §  1. 


THE     LATIN     CHURCH.  569 

ingratitude  were  required  to  proceed  in  a  manner  designated 
by  the  church.1 

This  was  already  a  bold  invasion  of  the  limits  of  a  well- 
defined  and  time-honored  system  of  jurisprudence  ;  and  in  the 
wild  times  which  followed,  amid  the  clash  of  conflicting  codes 
and  the  arbitrary  law  of  the  strongest,  the  church,  taking  ad 
vantage  of  the  breaking  down  of  the  old  landmarks,  made 
bolder  assumptions,  and  dared  even  more- in  favor  of  a  class 
which  had  no  other  guardian.  As  early  as  506  the  council  of 
Agde  declared  that  all  who  had  received  manumission  at  the 
altar  should  be  defended  in  case  of  necessity,  and  it  denounced 
expulsion  from  the  church  against  those  who  should  illegally 
oppress  them.2  In  549,  two  councils,  those  of  Orleans  and 
Clermont,  pronounced  it  a  sin  against  God  to  reduce  to  servi 
tude  those  who  had  been  liberated  at  the  altar  for  the  love  of 
God,  and  a  unanimous  resolution  was  adopted  to  defend  them 
in  all  cases,  except  when  they  had  committed  crimes  which  in 
volved  the  legal  penalty  of  slavery.3 

In  585,  another  step  was  taken  by  the  council  of  Macon, 
which  placed  the  church  in  the  attitude  of  the  recognized  guar 
dian  of  all  freedmen,  and  assumed  their  quarrels  as  its  own. 
It  threatened  damnation  on  all  who  should  disregard  its  de 
crees,  declared  that  it  would  defend  all  freedmen  against  assault 
on  their  liberty,  and  assigned  the  hearing  of  all  cases  in  which 
freedom  was  involved  to  the  bishops,  or  to  such  assessors  as 
they  might  select  to  sit  with  them  in  judgment — allowing  the 
civil  judge  to  act  only  when  invited  thereto  by  his  episcopal 
brother.4  In  G15,  the  council  of  Paris  followed  this  up  by 
arrogating  to  the  ecclesiastical  courts  all  cases  in  which  freed 
men  were  concerned,  and  threatening  excommunication  against 

1  Concil.  Arausican.  I.  aim.  441  can.  7.— Concil.  Arelatens.  II.  aim. 
443  can.  3,'i,  39. 

2  Concil.  Agathens.  aim.  500  can.  29. 

3  Coucil.  Aurelianens.  V.  ann.  549  can.   7.— Arveruens.  II.    arm.  549 
can.  7. 

4  Concil.  Matiscou.  II.  ann.  585  can.  7. 

48* 


570     THE  EARLY  CHURCH  AND  SLAVERY. 

those  \vlio  should  dare  to  bring  such  matters  before  the  lay 
tribunals,  or  should  refuse  to  obey  a  sentence  duly  pronounced. 
It  moreover  declared  it  to  be  the  duty  of  all  priests  to  defend 
the  freedmen.1  The  value  of  the  privileges  thus  assumed  can 
scarcely  be  overrated,  especially  as  the  church  procured  their 
acknowledgment  by  the  civil  power.  Clotair  II.  confirmed 
the  canons  of  the  Paris  council,  and  gave  to  them  the  full  va 
lidity  of  law  ;'2  while  even  the  rude  Ripuarians  admitted  the 
responsibility  of  ecclesiastics  by  ordering  the  dignitaries  of  any 
church  in  which  a  slave  was  set  free  to  testify  in  his  favor, 
under  a  heavy  penalty,  if  his  liberty  should  be  assailed.3 

Nor  was  this  all,  for  the  church  manifested  its  practical 
interest  in  freedom  by  its  efforts  to  prevent  the  enslavement  of 
freemen.  Thus  in  f>(>7  a  council  at  Lyons  deplored  the  numer 
ous  cases  in  which  men  were  reduced  to  slavery,  without. color 
of  justice,  and  it  excommunicated  all  who  should  be  guilty  of 
attempting  so  foul  a  wrong.4  A  similar  canon,  but  couched  in 
even  stronger  terms,  was  adopted  by  the  council  of  Rheims  in 
G2r>.5  In  the  same  spirit,  another  council  of  the  seventh  cen 
tury  decreed  that  when  a  freeman  sold  himself  to  slavery,  he 
could  at  any  time  be  redeemed  on  payment  of  the  sum  advanced, 
and  further,  that  when  such  a  slave  was  married  to  a  free  person, 
the  offspring  of  the  union  should  be  free.6  The  church  could 
only  have  obtained  the  power  thus  to  contravene  the  written 

1  Conc'il.  Parisiens.  V.  ami.  615  can.  5. 

2  Edict,  Clilot.  II.  aim.  (515  cap.  7  (Baluz.). 

15  L.  Ripuar.  Tit.  i.vni.  §  6.— It  is  true  that  selfish  motives  may  pro 
bably  have  had  their  share  in  inducing  the  church  to  make  these  efforts. 
The  rapidly  developing  jurisdiction  of  the  ecclesiastical  tribunals  was 
thereby  widened,  and  there  were  in  addition  many  sources  of  advantage 
and  profit  arising  therefrom.  Thus,  under  the  Bavarian  law,  a  slave 
freed  at  the  altar  became  a  frcedman  of  the  church,  which  thus  was  en 
titled  to  his  wergild  or  blood-money  (Constit.  Tassilon.  10,  11).  The 
Ripuarian  law  likewise  gave  to  the  church  certain  rights  (L.  Ripuar.  Tit. 
LVIIJ.  §  -i). 

4  Concil.  Lugdun.  TI.  ann.  507  can.  3. 

5  Concil.  Remens.  ann.  625  can.  17. 

fi  Concil.  loc.  incert.  can.  14  (Harduin.  III.  55S). 


THE     ORDINATION     OF     SLAVES. 


571 


law  by  a  bold  extension  of  the  jurisdiction  previously  assumed  : 
that  it  ventured  to  do  so  is  a  striking  proof  of  its  eagerness  in 
the  cause  of  freedom,  and  that  it  had  fairly  earned  the  position 
of  the  defender  of  liberty. 

In  one  respect,  the  relations  between  the  church  and  the 
slave  would  appear  to  conflict  with  the  general  favor  exhibited 
towards  freedom  and  human  equality.  By  the  earlier  canons 
the  slave  was  not  to  be  received  into  the  ranks  of  either  the 
secular  or  the  regular  clergy  ;  if  admitted,  he  was  not  thereby 
emancipated,  and  he  could  be  reclaimed  by  his  master. 

That  in  the  times  of  persecution  a  slave  could  not  be  ordained 
without  his  master's  consent   is  not  surprising.1     In  a  society 
united  in  the  bonds  of  love  and  faith,  it  may  well  be  assumed 
that  no  Christian  master  would  refuse  consent  or  even  freedom 
to  any  one  deemed  worthy  by  the  church  to  be  a  minister  of 
Christ ;  while,  if  the  owner  were  a  heathen,  the  slave  ordained 
without  his  knowledge  or  against  his  wishes  would  have  scanty 
opportunity  of  discharging  his  sacred  duties.     With  the  conver 
sion  of  Constantino  came  other  reasons  still  more  imperative. 
As  a  recognized  institution,  existing  and  regulated  by  law,  had 
the  church   claimed   that   ordination   conferred   liberty  on  the 
slave,  it  would  have  been  involved  in  continued  and  infinite 
quarrels  with    heathen   masters,  provoking  a  united  and   dan 
gerous  opposition  ;  while  the  argument  against  conferring  the 
ministry  on  those  who  still  were  slaves  had    more  weight  than 
ever.      Besides  this,  there  arose  a  new  class  of  cases  in  which 
admission  to  the  church  was  quite  as  unadvisable.     The  rapid 
rise  of  monachism  about  this  time  afforded  an  asylum  for  fugi- 

i  Canon.  Apostol.  No.  81. -The  council  of  Elvira  went  even  further, 
prohibiting  the  ordination  of  freedmen  of  lay  patrons   (Concil  I 
aim     305  can.  80).     Yet  short  of  ordination,  slavery  was  in  primitr 
times  no  bar  to  positions  of  honorable  dignity  and  influence  in  the  church. 
The  two  female  slaves  whom  Pliny  the  Younger,  when  Proconsul  o 
thynia  under  Trajan,  amused  himself  by  torturing,  were  miiiistrae  or  cl, 
conesses  (C.  Plin.  Secund.  Lib.  x.  Epist.  97). 


572     THE  EARLY  CHURCH  AND  SLAVERY. 

lives  which,  if  legalized,  would  have  attracted  hordes  of  untamed 
and  ferocious  savages  and  absconding  criminals,  as  well  as  those 
who  only  sought  to  escape  the  harsh  treatment  of  cruel 
owners. 

The  church  speedily  claimed   and  obtained  for  its  members 
exemptions  of  the  most  valuable  character— release  from  mili 
tary  service  and  the  terrible  burdens  which  were  eating  out  the 
heart  of  the  republic  and  rendering  in  many  instances  citizenship 
a  curse  rather  than  a  privilege.     The  effort  to  avoid  these  by 
entering  the  church  soon  attracted  attention,  and  laws  of   a 
comprehensive  character  were  enacted  prohibiting  clerkship  to 
every  one  who  owed  service,  whether  public  or  private.     Yalens, 
in  365,  ordered  all   who  were  liable   to  municipal   duties   to  be 
sought  out   and    removed   from    the   monasteries,  and    twelve 
years  later,  when  the  cenobites  resisted  his  attempts  to  enforce 
on   them    his  claims  for  military  service,  quite   a   persecution 
arose.1     In  398  Arcadius  and  Honorius  found  it  necessary  to  pro 
hibit  slaves,  decurions,  curiales,  public  debtors,  etc.,  from  seek 
ing  refuge  from   their  obligations  by  entering  the  church  and 
assuming  clerkship.2     Slaves  could  scarcely  complain  of  it  as  a 
special  hardship  when   they  were  merely  subjected  to  the  same 
regulation  as  classes    whose  burdens  arose  from  their  honors 
and  prominence  ;  yet  these  rules  were  constantly  transgressed 
and  evaded.     In  443  St.  Leo  deplored  that  the  ranks°of  the 
priesthood  were  crowded  with  those  who  were  unfitted  for  it 
either  by  birth  or  education,  especially  with   slaves  to  whom 
their  masters  refused  their  freedom,  and  he  directs  that  in  future 
none  should  be  admitted  who  were  bound  in  any  way,  without 
the  consent  of  those  who  had  the  right  to  control  them.3     The 
church,  indeed,  was  interested  in  sustaining  these  laws,  for  an 
abuse  sprang  up  by  which  masters  procured  the  ordination  of 
their  slaves  in   order   that   they  might  enjoy  the  fruits  of  the 
benefices  occupied  by  the  latter.     To  prevent  this,  the  Emperor 

1  Lib.  xn.  Cod.  Theod.  Tit.  i.  1.  63.-Hieron.  Euseb.  Chron.am,   378 

2  Lib.  ix.  Cod.  Theod.  Tit.  xlv.  1.  3. 

3  Leon.  PP.  I.  Epist.  4  cap.  1. 


THE     ORDINATION     OF     SLAVES.  573 

Leo  I.,  about  the  year  470,  directed  that  no  slave  should  be 
eligible  to  the  priesthood  unless  liberated  for  the  purpose  by  his 
owner.1  According  to  a  council  held  about  the  year  490,  the 
dignity  of  the  priesthood  liberated  a  slave,  whether  ordained 
with  or  without  his  master's  consent,  but  the  diaconate  and 
the  lower  grades  conferred  no  such  privilege,  and  in  such  cases 
the  owner  was  at  liberty  to  reclaim  his  property.  How  fre 
quently  the>e  rules  were  evaded  is  shown  by  the  epistles  of 
Gelasius  I.2 

Refuge  in  monasteries  was  frequently  sought  by  slaves  to 
escape  their  bondage,  and  after  a  sojourn  more  or  less  pro 
longed,  they  returned  to  the  world  as  freemen.  In  451,  the 
council  of  Chalcedon  threatened  with  excommunication  those 
concerned  in  admitting  to  monastic  vows  slaves  without  the 
knowledge  of  their  masters  :3  while  the  Emperor  Leo  I.  about 
470  decided  that  in  such  cases  the  master's  consent  gave  liberty 
to  the  slave  as  long  as  he  remained  a  monk,  but  that  if  he 
abandoned  his  monastic  life,  the  owner  was  at  liberty  to  re 
claim  him.4 

In  the  East  this  delicate  subject  was  finally  settled  by  Jus 
tinian  on  a  basis  strongly  leaning  to  the  side  of  freedom. 
While  he  positively  forbade — "  ut  non  ex  hoc  venerabili  clero 
injuria  fiat" — any  curialis  or  public  officer  to  be  admitted  to 
clerkship,  unless  he  were  already  a  monk  of  fifteen  years' 
standing,  the  emperor  showed  himself  less  scrupulous  in  inter 
fering  with  private  claims,  for  he  ordered  that  any  slave  re 
ceiving  ordination  with  his  master's  knowledge  should  be  free 
and  remain  in  the  church  ;  if  without  the  knowledge  of  the 
master,  then  a  year  only  was  allowed  for  his  reclamation,  and 
after  that  he  was  ipso  facto  free,  unless  he  abandoned  the 
church.  Coloni  or  prcedial  slaves  could  enter  the  church,  even 
without  their  master's  permission,  subject  only  to  the  condition, 

1  Const.  37  Cod.  i.  iii. 

2  Gratiani  Decrct.  I.  Dist.  LTV.  can.  9,  10,  11,  12. 

3  Concil.  Chalced.  can.  4. 

*  Const.  38  Cod.  i.  iii.— Cf.  Gregor.  PP.  I.Regiet.  Lib.  ix.  Epist.  37. 


574     THE  EARLY  CHURCH  AND  SLAVERY. 

required  by  the  public  good,  of  not  abandoning  their  agricul 
tural  occupations.1 

As  regards  the  monastic  profession,  Justinian  was  even  more 
liberal.  A  novitiate  of  three  years  was  required  of  all  appli 
cants,  during  which  claims  upon  them  could  be  presented,  and 
after  which  a  novice  became  a  monk,  when,  if  he  were  a  slave, 
he  was  lost  irrecoverably  to  his  master  unless  he  voluntarily 
abandoned  his  convent.  Even  during  the  term  of  probation, 
however,  fugitive  slaves  were  only  rendered  up  on  proof  of 
having  fled  to  escape  punishment  for  crime,  and  on  receiving 
promise  of  pardon  ;  if  of  good  conversation  and  nothing  were 
proved  against  them,  the  owner's  claim  was  fruitless.2  Thus 
the  monastic  vows  effaced  the  stigma  of  servitude,  and  the 
regulation  was  for  the  preservation  of  conventual  purity  and 
not  a  recognition  of  the  superior  claims  of  property. 

In  the  West  the  church  was  unable  to  obtain  legislation  so 
liberal.  I  have  shown  how  strict,  under  the  Barbarian  codes, 
was  the  tie  which  bound  the  slave  to  his  master,  and  it  can 
readily  be  conceived  how  hopeless  must  have  been  the  attempt 
to  relax  it  for  the  beneiit  of  those  who  might  seek  refuge  in  the 
cloister  or  in  the  ministry  of  the  altar.  Slaves  were  simply 
property,  like  asses  and  swine — somewhat  less  valuable,  indeed, 
than  a  stud-horse  or  a  village  bull — and  the  owner  could  re 
quire  compensation  for  his  loss,  as  he  could  for  a  fractured 
finger  or  any  other  damage.  No  one  could  enter  the  church 
without  the  royal  permission,  and  this  permission  when  given 
was  made  dependent  upon  the  postulant  owing  no  service, 
either  public  or  private.3  Yet  if  a  slave  was  ordained  through 
ignorance,  the  church  refused  to  give  him  up,  and  preferred 
to  purchase  his  liberty  at  a  heavy  price.  Thus  in  511,  the 
council  of  Orleans  provided  that  a  slave  ordained  without  the 
knowledge  of  his  master  must  be  paid  for  at  twice  his  value. 
If  the  officiating  bishop  had  acted  knowingly,  he  had  to  pay 

1  Novell,  cxxin.  cap.  15, 16  (arm.  541). 

2  Novell,  v.  cap.  2.  (aim.  535).  3  Marculf.  Lib.  I.  No.  19. 


THE    ORDINATION     OF     SLAVES.  575 

the  fine  ;  if  not,  it  fell  on  those  who  warranted  the  postulant  or 
had  requested  his  ordination.1  Another  council,  in  538,  pro 
hibited  the  ordination  of  slaves,  and  punished  a  wilful  viola 
tion  of  the  rule  by  suspending  the  officiating  bishop  from  the 
celebration  of  mass  for  a  year.2  These  canons  do  not  seem  to 
have  been  obeyed,  for  in  549  the  prohibition  was  repeated,  but 
the  penalty  was  reduced  to  six  months  ;  the  master  could  claim 
his  slave,  but  the  latter  was  only  to  render  such  service  as 
comported  with  the  dignity  of  his  order,  and  if  the  owner  was 
not  satisfied  with  this,  his  claim  was  to  be  bought  off  by  the 
bishop  giving  him  two  slaves  to  replace  the  lost  one.3  The 
matter  was  clearly  out  of  the  control  of  the  church,  and  it 
could  only  make  the  best  bargian  in  its  power  with  its  half 
Christianized  rulers,  while  vindicating  the  principle  that  the 
ministry  of  Christ  was  inviolable  and  that  its  functions  were 
incompatible  with  the  condition  of  servitude.  Where  it  had 
full  power,  as  with  its  own  slaves,  the  rule  was  laid  down  by 
Gregory  the  Great  that  all  who  showed  a  vocation  for  the 
calling  should  have  permission  to  enter  the  church,  becoming 
thereupon  free  and  eligible  to  any  station  for  which  they  might 
show  themselves  fitted.4 

Such  were  the  relations  of  the  early  Christian  church  with 
slavery.  It  was  subject  to  the  law;  it  could  not  abolish  servi 
tude,  for  in  Rome  the  law  emanated  from  the  theoretically 

1  Concil.  Aurelian.  I.  aim.  511  can.  8. 

2  Concil.  Aurelian.  III.  ann.  538  can.  26. 

3  Concil.  Aurelian.  V.  ann.  549  can.  6.— Concil.  Arvernens.  n.  can.  6. 
*  Gratiani  Decret.  I.  Dist.  LIV.  can.  23.   (Gregor.  PP.  I.  Epist.  Append. 

v.  Ed.  Benedict.) 

The  rule  that  ordination  conferred  freedom  was  generally  admitted 
throughout  the  middle  ages— Laws  of  Howel  Dda,  Dimetian  Code,  Bk. 
II.  chap.  8,  §§  7,  28  (Owen,  Ancient  Laws,  etc.  of  Wales,  I.  -137,  435)  — 
Home,  Myrror  of  Justice,  cap.  ir.  sect.  28.— Lib.  i.  Extra  Tit.  xviii.  c. 
6,  etc.  Feudalism ,  however,  clung  strenuously  to  its  serfs,  and  the  church 
yielded  so  far  as  to  prohibit  absolutely  the  ordination  of  those  who  were 
not  free.— Post  Concil.  Lateran.  P.  xxvi.  c.  xix. 


576     THE  EARLY  CHURCH  AND  SLAVERY. 

autocratic  emperor,  and  among  the  Barbarian  races  from  an 
assembly  of  the  nobles,  presided  over  by  the  monarch.  The 
church  could  only  exercise  an  indirect  and  moral  influence, 
and  this,  as  we  have  seen,  was,  almost  without  exception, 
thrown  in  favor  of  the  slave.  The  path  to  emancipation  was 
widened  and  rendered  more  facile  ;  the  rights  of  the  freedman 
were  protected,  the  sufferings  of  the  slave  were  alleviated. 
The  church  stood  with  its  censures  between  the  master  and  the 
bondman,  as  the  sole  guardian  of  the  lowly  and  friendless.  In 
the  true  spirit  of  the  religion  of  Christ,  it  brought  comfort  to 
the  hopeless,  and  was  the  refuge  of  those  who  had  no  other 
earthly  support. 

Its  practice  was  frequently  at  variance  with  its  teachings, 
for  human  nature  is  weak,  and  the  sacred  character  of  the 
priest  has  never  in  any  age  exempted  him  from  the  frailty 
which  we  all  inherit.  Yet  the  aberrations  of  man,  though  they 
might  obscure,  could  not  prevail  against  the  principles  of  the 
Gospel,  and  in  the  long  course  of  centuries  the  influence  of 
Christianity  gradually  won  the  victory  over  human  cupidity 
and  pride.  That  a  man  should  exercise  the  absolute  despotism 
of  ownership  over  his  fellow-creature  has  at  length  been  re 
cognized  as  wrong  in  itself,  and  this  is  not  the  least  of  the 
peculiar  characteristics  which  distinguish  our  Christian  civil 
ization  from  that  of  other  ages  and  creeds.  When  so  much 
has  been  gained  we  are  fairly  justified  in  anticipating  more, 
and  in  looking  forward  hopefully  to  the  time  when  the  uni 
versal  brotherhood  of  mankind  shall  be  a  practical  element  in 
the  guidance  of  life. 


INDEX. 


ABBEYS  in  the  gift  of  the  sove 
reign,  102 
Absolution  and  dispensation, 

commercial  value  of,  164 

death-bed,  of  debtor,  __     442 

purchase  of,  164,  459 

compulsory,  461 

Abuses  of  clerical  exemption, 

193,  205,  220,  22i,  228 

Abuses  of  excommunication,  416 

Acacius,  excommunication  of, 

139,  286,  293 

Accusations  of  laymen  not  receiv 
able  against  clergy,  70 
Accuser,  unsuccessful,  punishment 

of,  2' 9 

Adam,  excommunication  of,  407 

Adam  of  Locheim,  case  of,  426 

Adrian  I.  refutes  Charlemagne   on 

image  worship,  '2S  n. 

his  grants  to  Charlemagne, 

36,  93,  96  7i. 

adopts  the  canons  of  Ingilram,  48 
rejects fili.qu-  from  the  creed,  bo 
his  coniest  with  Ravenna,  124 

produces  the  donation  of  Con 
stantino,  165 
Adiian    II.  if  rants   privileges  with 

the  pallium,  147 

admits  Lothair  to  ordeal,  173 

asserts  papal  supremacy,  175 

assumes    to    dispose    of    king 
doms,  341 
Adrian  VI.  on  papal  power,                   390 
his  treatment  of  the  Reformers,     490 
Adultery,  penitenc  '  for,  506 
JElia   Sentia    (lex)   restricts  manu 
mission,  532 
African     church,    relations    of,    to 

Rome,  123 

resists  usurpations  of  Rome  in 

2-53,  127 

dominated    by    Innocent    I.    in 

416,  124 

vindicates  its  independence  in 

419,  133 

excommunicates  Pope  Vigilius 

in.  550,  125 

asks  for  manumission  at  altar,      543 
Agapa1,  or  love  feasts,  240 

Agde,  council  of,  in  506, 

61,  183,560,  566,  569 

Agobard,  St.,  on  image  worship,       23  n 
he  aids  in   degrading  the  Em 
peror,  331 
he  is  deposed,  ID 

49 


Aimery     de     Maignac,     Bishop     of 

Paris,  212 

Aird   John,  his  zeal  against  witch 
craft,  501 
Aix-la-Chapelle,  council  of,  in  809,        65 
in  816,  66 
in  836,                                              108 
in  862,                                              169 
Alamanni,  wer-gilds  of  the,             304  n. 
incestuous  marriage  among,       320  n. 
Alaric    II.,    his    control    over    the 

church,  61 

Albigenses,  legislation  against,  399 

Alcuin  on  the  secular  power,  65 

Aldric  of  Le  Mans,  case  of,  1^1 

Alexander  II.  rebukes  Gervase  of 

Rheims,  V>7 

Alexander  III.  forbids  accusations 

between  clerks  and  Jaymen,  72  n. 
claims  original  jurisdiction,  387 
refuses  to  remove  interdict,  420 

Alexander   IV.   on   clerical   concu 
binage,  159 
limits  clerical  immunity,  207 
restricts  the  interdict,                  420  n. 
Alexander  VIII.  anathematizes  the 

Declaration  of  1682, 

Alexandria,  primacy  of,  112 

its  assaults  on  Constantinople, 

120,  121,  137 

its  attempted  supremacy,        124,  292 
its  power  broken,  293 

Alez,  synod  of,  in  16'20,  496 

Alfonso  of  Arragon,  case  of,  384 

Alfonso    the  Wise    on    clerical  im 
munity,  205 
on  excom.,                            407,  417,  435 
Alienation  of  church  property  for 
bidden  by  Odoacer,  IS 
Allegiance,  oath  of,  required  of  the 

clergy,  107 

secured  by  excom.,  341 

released  by  excom.,  377 

Altar,  manumission  at,  in  Rome,          543 
among  Barbarians,  564,  568 

asylum  for  slaves  at,  5tS 

among  Barbarians,  539 

sacred    vessels   of,    sold   to   re 
deem  captives,  562 
Ambrose,  St.,  on  the  irial  of  popes,        IS 
on  temporalities,                          105  n. 
on  penitence,                                   254  n. 
his  excom.  of  Maximus, 
his  opposition  to  Justina,  282 
his  rebuke  of  Valentinian  II.,        283 
his  excom.  of  Theud  >sius,  284 


578 


INDEX. 


Ambrose,  St. — 

on  humaii  equality, 

Amiens,  synod  of,  c.  1275,  42-5 

Anastasius  (Emp.),his  resistance  to 

Rome,  295 

his  forged  deposition,  132  n. 

Anastasius  II.  (Pope),  his  assertion 

of  Roman  supremacy,  125 

Anathema,  omnipotence  of,  370 

disregard  of,  462 

Anathema  maranatha,  239 

Ancyra,  council  of,  in  314,  235 

Andronicus  of  Pentapolis,  his  ex 
communication,  251,275,  281 
Angels,  excommunication  of,  407 

inferior  to  priests, 
Angelus     (John),     his    proposit'on 

condemned,  390  n. 

Anglican  church,  excom.  in,  508 

abuses  of,  511 

complaints  of  the  people,        513 

decline   of,  after  the  Great 

Rebellion,  519 

Anglo-Suxon    laws    on     benefit    of 

clergy, 

on  slavery,  557 

Anicetus  (Pope)  ;md  Polycarp, 
Animals,  exc  immiinicatiou  of,  428 

Anisola,  case  of  the  Ab!>ot  of,  189 

Anjou,  synod  of,  in  1265,  401,  442 

in  1270,  404  n. 

in  1275,  424 

in  1 281,  460 

Anne,   Queen,    extends    benefit    of 

clergy.  1!>9 

Anne  of  Britanny  stops  excommu 
nication  for  debt,  446 
Anno  of  Cologne,  canonization  of,    355  n. 
Anselm  of  Milan  deposed,  110 
Anthemius  prohibits  marriage  with 

freedmen,  546 

Antioch,  its  quarrel  with  Jerusalem,  120 

primacy  of,  112 

restored  to  communion  in  415,         292 

council  of.  in  269,  15,  115 

in  341,  93  11.,  112,  117,  243,  274,  290 

Antoninus      Pius,     his      laws     on 

slavery,  536 

Antrouius  Maximus,  case  of,  527 

Ants,  excommunication  of,  434 

Apia rius,  case  of,  133 

Apocrisarii,  papal,  22 

Apostles,  their  avoidance  of   here 
tics,  238 
their  teachings  of  forgiveness,       237 
Apostolic  Canons  (see  danons). 
Constitutions     (see     Constitu 
tions). 

Sees,  primacy  of,  112,  119 

chamber,  corruption  of,  58  n. 

Appellate   jurisdiction   of  Consian- 

tinople,  138 

of  Rome,  84  ?i.,  126 

not    claimed    in   the    primitive 

church.  126 

successfully  resisted  when  first 

advanced,  127 

granted  temporarily  by  council 

of  Sardica,  129 

falls  into  desuetude,  130 


Appellate  jurisdiction  of  Rome — 

revived  by  Innocent  I.,  133 

denied  by  African  church,  133 

admitted  by  Gaul,  13-3 

established  by  Valentinian  III.,  136 
rejected  by  the  East,  137 

admitted  by  Spain,  139 

rejected  by  the  Western  Barba 
rians,  140 
its  recovery  attempted  with  the 

pallium,  142 

Boniface  seeks  to  revive  it,  144 

the  pallium  again  resorted  to,  144 
Charlemagne  disregards  the 

papal  claims,  146 

privileges   of   appeal   conceded 

with  the  pallium,  146 

jurisdiction   established   by    the 

false  decretals,  149 

delay  in  admitting  it,  151 

established  by  Nicholas  I.,  152 

case  of  Rothadus  of  Soissous,  153 
evils  attendant  upon  the  system,  155 
complaints  of  the  church,  156 

denied  by  the  Neapolitan  Nor 
mans,  158 
admitted   by  the    German    Ern- 

perors, 

corruptions  entailed  by  it,  159 

reform  attempted  by  council  of 

Bale,  160 

evils  continue  undiminished, 

160,  451 

Apt   council  of.  in  1365,  445 

Aquilia  (lex)  on  murder  of  slaves. 

530,  536 

Arabic  version  of  Nicene  canons,          117 

Aragou,  excommunication  in,  407 

of  animals  in,  432 

Arbitration  in  the  early  church,  74 

of  bishops,  177 

enfoiced  by  Honorius,  75 

Arcadius,  forged  excommunication 

and  deposition  of,  132  ?j. 

on  ingratitude  of  freedmen,  546 

on  marriage  of  freewomeu  and 

slaves,  546 

enforces  claims  of  service,  572 

d'Argentr6,  Bertrand,on  excommu 
nication  for  debt,  447 
Arian    controversy,  advantages   of, 

to  Rome,  117 

Arinnism,    technical,    of    Constan 
tino,  167  n. 
Aiith  (Win.)  on  excom..                   436,  439 
Arius,     h;s     excommunication     re 
moved  by  Constantino,  277 
Aries,  first  council  of,  in  314,    64,  259,  2SO 
second  council,  in  443, 

99  n.,  548,  569 

sixth  council,  in  813,      316  n.,  325  n. 
Arinaud  of  Sens,  his  use  of  excom.,    435 
Arnold  of  Brescia  on  temporalities,     105 
is  sacrificed  by  Frederic  [.,  39 

Arnoul  (Emperor),  oath   of  allegi 
ance  to  him,  43  n. 
Arnoul  of  Rheims  eludes  excom.,        339 
his  imprisonment,  300 
Arnoul  of  Tours  and  the  pallium,    148  n. 
At  rius  Menander  on  slavery,                  525 


INDEX. 


579 


Arsenius,  St.,  his  policy  of  excom 
munication,  272 
Arson,  punishment  of,  409 
Articles,  the  42  and  39,  509 
Asceticism  in  early  church,  541 
Aspe,  valley  of,  426 
Assembly  of  Westminster,  ">1S 
''  Assertor"  for  slave  plaintiff,  514 
abrogated  by  Justinian,  549 
Asylum  for  slaves  in  churches,  518 
among  barbarians,  559 
iu  monasteries,                            572,  574 
Athalaric,     his     control    over     the 

church,  20 

encourages  immunity  of  clergy,  181 

Athanasius,  excommunication  by,  281 

Atliguy,  penance  of,  in  822,  326 

Atto  of  Vercelli  asserts  immunity 

of  clergy,  73  n. 

Auditio,  in  penitence,  254 
Audovera  supplanted  by  Fredegon- 

da,  320 

Augsburg  Confession,  excom.  in,  491 
Augustine,  St.,  on  judicial  functions 

of  bishops,  75 
upholds  African  independence,  13.3 
on  Eucharistic  oblation,  241 
on  the  effects  of  excom.,  249 
on  segregation,  251 
affirms  excom.  of  dead,  265 
on  limitations  of  excom.,  267 
on  discipline  of  church,  276 
reproves  general  excom.,  311 
on  proper  y  in  slaves,  538 
Augustus  punishes  evasion  of  mili 
tary  service,  526 
punishes  Vedius  Pollio,  529 
restricts  manumission,  532 
Aunius  punished  for  cruelty,  527 
Aurelian  and  the  .See  of  Antioch,  115 
Austria,  modern,  class  equality  in,  231 
Autonomy  of  the  pr.m.  churches,  113 
Antun,  synod  of,  in  1094,  373 
Bishop    of,   maintains    clerical 

immunity,  219 
rats  of,  excommunicated,  430 
Auxanius  of  Aries,  receives  the  pal 
lium,  142 
Auxerre,  council  of,  in  578,  185 
Avignon,  council  of.  in  1326, 

402,  405,  452 

in  1337,  443,  452 

Azzo  of  Milan,  358 


BADEGESILUS  of  Le  Mans,  79 

Bailies,    Scottish,    subject     to 
kirk-sessions,  500 

BiUe,  council  of,  160,  394,  400 

complaints  about  pallium  in,    148  n. 
condemns  the  Sachseuspiegel,       413 
resorts  to  sale  of  indulgences,  483  n. 
Baltimore,    second    council    of,    iu 

1866,  478 

Baluze,  on  the  grant  of  Adrian,        93  n. 
Bamberg,  synod  of,  in  1491, 

201,  383  n.,  459,  462,  483  n. 
Bautror,  quarrel  over  bishopric  of,      104 
Bankers,  Roman,  protected  by  ex 
communication,  439 


Bankruptcy  and  perjury,  441 

Bankrupts  enslaved  in  Rome,  525 

divided  among  creditors,  555  rt. 

Barbarian  laws,  their  influence  on 

the  church,  553 

slavery  in  the,  55 4 

Barbarians,  their   control  over  the 

church,  61 

their  independence  of  Rome,         140 
they  encourage  episcopal  juris 
diction,  77 
troubles    of    the    church    with 

them,  300 

Barber    of  the    Chatelet,  his  func 
tions,  215 
Barbers,  jury  of,                                        216 
Baronius  on  the  grant  of  Adrian,      93  n. 
on  the  Sardican  canons,              13$  n. 
on  the  donation  of  Louis  le  De- 

bonnaire,  166  n. 

Bartholomew  a  Martyribus,  224 

Basil,  St.,  rejects  the  authority  of 

the  We.-t,  US 

on  segregation   of  excommuni- 

cates,  281 

he  excommunicates  a  village,  312  n. 

Basil  (Einp.)  enforces  lex  talionis,      273 

Basilides,  case  of,  127 

Baudoin  Bras  de  Fer,  his  appeal  to 

Rome,  162 

le  Chauve  and  the  Abbey  of  St. 

Bertiu,  343 

Baugency,  council  of,  in  1104,  374 

Bavaria,  clerical  immunity  in,        23]  n. 
Bavarian  code,  appointment  of  bish 
ops  under, 

on  clerical  immunity,  185 

wer-gilds  in  the,  301  n. 

incestuous  marriage  in,  320  n. 

slavery  in  the,  554,  5-39 

Beaurnanoir  admits  clerical  immu 
nity,  192  ».,  207,  208 
on  excommunication,  404,  418 
Beauvais,  interdict  of,  420 
Belgium,  abuse  of  excomm.  in,  477 
Belisarius  condemns  Silverius,  181 
Bell,  book,  and  candle,  excommu 
nication  with,                                  348,  382 
Benedict  the  Levite,  his   capitula 
ries,  68 
supposed  to  be  the  author  of  the 

P^uedo-Isidor,  68 

on  prohibited  degrees,  323 

on  spoliation  of  the  church,  331 

Benedict  XII.  collects  debts  by  ex 
communication, 

Benefit  of  clergy,  177 

Beneventum,  freedmen  of,  531 

Benevolences  enforced  by  excom.,        573 
Berlin,  complaint  of,  395 

Bernabo   Yisconti   disregards   cleri 
cal  immunity,  203 
Bernard,  St.,  on  segregation  of  ex 
communicates, 

restores  an  accursed  vineyard,     427 
anathematizes  flies, 
excommunicates  the  devil, 
Bertha,  Queen,  repudiation  of,  373 

Berthair,  bishop-elect  of  Chalons,       103 
Berthold  of  Ratisbon,  86  n. 


580 


INDEX. 


Berlin,  St.,  abbey  of,  quarrel  over,      343 
Bertolf  of  Treves  objects  to  pallium 

sent  to  Metz,  149 

I'ertrade  of  Anjou,  her  excom.,  373 

Bertrand  of  Coraminges  miracle  by,    428 
Bigamous  clerks  not  entitled  to  im 
munity,  207,21-2,21") 
Bigamy  prohibited  by  Lothair  I.,         321 
Bingham,    Joseph,    ou    neglect    of 

communion,  .r>19 

Bishoprics    sold    by    the    Merovin 
gians,  89 
appointments   under    Carlovin- 

gians,  05 

Bishops,  political  power  of,  ~rl 

Prankish,  threaten  Gregory  IV.,  08 
their  power  of  arbitration  in  the 

early  church,  74,  177 

their  sentences  enforced,  7.3 

criminal     justice    intrusted    to 

them  exclusively,  So 

oath     of     fidelity     required    of 

them,  107 

they  endeavor  to  avoid  it,  109 

empowered  to  demand  extradi 
tion,  33."> 
their  jurisdiction   enforced    by 

the  state,  .3:56 

relied  on  by  the  state  t>  enforce 

the  law,  337 

appeals  from  their  decisions  to 

the  tin-one,  339 

empowered  to  coerce  incestuous 

persons,  321,32*2 

murder  of,  in  Bavarian  law,  301  n. 
immunity  of,  from  accusations,  70 
deposed  for  treason,  110 

merely  delegates  of  the  papacy, 

15077. 

reverence  paid  to  them  by  Con 
stant!  ne,  17S 
immunity  granted  them  bv  Con- 

stantius,  170 

removed  by  subsequent  em 
perors,    "  180 
restored  by  Justinian,  1S1 
j  urisdiciion  over  clergy  granted 

by  Justinian,  182 

punished  for  improper  excom.,      339 
necessity  of,  in  death-bed  abso 
lution,  2fi3 
their  position  in  Augsburg  Con 
fession,                                               492 
election  of 

originally    by    people    and 

clergy,  87 

intervention    of    the    sove 
reign,  88 
controlled  by  the  Merovin 
gians,  89 
the  church  endeavors  to  as 
sert  its  independence,              91 
but  fails  in  both  France  and 

Spain,  92 

appointing  power  exercised 

by  Charlemagne,  93 

and  by  Louis  le  Debon  ,  96 

and  by  the  feudatories,  101 

admitted  by  the  church  up 

to  SoO.  97 


Bishops,  election  of — 

the  church  resists    the    ap 
pointing  power,  97 
tin'  papacy  seeks  to  obtain 

it,  93,  103 

the    laity  deprived   of  suf 
frage,  99 
efforts    to   confine    it  to  the 

suffragans,  99 

customs  of  the  Greek  church,    100 
confusion   under  Charles  le 

Lhauve,  101 

the    Metropolitans   attempt 

to  gain  control,  102,  103 

the  power  absorbed  by  the 

papacy,  106  n. 

Blanche  of  Castile,  law  of,  399 

provokes  an  interdict,  420 

Blind  men,  provision  for,  197 

Blondel  exposes  the   False    Decre 
tals,  r>9 
B  lerius,  Peter,  on  the  Roman  curia,     419 
Boniface,  St.,  crowns  Pepin  le  Bref,       34 
his  appointment  to  see  of  Mainz,       93 
his  efforts  to  extend  papal  ju 
risdiction,                                          144 
his  troubles  with  Roman  juris 
diction,                                               1;V5 
Boniface  I.,  his  election  to  the  pa 
pacy,  17 
Boniface    III.    obtains    supremacy 

over  Constantinople,  "123  n. 

Bonit'a-e    VIII.   on    clerical    immu 
nity,  209 
grants  privilege  to  Berlin,               395 
ivstrict-  interdict  for  debt,              442 
Boniface    IX.,    his    sale    of    indul 
gences,                                                 482  /i. 
Boniface  of  Ferentino,                              306 
Bonosu«,  case  of,  130 
Book,  use  of,  in  benefit  of  clergy,          199 
Bourbon,  Pierre,  refused  burial,           444 
Bracton  admits  beivfit  of  clergy.    192  n. 
Braga,   Archbishopric   of,    and    the 

p.il limn,  1 48  n. 

Branding  in  benefit  of  clergy,  199 

Bni'iks  tor  penitents,  ;">07 

Brazil,  excom   of  ants  in,  434 

Brethren  of  the  Cross,  30 

Brigitta,  St.,  on  excommunication,      401 
Britanny,  exc  >m.  for  debt  in,  4lo' 

Counts  of.  cases  of,  308,  401 

Briiish   church  admits  clerical  im 
munity,  1S.3 
Brixen,  synod  of.                                        371 
Brochrnael  of  Gwect,  his  excom.,        334 
Bruweiler,    monks    of,    sell     iudul- 

gen.es,  481  n. 

Bull  "  Jn  Cocna  Domini,"  230,  233 

Hurdiniis,  Martin,  antipope,  3M) 

Burgundiau  Laws,  slavery  in,      554,  5;"i8 
Burgundians  refuse  clerical  immu 
nity,  183 
Burial  denied  to  excommunicates, 

377,  380,  422 

to  bankrupts,  444 

Burlesque  of  excommunication,  -J02 

Byzantine   emperors,   their   control 
over  episcopal  nominations,  100 


INDEX. 


581 


CADIZ,  Bishop   of,  at   council   of 
Trent,  100  n. 

Ca>cilianus,  trial  of,  128 

Calixtus  I.  and  Ilippolytus,  113 

his  depravity,  245 

Calixtus  II.,  his  simony,  57  «. 

and  Thurstan  of  York, 
Calvinist  doctrine  on  cxcoin.,  494 

Calvin's  confession  of  faith,  494 

code  of  discipline,  496 

Cambrai,  council  of,  in  1565,  470 

Canada,  pigeons  excom.  in,  434 

Candle,  use  of,  in  excom..  348.  382 

Canonization,  expenses  of,  57  n. 

Canon    law,    supremacy  of,  in    the 

False  Decretals,  C8 

exi--ts  only  by  pleasure  of  the 

pope,  390 

burned  by  Luther,  489 

Canons,   apostolic,   on    local    inde 
pendence,  116 
on  participation  in  the  Eu 
charist,                                        243 
on  segregation,                            250 
Canosa,  interview  of,                                369 
Canterbury,  archbishop  of,  in  1293. 

his  petition,  147  n. 

synod  of,  in  1640,  513,  515 

Capitularies,  how  enacted, 

of  Benedict  the  Leyiie,  08 

Captives,  redemption  of,  562 

Carloman   (Duke)   seeks  to   reform 

the  church,  315 

Carloman  (King)  relies  wholly  on 

the  church,  338 

Cailovingian     legislation,     perma 
nence  of,  54 
traditions,     reverence     for,    in 

Germany,  408 

Carlovingians     struggles    between 

the,  44 

Caroline  books,  27  n. 

Carthage,  council  of,  in  348,  274 

in  390,  99  «.,  203,  275 

in  397  74,  180,  240  n., 

241,  245,  263,  207 

in  398,   251,  260,  261,  264,  268,  565 
in  40],  207,565 

in  419,  267 

Castile,  opposition  to  Rome  in, 
Caterpillars,  excommunication  of,       431 
Cautinns,  bishop  of  Clermont,  90 

Celestin  I.,  his  control  over  Galli- 

can  churches,  135 

on  denial  of  communion,         249,  260 

Cemetery,  interdiction  of,  403 

Census,  enslavement  for  evading,       526 

manumission  by  inscription  in,      531 

Chalcedon,  council  of,  in  451, 

14,  05,  74,  112,  177,  ISO,  208,  209,  573 

Chalons,  council  of,  in  579,  141 

in  645,  562 

in  049,  92,  185,  561 

in  813,  82Jn.,326n. 

Charibert,  Kiug,  his  fate,  310 

Charlemagne    refutes    image   wor- 


Charlemagne — 

his  control  over  the  papacy, 

his  coronation  as  emperor,  37 

associates  Louis  le  Dobonnairc 

in  the  empire,  41 

his  jealousy  of  sacerdotal  inter 
ference,  51 
permanence  of  his  legislation,         54 
his  supremacy  over  the  church,      02 
adopts     one    of    the     Isidorian 

canons,  73 

abolishes  the  j  urisdictiou  of  the 

bishops.  81 

restricts  the  territorial  jurisdic 
tion  of  the  church, 
exacts    inilitaiy    service    from 
church  lands,  8.8 


his  nomination  to  b 

he  grants  the  right  of  election, 

exacts  oaths  of  fidelity  from  the 

clergy, 
disregards  the  appellate  juris 

diction  of  Koine, 
and  puts  an  end  to  its  abuses, 
his  donation  to  St.  Peter, 
he   disregards   the  donation  of 

Constantino,  105 

his  matrimonial  irregu'arities,       169 
his    legislation  on  clerical   im 

munity.  1HO 

he  disregards  it  in  practice.  187 

he  punishes  nobles  and  bishops 

indiscriminately,  1*8 

he  forbids  warfare  to  clerks,          314 
he  uses  the  church  as  a  civiliz 

ing  agency,  315 

his  control  over  lh<>  sacraments,   310 
he    enforces    obedience    to   the 

church, 


theories,  93,  108 

96 


107 

146 
155 
105 


317 


prohibits  incestuous  marriages,     322 


of      the 


spoliation 

)f  exconimuni- 


ship, 
conquers  Italy, 
his  donation  to  the  church, 
grant  of  Adrian  I.  to  him, 


27  n. 
36 


36,  93 

49* 


restrains 
church, 

prohibits  abuse 

cation,  M 

Charles  Martel   is  appealed  to   by 

Gregory  II.,  26 

is  offered  the  kingdom  of  Italy,       32 

his  disposal  of  bishoprics,  92 

Charles   le   Chauve,  his   tenure   of 

sovereignty,  31  n. 

his  nominations  to  bishoprics, 

97,  101,  102 

gives  the  abbey  of  St.  Martin  to 
Robert  le  Fort, 

enlarges  eccles.  jurisdiction, 

subjects    himself    to    episcopal 
jurisdiction, 

accuses  Wonilo  of  Sens, 

represses     the    pretensions    of 
Ravenna, 

complains   of   appellate    juris 
diction,  155 

his  connection  with  divorce  of 
Teutberga,  109,  172 

obliged  to  admit  clerical  immu 
nity,  l^O 

endeavors  to  abrogate  it,  li'l 

forbids  warfare  to  clerks,          315  n. 

his  extradition  treaties,  335 

he  enforces  excommunication,       3#ti 


321 


102 
85 


88 

I  10 


124 


582 


INDEX. 


Charles  le  Chauve — 

he     seeks     support    from     the 

church,  336 

he  controls  excommunication,        338 
proclaims     the     supremacy    of 

Rome,  340 

secures  his  subjects'  allegiance 

by  excommunication,  341 

Charles  le  Simple,  his    right  to  in 
vestitures  admitted^  94  n. 
pardons  the  murder  of  Fulk,          344 
Charles  V.  (France)  restricts  cleri 
cal  immunity.  212 
his  laws  on  excom.,  403 
on  excom.  for  debt,  442 
Charles  VII.   (France),  on  clerical 

immunity,  218 

sustains  the  royal  courts,  444 

Charles    IV.     (Emp.l,    submits    to 

papacy,  40 

his  acceptance  by  Clement  VI.,  168  n. 

enforces  clerical  immunity,  201 

fine  for  neglect  of  excom.",  461 

Charles  V.  (Emp.),  seeks  to  reform 

the  church,  223,  467 

Charles   I.    (Eugl.),   his  use  of  ex 
communication,  513 
Ghana   de    Foresta   guaranteed   by 

e    communication,  382 

Charters,  curses  attached  to,  302 

Chartres,  council  of,  in  132."),  481  n. 

in  13oS,  44.'),  4S1  n. 

Chassan.'-e  on  clerical  immunity,          219 

on  excom.  of  animals,  430  ; 

Chatelet  of  Paris,  cuses  in  the,  213 

Chaucer's  Pardoner,  482  n. 

Chiersy,  synod  of,  96  ] 

capitulnry  of,  103 

Childebert  II.,  enforces  excom.,  313 

Children,  communion  administered 

to,  243 

of  excommunicate*,  401,  417 

iu  Scotland,  505 

exposed,  freedom  of,  52d,  .J4o  ' 

Chilperic    I.,  reproved  by  Gregory 

of  Tours,  1S.5 

Chilperic    II  ,    extends    territorial 

jurisdiction,  SI 

Chindaswind,  his    law   on    clerical 

immunity,  1S3 

on  murder  of  slaves,  556 

Christ,  his  spirit  of  forgiveness, 

236,  270 

he  teaches  non-resistance,  523  , 

the  pope  assimilated  to,  3S9  * 

Christian    emperors,   their    control 

over  the  church,  13  '• 

Christian  slaves  of  Jews,  518,  561 

Christians,        early,        corruptions 

among  the,  245 

Christopher  II.,  of  Denmark,  laws 

of",  192  •». 

Chroma  tins,  case  of,  537 

Chrysostom,  St.  John,  his  condem 
nation,  132 
avenged  by  Rome,                      292 
on     perdition     of     excommuni 
cates,                                                   248 
he      denounces      excommunica 
tion  of  the  (h'ad,                              285 


Chrysostom,  St.  John — 
on  abuse  of  excom., 
he  exalts  priestly  authority, 
Church,  primitive,  organization  of, 
its  corruption, 
its  subjection  to  the  Chris 
tian  emperors, 
anil  to  the  barbarians, 
to  Charlemagne, 
to  Louis  le  Debonnaire, 
it  protects  the  people, 


272 
2S1 
112 
245 

13 

61 
62 
66 

46  n. 

necessity  of  its"  unity.  52 

is   invited   to  interl'e're  between 

kings  and  subjects,  342 

its  unprotected  condition  at  the 

rise  of  feudalism,  343 

its   corruptions   in   the    middle 

ages,  220,  452,  463 

Us  relations  with  slavery,  523 

its  treatment  of  slaves,  565 

:  Cid     (the),    prop>ses     to    defy    the 

pope,  406  n. 

\  Ciruelo  on  exc  >m.  of  animals,  432 

|  Citizenship,     restrictions     on,     for 

freedmen,  533 

freedmeu  admitted  to,  552 

!  Civil  ca-es  removed  from  ecclesias 
tical  j  uri-diction,  468 
Clarendon,  constitutions  of,  195 
Claudius  of  Turin,                                  29  n. 
Claudius    (Emp  )    restricts   liberty 

of  freedmen,  53t 

punishes      minder     of      infirm 

slave,  535 

Clement  Ill.aud  William  of  Scot 
land,  3S4 
singular  excom.  by,                           435 
Clement    III.,    antipope,    his    elec 
tion  371 
his  death,  374 
Clement    IV.,    his    claim    of    papal 

omnipotence,  386 

Clement  VI.  confirms  Charles  IV., 

40,  168  n. 

Clement   VII.,    limits    excommuni 
cation  for  debt,  443 
his  mildness  towards  F.ederic 

of  Saxony,  49 J 

Clement  of  Alexandria  on  marriage 

ceremony,  31S  «. 

Clergy,  benefit  of,  177 

concubinage  of,  155,  159 

despotism  of  the,  222 

corruption  of  the,  22').  215,  452,  463 
their  separation  from  the  laity,  300 
their  vices  the  work  of  God,  228 

Clermont,  council  of,  iu  519,          569,  575 
in  10:»5,  373,481  n. 

Clotair  I.  enlarges  episcopal  juris- 

d'ction,  79 

on  episcopal  elections,  90,  91 

excommunicated    by    St.    Nice- 

tius,  311 

Clotair  II.  on  episcopal  elections,          90 
his  edict  of  615,  185 

confirms  canons  of  C.  of  Paris,      570 
Cnut,  his  laws  on  benefit  of  clergy,     195 
on  excommunication,  397  n. 

Code  of  Discipline,  Calviuist,  496 


Cognac,  council  of,  in  1260, 


423 


INDEX 


583 


Colloquy  of  Poissy, 

Cologne  remains  faithful  to  Heury 

IV. 

council  of,  in  1266, 
Coloni,  ordination  permitted  to, 
Communion,  original  character  of, 
continues  to  be  a  repast, 
becomes    obligatory     and     fre 

quent, 

is  universally  administered, 
even  to  the  dead, 
becomes  an  instrument  of  coer 

cion, 

effects  of  its  deprivation, 
letters  of, 

controlled  by  Constantino, 
by  Justinian, 
by  Charlemagne, 
by  Charles  le  Chauve, 
by  royal  prerogative, 
nce  inculcated  for  it 


30  n.  1  Constantinopolitan  church — 


378 
410 
573 
239 
241 

243 
243 
244 

244 
247 

273 

273 

316,325 
338 
333 

reverence  incuicaien  tor  u, 
its  disregard  by  the  barbarians,     312 
its  administration  to  idiots,       469  n. 
enforced  in  Scotland, 

Concordats  of  Martin  V.,  394 

of  Leo  X.,  395,404 

of  156.3  with  S.  America,  416 

Concubinage  encouraged   by  apel- 

late  jurisdiction,  156,  159 

by  clerical  immunity,  220 

Confession,  auricular, 

used  to  enforce  segregation, 
Confiscation  of  excommunicates,  396 

Conrad  the    Salic  di-regards  cleri 
cal  immunity, 
selects  Speyer  as  the  imperial 

burial  place,  379  n. 

Conrad,  King  of  the  Romans,  372 

Conrad  of  Ursperg  on  papal  corrup 
tions, 

Consistories,  their  power  of  excom 
munication, 

Constance,  council  of,     Stn.,  104  n.,  394, 
443    450    456,461,483%. 
24 


ria, 

e  equal  to  Rome  by  council 
Chalcedon,  122,138 


made  second  to  that  of  Rome,        120 

attacked  by  Eastern  churches,       120 

temporary  triumph  of  Alexan 
dria, 

mad( 
of  C 

Roman  supremacy  admitted  by 
Phocas,  123,  n. 

wrests  Macedonia  from  Rome,       126 

appellate  jurisdiction  conceded 
to,  139 

quarrel  with   Rome  over  Aca- 
cius,  139,  286,  293 

humiliation  of, 

symbol,  the, 
Constnntius  persecutes  Liberius, 

his   law  in   favor  of  episcopal 

immunity,  1"9 

Constitutiones   Sicularum,   c'erical 

immunity  in.  19271. ,202 


45° 


excommunication  in, 
Constitutions,     Apostolic,     reprove 

litigation,  . 

on  participation  m  communion, 
on    abandonment    of   convicted 

criminals, 
on     perdition     of     excommuni 

cates, 

on  segregation, 
on  penitence, 
on  limitations  of  excorn., 
on  lex  talionis, 
rules  on  excommunication, 
occupations  forbidden  in, 
regulations  of  slavery  in, 


414 


537,  538,  539,  540 
Contarini  (Card.)  on  papal  simony, 

58  77. 

Contumacy,  severity  of  penalty  for,    456 
a  substitute  for  excommunica 
tion,  "I !,  -V2° 
Contumeliosus  of  Riez,  case  of,     140,  141 
Convocation,  Anglican,  of  1562, 

of  1580, 

j  Copts,  infant  communion  among 
13  !  Copyright  enforced  by  excom., 

organizes  general  councils,  117  \  Cornelia  (lex)  de  sicariis, 

lou-t'ion  of  119  7i.,  164  \  Cornelius  rebuked  by  Cyprian, 

;  Coronation,  sacerdotal  ministration 
128  j  in, 

167  n.  \          of  Charlemagne, 

178  \          of  Louis  le  Dobonnaire, 

179  !          of  Loth  air  I., 

276     Corporal  punishment  for  excom., 

as  alternative  for  excom., 
Corruption  in  the  early  church, 
fostered  by  appellate  jurisdic 
tion, 
by  clerical  immunity, 

193,  208,  219,  224,  228 

Cossa,  Balthasar,  his  usury,  447 

Contangos  on  religious  repasts,       2i3  n. 
Councils,  their  subordination  to  the 

state, 

•'1    ->6!5     Courtly  toleration  for  emperors, 
'  S71  j  Creed  of  Nicsea,  altered  by  Charle- 

119  i      rnague, 

visually    under    province    of  !  Criminal  jurisprudence  of  church, 

Thrace.  119  j 


Constans  II.  exiles  Martin  I., 
Constantino,    his    control    over    the 
church, 


appoints    Pope    Melchiades   as 

judge, 

his  clinical  baptism, 
admits  episcopal  immunity, 
threatens  Athanasius, 
his  control  of  communion, 
his  laws  on  manumission, 
in  favor  of  liberty, 
adverse  to  slaves, 
as  to  foundlings, 
Constantino     Copronymus,    Roman 

documents  dated  by, 
Coustantiue     Pogouatus     and      the 

popes, 

Constantinople,  council  of,  in  381 
ill  448, 
in  553, 
in  8'59, 
Constantinopolitan  church,  rise  of, 


512 
544 
545 
551 

31 

24 

16 


ris 


244  n. 

333 
245 
1S5 


286 


499 


584 


INDEX. 


Criminals  assume  tonsure    as  safe 
guard,  213 
clerical  immunity  for, 

199,  208,  219,  224,  22S 

Cruelty  to  slaves  in  Rome,  529 

reproved  by  the  church,  539 

Crusaders,  indulgences  for,  4S1  n 

extension  of  debts  for,  411 

Curia,  Roman,  greed  of  the, 

55  n.,  161,  418,  450 
infection  flowing  from  it,  391 
Curiales  not  admissible  to  orders,  57:? 
Curses  to  protect  church  property,  302 
to  protect  private  property,  4 .57 
Cyfeiliawg,  Bishop,  his  use  of  ex 
communication,  3!4 
Cyprian  and  Mart-ion  of  Aries,  114 
his  superscription  of  epistles,  115 
his  resistance  to  Rome,  128 
on  Eucharit-tic  oblation,  241 
OQ  corruption  of  the  church,  246 
OH     perdition     of    excommuni 
cates,  24* 
on  penitence,  253 
on  death-bed  communion,  260 
on  excommunication  of  dead,  264 
on  violation  of  excom.,  274 
on     the     independence    of    the 

churches,  290 
Cyril,  his  attack  on  Nestorius,  120 
his  effort-  for  Alexandrian  su 
premacy,  124 


DAGOBEHT  I   appoints  Didier  of 

Cahora,  91 

threatened  by  Sulpicius,  307 
Damasus,   his    election    to   the   pa- 

P"cy,  17 
false  decretals  attributed  to,     147  n. 
Damiani,    St.    Peter,    on    papal    si 
mony,                                              56?<. 
prohibits  divorce  of  Henry  IV.,  356 
reproves  abuse  of  excom.,  3t>4 
Dancing,  excommunication  for,  508 
Dante,  on  the  study  of   the  Decre 
tals,  57 
on  temporalities  of  church,  105 
Dead,  excommunication  of  the,  264 
denied    by    Leo,    Gelasius, 

and  Chrysostorn,  264 
affirmed  by  Cyprian,  Augus 
tine,  and  Theophilus,  265  I 
case   of  Theodore   of    Mop- 

suestia,  265  ! 
the   question    remains   un 
settled,  266 
Death-bed  communion,  importance 

of,  258  I 

refused  for  certain  offences,  259  i 

essential  to  salvation,  259  ! 

varying  practice  of  the  church,  260  j 

ceremonial  connected  with  it,  262  j 

Death-punishment  for  heresy,  277  j 

Debtors,  bankrupt,  enslaved  525  I 

divided,      '  555 

Debts,  collection  of,  by  excom.,  439 

invented  by  the  popes,  439 

eagerly  ad  pted  by  creditors,  441 

•    heirs  of  bankrupts  excom.,  442 


Debts,  collection  of,  by  excom. — 

resirained  by  Boniface  V11I.,         412 
refusal   of    sepulture    to   bank 
rupts,  444 
questions  arising  from  inability 

to  pay,  '      446 

efforts  to  abrogate  the  system,       4-46 

its  uses  and  abuses,  447 

Declaration  of  1682,  471 

Decretals,  the  false  (see  Forgeries}. 

papal,  their  influence,  55 

burnt  by  Luther,  4S9 

{  Dedititii,  5:53 

abrogated  by  Justinian,  55] 

[  Degradation  of  bishops  for  treason,     liO 

Degrees,  prohibited,  in  marriage,         319 

Denis   the   Less,   his   collection    of 

canons,  47 

Denmark,  clerical  immunity  in,      192  n. 
,  Denunciation,  evangelical,  8-4  n. 

Denziger,  his   account  of  Pseudo- 

Isidorian  theories,  53 

I  Deposition  of  Louis  le  Debonnaire,      329 
of  kings  by  popes,  363 

i  Descendants     of    excommunicates, 

punishment  of,  393 

Devil,  excommunication  of,  429 

Diego  Gelmirez  buys  an  archbish 
opric,  57  n. 
excommunication  by,  435 
Diet  of  Kurnberg  complains  of  ap 
pellate  jurisdiction,  160 
of  cleiical  immunity,                221 
of  excommunication,                 462 
Dirnetian  Code  abolishes  ecclesias- 

lical  jurisdiction,  SO  n. 

Diocletian  prohibits  saleof  childrau 

by  parents,  527 

Dionysius  of  Corinth,  his  epistles,       1  '4 
Dios,  monastery  of,  291 

Dioscorus,   his   quarrel   with   Con 
stantinople,  120,  121 
his  tyranny  at  Alexandria,  125 
he  excommunicates  Leo  I.,             292 
his  condemiiation,                              ISO 
Disabilities  of  penitents,                         256 
of  excommunicates,                   404,  411 
Discipline,  Calvinist  code  of,                 496 
Kiiox's  book  of,                  498,  504,  505 
Dispensation  and  absolution,                 161 
Dispensations,  papal,  scandal  of,          164 
Disregard  of  excommunication,            461 
Divine   right   taught  by  primitive 
church. 


by  Anglican  church, 


13 
5 1 5 
168 
508 

IM 


Divorce  of  Teutberga, 
Donaldson  (lleberj,  case  of, 
Donation  of  Constantine, 

is      pre.-ented      to      Charle 
magne  by  Adrian  I.,  165 
is   disregarded    by  Charle 
magne,                                        165 
is  rejected  by  Otho  III.,      167  n. 
is  disregarded  by  St.  Henry 

II-,  167?i. 

its  authenticity  assumed  by 

Chr.  Wolff,  167  n. 

ciiticized    by   Marsiglio    of 

Padua,  179  n. 

of  Charlemagne,  l<35 


INDEX. 


585 


Donation— 
of  Louis  le  Ddbonnaire, 
DonatisU,  their  heresy, 
Doru,  miirder  of,  by  Fergus, 
Drogo    of    Metz,    appellate    power 

conferred  on, 

Diuids,  excommunication  by  the,         24.) 
Duperron.  Cardinal,  forbids  excom 
munication  of  animals, 

EAST,  Emperors   of,  lose    control 
of  papacy, 
Easter,  divergence  as  to  observance 

of, 

manumission  performed  at,  _         543 
Eastern  bishops,  excommunication 

of,  in  256  2-)0 

Eastern  church  (the)  and  slavery,       5-49 
Ebbo  of  Rheims,          41,  110, 152,  187,  331 
Eberhardt of  Salzburg, 
Ecclesiastical  jurisdiction,  origin  of,     ^4 
supremacy  of, 
over  marriage. 
Ecclesiastics     not      competent     as 

judges  in  Wales,  79  «.,  82  n. 

salutes  to,  enjoined  by  law, 
military  habits  of, 

protection  accorded  to,  327 

their  disregard  of  excom.,         419  n. 
Ecgbehrt    of   Treves,    excommuni 
cates  swallows,  42§ 
Edward  I.  abrogates  clerical  immu 
nity,  196 
Edward     II.,     clerical     immunity 

under, 

on  excommunication, 
Edward     HI.,     clerical     immunity 

under,  lfl6 

Edward     VI.    extends     benefit    of 

clergy,  198 

Egiza  p'unishes  mutilation  of  slaves,    o56 
Egra,  constitution  of,  158 

Egypt,      punishment       for       slave 

murder,  .     530  n. 

Egyptian    bishops,     their     subjec 
tion,  12;5 
Election  of  bishops  (see  Bishops). 
Elections,   papal    (see    Papal  el>c- 


. 

Elizabeth,  Queen,  restricts  benefit 

of  clergy, 

uses  excommunication, 
Elvira,  council  of, 

27  n.,  258,  262,  274,  560,  571  n. 
Emancipation  of  the  state, 
Emancipation,    ceremonies     of.    in 

Home,  P 

causes  preventing  it, 
regarded   as   a   pious   act. 

537,  543,  564 

Ernbrun,  excommunication  of,  421 

archbishop  of,  103 

Emperors,     Roman,     their    autoc 
racy,  13 
their     power     inferior     to     the 

church,  281 

Empire  bestowed   on  Charlemagne 

by  Leo  1 1 1., 
controlled  by  papacy, 


Erupire,    Holy    Roman,    dependent 

on  the  papacy, 
a  fief  of  the  church. 

Ems,  congress  of,  in  1786,     145  n.,  148  n. 

Encyclical  of  1864,  475 

England,  benefit  of  clergy  in,        194,  195 

demand  that  pallium  should  be 

sent  to  archbishops, 
interdict  under  John,  381  n. 

quarterly    excommunication 

iu,  382,397,457,458 

laws  on  excommunication, 
controlled  by  the  king, 
excom.  under  Henry  VIII.,  508 

in  projected  code  of  Edward 

in  the  39  Articles,  509 

civil     penalties    of,    under 

Elizabeth,  510 

abuses  of,  511 

complaints  of  the  people,        514 
protest  of  the  Long  Parlia 
ment,  517 
supremacy  asserted  by  it,        518 
decline  of  excommunication,         519 
ordination  confers  freedom,       575  n. 
Enslavement  for  injuries  to  clergy,        73 
for  debt,  525 
for  marrying  slave, 

526,  545,  550,  557,  564 
among  the  Germans,  553 

Epaone,  council  of,  in  517,      183,  559,  566 
Ephesus,  council  of,  in  341, 

Robber  synod  of,        121,137,269,292 
Epictetus,  stoicism  of,  530 

Epiphanins  of  Constantinople  sub 
mits  to  Rome, 

Epirots  reduced  to  slavery, 
Episcopal  elections  (see  Bishops). 

oaths,  1°7>  143 

control  of  coronation,          32  n,  38  n. 
influence  in  the  state,  52 

power   a   delegation    from    the 

papacy,  *^M?i 

Equality  of  slave  and  master,      ^        ;w9 
Erasmus   condemns   the   Bull    Ex- 

surge  Domine, 

Ergastulffi,  Roman,  for  slaves, 
Ermeland,  bishop   of,  his   modera 
tion, 

Ernest  of  Prag  asserts  clerical  im 
munity, 
d'Espeisses     on     the    exactions    of 

Rome,  55  n. 

Essenes,  excom.  among  the,  ^45  n. 

Etablissements  of  St.  Louis, 

207,  401,  404 
Ethiopic     Christians,      communion 

amour,  244  n. 

Eucharist,  original  nature  of  the, 
continues  to  be  a  repast, 
is  a  bond  of  union,  243 

frequency    of     its     administra 
tion,  24:* 
veneration  rendered  to  it,          24'5  n. 
administered  to  the  dead,  244 
becomes      an      instrument      of 

coercion, 

effects  of  its  deprivation, 
decline  of  reverence  for,  248 


586 


INDEX. 


Eucharist — 

administered  to  the  dying,  26.'? 

reverence  inculcated 'for,  308 

money  value  of,  325 

administration  of,  to  idiots,       469  n. 
ordeal      of,      administered      to 

Lothair,  173 

Eucharistic     blood,    excommunica 
tion  written  in,  271 
Eu<:enius  II.  takes  the  oath  of  alle 
giance,  43 
Eugeuius  IV.  on  papal  power,              390 
condemns  the  Sachsenspiegel,       413 
Euphemius,  excommunication  of, 

275,  2S6,  294 

Eusebius  of  Dorylaeum,  17,  269 

Eusebius    of    Jy'icomedia    baptizes 

Constantino,  167  n. 

Eutyches,  accusation  of,  269 

his  excommunication,  252 

his  appeal,  137 

Eutychianisrn,  proscription  of,  296 

Evangelical  denunciation,  84  it 

Exactions  of  the  papal  court. 

55  n.,  144,  145,  148  n. 
Excommunicates,  civil  disabilities 

of,  332,  392 

exhumation  of,  380,  423 

number  of,  417,  455,  455,  460 

unconscious,  458 

seizure  of,  by  demons,  462 

Excommunication,  235 

formulas  of, 

30L>,  303,  343,  345,  317,  362,  3S2,  421 

in  interest  of  slaves,  548 

Exemptions  incident  to  clerkship,       572 

Expulsion  from  the  church,  239,  244 

Extradition  treati.  s  of  857  and  S6D,      .  f>4 

of  excommunicates,  33) 


FABIOLA,  her  penitence,  254  ??. 

Fabius,  his  conquest  of  Taren- 

turn,  528 

Faith,  questions  of,  decided  by  em 
peror,  64 
Fallibility  of  church,  admitted,       388  n. 
False  Decretals,  the  (see  Forgeries). 
Families,    slave,   their    separation 

forbidden,  544,  568 

Fano,  bishop  of,  prosecuted,  233 

Farming  of  indulgences  forbidden 

481  n. 

Fasting  of  penitents,  2"»6 

Fecht  on  excommunication,  493 

Fees  for  church  services,  425 

for  removing  interdicts,  463 

Feini,  slavery  among  the,  554 

Felicissimus,  case  of,  128 

Felix  of  Aptungis,  254 

Felix  III.,  his  excommunication  of 

Acacius,  '     139,  286,  293 

on  reception  of  excom.,  275  n. 

Ferdinand    (Emperor),   his   remon 
strances  at  Treut.  224,  464  , 
on  papal  dispensations,  164! 
Feudalism,      its      recognition      by 

Charles  le  Chauve,  336  ! 

Feudatories    obtain     control     over 
bishoprics,  104 


82 
164 
K6?i. 
1S1 


I  Fidelity,    oaths    of,    exacted    from 

bishops,  107,  143 

FiUoque  interpolated  in  creed,  64 

Fines  imposed  on  excom.,  400,  403 

for  neglect  of  excom.,  461,  510 

for   non-observance  of  Sunday 

and  communion,  502,  503 

j  Firmilian,  his  resistance  to  Rome, 

250,  290 

I  Flavianus,  murder  of,  121 

!  Flies,  excommunication  of,  429 

Florentines  hnng  the  bishop  of  Pisa,  462 
Florus  Diaconus  on  episcopal  elec 

tions,  97 

on  Modoiu  of  Autun,  190  n. 

on  privileges  of  church,  301  n. 

Folcuin,  St.,  of  Terouane,  101 

Forcbheim,  diet  of,  370 

Forged  letters  of  communion,  274 

Forgeries,  the, 

councils  of  Sylvester  I.,        42,  1-10  n. 
Ingilram,  canons  of,  -18 

Thcodosiau  code,  interpolation 

of. 
Donation  of  Coustantine, 

of  Charlemagne, 
trial  of  Sixtns  III., 
Epistles  of  Innocent  I., 

132n.,  286*.. 

of  Sylvester  I.,  18] 

of  Gregory  I.  on  marriage, 

319  «.,  323 

on  dethroning  kings,          363 
Louis  le  Debonnaire  on  penal 

ties  of  excommunication,  3H.3 

of  Nicene  Canons  by  Leo.  I.,          122 

by  .In  venal,  of  Jerusalem,  121 

the  False  Decretals,  46 

disseminated  by  Riculfus,         48 

relations  of  the  See  of  Mainz 

to  the,  48,  68,  144 

discredited  by  Hincmar,       48  n. 
theories  concerning,  52 

influence  of,  53 

exposed  by  Blondel,  59 

defended  by  the  church,  59 

presented   to   Gregory   IV. 

in  S33,  67 

attributed   to   Benedict  the 

Levite,  68 

their    doctrines    of     papal 

supremacy,  63 

their   doctrines   of  clerical 

immunity,  63,  190 

of    ecclesiastical  juris 

diction,  83 

of  implicit  obedience,         86 
of  immunity  from  oaths, 

109  n. 
of  hierarchical   organi 

zation,  in 

of  excommunication,         418 
they  render  the  pallium  ob 

ligatory,  147  n. 

they  insist  on  papal  juris 

diction,  149 

are    quoted    by    Wenilo   of 

Sens,  153 

are  established  by  Nicholas 
I.,  154,162 


INDEX. 


587 


Forgeries,  the  False  Decretals — 

papal    supremacy   asserted 

by  them,  170 

prohibit  ab'ise  of  Eucharis- 

tic  oblations,  242 

prohibit     incestuous     mar 
riages, 

enforcement  of  their  prin 
ciples,  354 
Forgery,  its  continuous  use  by  the 

church,  49 

Formulas  of  excommunication, 

302,  30:3,  343,  345,  347,  362,  382,  421 
Huguenot,  496 

Formula-  of  manumission,  564 

Fortunatus  of  Todi,  306 

"Foundlings,  legislation  on,  351 

freedom  of,  526,  545 

Fourre  (Adam),  case  of, 
France,  clerical  immunity  in,  208 

limited  in  1363,  230 

restricted  in  ISth  century, 
concordat  of  Leo  X.,  393,  404 

laws  on  excommunication,  399 

first  lesral  penalties  in  1228,  399 

legislation  of  St.  Louis,  400 

difficulty  of  enforcement,  401 

disregard  of  excommunication,  402 
laws  of  John  II.  and  Charles  V.,  403 
disabilities  of  excommunicates,  404 
project  of  reform  at  Trent,  466 

rejects  council  of  Trent,  46  > 

Tranche  Comte,  reception  of  coun 
cil  of  Trent  in,  470 
Francis  I.  complains  of  clerical  im 
munity, 

limits  it,  19471. 

limits  spiritual  jurisdiction,          446 

Frankfort,  council  of,  795,  27  n, 

Frankish  legislation,  account  of,  62 

bishops  threaten  Gregory  IV.,         68 

Franks  admit  cle-ical  immunity,         184 

Fredegonda  murders  Pretextatus,       312 

supplants  Audovera, 
Frederic  Barbai'ossa   sacrifices  Ar 
nold  of  Brescia,  39 
reproves  the  papal  pretensions, 

40  n. 

enforces  excommunication,  409 

Frederic   II.,  his   deposition   by  In 
nocent  IV.,  132  n. 
admits  appellate  jurisdiction,        13S 
clerical  immunity,  200 
limits  it,                                              202 
hi-<  German  laws  on  excom.,          409 
his  Sicilian  laws,                      212,413 
Frederic  of  Cologne  resists   papal 

exactions.  55  n. 

Frederic  of  Saxony  protects  Luther,    487 
contempt  for  excommunication 

at  his  court,  490 

Freedmen  protected  by  the  church, 

numbers  of,  in  Rome,  532 

adverse   legislation   of  Augus 
tus,  533 
their  duties  to  patrons,             534,  546 
admitted  to  citizenship,           543,  552  | 
favorable  laws  by  Justinian,         551 
Freedom,  imprescriptible  in  Rome,     525 


Freedom— 

easily  lost  in  Germany,  533 

defence  of   by  church,  569 

Freewomen,   their    marriage    with 

slaves,  526, 545 

Frisia,  enforcement  of  excoin.  in,         415 
Frisian  law,  slavery  in,  555 

Fuero  Juzgo,  episcopal  jurisdiction 

in,  78  n. 

clerical  immunity  in, 
excommunication  in,  406 

Fulbert  of  Chartres  on  the  pallium, 

148  n. 

Fulda,  Abbey  of,  extent  of  its  pos 
sessions,  88  n. 
Fulk  of  Rheims  and  the  bishopric 

of  Chalons, 
murder  of, 

Furia  Canina  (lex)  restricts  manu 
mission, 
repealed  by  Justinian, 


101 
343 


532 
550 


154 
471 

567 
136 
245 

49 


GALL,  St.,  of  Clr-rmont,  90 

Gallican  theory  of  the  jurisdic 

tion  of  Rome. 
church,  liberties  of, 
Gaudentius  of  Ecija,  his  manumis 

sion  of  slaves, 

Gaul  submits  to  papal  supremacy, 
Gauls,  excommunication  among, 
Gelasius   I.,   his   definition   of   the 

canons, 
asserts  supremacy  of  Rome, 

125,  139,  217 

asserts  immunity  of  clergy,  ISO 

denies  excom.  of  dead,  264 

on  communion  with  excommu 

nicates,  275 

his  toleration  for  the  emperors,  2S6 
on  homicide  of  clerks,  _  328  n. 

Gentilly,  synod  of,  deprecates  im 

age  worship,  27  n. 

Geoffrey  Viusauf  on  papal  power,        387 
George  of  Bamberg,  reforms  of, 
on  interdict, 
his  fees  for  burial, 
Germain,  St.,  exc  >m.  Charibert, 
Germans,  slavery  among, 
Germany,  clerical  immunity  in, 

192  n. 

laws  on  excommunication, 
weight  of   Carlovingian   tradi 

tion, 

laws  of  Frederic  I.  and  II., 
the  Schwabenspiegel, 
the  Sachsenspiegel, 
powers  conferred  on  the  church,    412 
reformation  in,  480 

complains  of  indulgence*,  483  n. 
separated  from  Roman  church,  374 
manumission  at  altar,  548,  n. 

Geroch  of  Reichersperg  on   adora 

tion,  29  n. 

on  donation  of  Constantine,       167  n. 
Gerson  on  abuse  of  segregation, 

on  abuse  of  excommunication,  455 
on  papal  simony, 

on  indulgences,  483  n. 

on  clerical  immunity,  218 


463  n. 
425 
553 

200 

408 

408 

409 


588 


INDEX. 


Gian-Galeazzo  Visconti,  203 

Gibbou    on     slave     population     of 

Home,  528 

Gildas  on  segregation,  253  n, 

Giles  of  Rheims,  case  of,  141 

Gilo  of  Sens  on  qusestuarii,  481  n. 

Gladiatorial  profession  prohibited,       544 
God    invoked     to    shield    clerical 

vi-es,  '-'28 

Godefroy  exposes   interpolation  in 

Theodosian  code,  S3  n. 

Golden  Bull  of  Frederic  II.,  158 

Golias    Episcopus    on     Roman    si 
mony,  56  ?f. 
Gontrau  refuses  bribes  for  bishop 
rics  «» 
enjoins  respect  for  the  church,      .31:5 
his  interference  in  the  case  of 

Saloiiius,  140 

his  tyranny  towards  bishops,         185 

Gordon,  Nath..  his  execution,  505 

Gotefrido  of  Milan,  35S 

Gracchus      (T.      Sernp.)     liberates 

slaves,  532  n. 

Gragas,  the  earliest  Icelandic  code, 

69  n.,  79  )i. 
Gratiau.  Emperor,  grants  appellate 

power  to  Rome,  130 

withholds  it  in  381,  131 

his  law  on  capital  sentences,    2S5  n. 

on  ingratitude  of  freedmen,  546 

firatian,    letters   of  communion    in 

his  Decretum,  274  n. 

Gregory  1.,  his    submission   to    the 

secular  power,  22,  23 

he   reproves    Sereuus   of    Mar 
seilles,  '27  72. 
he  protects  the  widow  a-tid  or 
phan,  SO 
on  the  title  of  (Ecumenic  Patri 
arch,                                                    122 
he   bestows   pallium  on  Virgil 

of  Aries,  142 

he    maintains     clerical    immu 
nity,  1S2 
on  prohibited  degree?,                    319 
on  power  to  inflict  pe  dition,          261 
he    excommunicates    Maximus 

of  Spalatro,  298 

his  free  use  of  excommunication,  313 
he  condemns  its  abuse,  304 

his  explaua  ion  as  to  miracles, 

305  n. 

he  acknowledges  the  fifth  gen 
eral  council,  266 
forged  decretals  attributed  to, 

319  n.,  323,  363 

on  Christian  slaves  held  by  Jews,  561 
his  opposition  to  slavery,  562 

his  protection  of  freedmen,  568 

Giegory  II. renders  the  papacy  in 
dependent,  2") 
appeals  to  Charles  Martel,               26 
Gregory  III.  seeks  the  Prankish  al 
liance,                                                   31 
on  death-bed  communion,           263  n 
prohibits   marriage   in  seventh 

degree,  320 

Gregory  IV.  submits  his  election  to 

Louis  le  Ddbonnaire,  44 


Gregory  IV.— 

he  aids  the   rebellious   sons  of 

Louis,  67 

is  driveu  back  to  Rome,  68 

on  oaths  of  allegiance,  107 
is  threatened  with  excommuni 
cation,                                          171  n. 

epistle  attributed  to,  151 
i  Gregory  VII.   on   subordination   of 

the  empire,                                  34  n 
insists  ou  the  use  of  pallium,  148  n. 
he  raises  the  question  of  the  in 
vestitures,  357 
his  struugle  with  Henry  IV.,  359 
his  death,  371 
!  Gregory  IX.  and  clerical  concubin 
age,  159 
on  excommunication,  41.0 
excommunicates  Frederic  II.,  423 
'  Gregory  X.  makes  Rodolph  of  Haps- 

burg  emperor,  39 
(  Gregory  XI.,  his  quarrel  with  the 

Visconti,  203 
condemns  the  Sachsenspiegel,  413 
ex  om.  the  Florentines,  417 
Gregory  XIII.  approves   the   Salz 
burg  Code,  227 
condemns  infant  communion,    244/1. 
reproves  ecclesiastical  abuses,  469 
Gregory  Thaumaturgus  on  corrup 
tions  in  fhe  church,  246 
on  the  four  stages  of  penitence,  253 
investigation  ordered  by,  279 
i  Gregory  of  Nazianzum,  118 
Gregory  of  Tours,  his  relics,  308 
he  reproves  Chilperic  I.,  184 
!  Gregory  (St.)  of  Ostia,  433 
Grindal,  Archbishop,  ou  excom.,  512 
|  Gro  teste,  Robert,  on  papal  avarice, 

•">6  71. 

Guardianship  forbidden  to  ecclesi 
astics,  261 
Guillaume  Bonne-Ame  and  the  pal 
lium,                                                      148  71. 
Guiscard,   Robert,   his   hostility   to 

Gregory  VI I.,  360 

assists  Gregory,  371 
!  Gunthair   of  Cologne  procures  the 

divorce  of  Teutberga,  169 
is  condemned  by  Home,  170 
refuses  to  submit,  171 
is  depos°d  by  Lothair,  171 
j  Guthiie,  Bishop  of  Moray,  his  ex 
communication,  504 
|  Guy  of  Lombardy,  his  election,        45  n. 

HADRIAN,  his  laws  on  slavery,  535 
Hale,    Sir   M.,    on    benefit   of 

clergy,  199 
;  Hall,    bishop    of    Exeter,   his    im 
peachment,  517 
Ham,  bondage  of  his  posterity,  538 
Harden-gown  for  penitents,  503 
;  Harrison,  Cuthbert,  case  of,  519 
Harvests  protected  by  excom.,  439 
Heirs  of  bankrupt,  excom.  of,  442 
Henoticon  of  Zeuo,  293 
Henry  II.  (St.)  disregards  the  do 
nation  of  Constantine.                     167  n. 


INDEX. 


589 


Henry   IV.   (Emp.)   on    clerical  im-         j  Hincmar  of  Laon    case  of, 
muuitv  193  i  Hippolytus  and  Calixtus  I., 

Holidays  for  slaves, 


355 


m 

his  minority, 

his  quarrel  with  the  papacy, 
his  excommunication, 
his  submission, 

exchanges  depositions  with  Gre 
gory  VII., 
recovers  his  power, 
his  dethronement, 
his  death, 

Henry  V.  (Emp.)  on  temporalities, 
rebels  against  his  father, 
digs  up  his  father's  body, 
extorts  abandonment  of  investi 
tures, 

submits  to  Rome, 
Henry    1.    (England),    his   laws   on 

"excommunication,  396  n. 

his  punishment  for  contumacy,      3S3 
Henry  VI.  (England),  his  canoniza 
tion  negotiated  for,  57  n. 
his  regulations  respecting  cler 
ical  immunity, 
Henry  VII.  (England)   his  laws  on 

benefit  of  clergy, 

Henry  VIII.  (England)  limits  bene 
fit  of  clergy, 

abolishes  quarterly  cursing, 
retains  the  power  of  the  church,    508 
Henry  III.  (Castile),  his  resistance 

to  Rome,  106  n. 

Henry  IV.  (France)  refuses  to  pub 
lish  the  council  of  Trent, 
Henry  of  Salzburg  on  clerical  cor 
ruption, 

Heraclius  of  Saintes, 
Heresy  of  disregarding  excommu-_ 
nication,  37") 

debt  is  not, 

Heretics,  persecution  of, 
in  Anglican  church, 
Hermann,  King  of  the  Romans, 
Hervey  of  Rheims  excommunicates 
Winemar, 


357     Holy  Ghost,  procession  of, 
362  I  Homicide  of  ecclesiastics, 


191 
113 

540 
64 

327,  560 
of  slaves, 

529,  536,  544,  554,  556,  557,  559,  560 
Honorius  (Ernp.)  intervenes  in  pa 
pal  contests, 

enforces  arbitration  of  bishops,      75 
but  limits  their  jurisdiction,  76 

his   law  in   favor  of  episcopal 

immunity, 

on  duties  of  freedmen, 
on  foundlings, 
Honorius  III.  on  subjection  of  the 

empire,  33  n. 

Honorius  of  Autun  on  imperial  elec 
tions,  3a  n. 
Hormisdas,  his  triumph  over  Con 
stantinople,  295 
his  inflexibility, 
Hospitality  enjoined  by  law, 
Howell     Dda,     admits     benefit 

clergy, 

Hua-h  of  Gapengais,  case  of, 
Hugh    of    Lyons   excommunicates 

Philip  of  France, 
457  j  Huguenots  discourage  litigation, 

excommunication  among, 
Humbert    of    Vieune    excommuni 
cated  for  debt, 
Hungary,  pre-eminence  of  bishops 

in,  35  n. 

clerical  immunity  in,  192  n. 

excommunication  in, 
Huss,  his  views  on  excom., 

on  indulgences,  4S2  n. 

Hussites   seek    to   abolish    clerical 

unity,  |20 


371 
372 
377 
379 
105 
377 
380 

380 

380 


21 S 

197 


469 


220 
91 


179 
546 
551 


338 
of 

192  n. 
373 
tes 

373 
75 
494 


447  i      immunity, 

275     Hyacinth,  Brother,  case  of, 

516  I 

"I  BAS  of  Edessa,  case  of, 


26  S 


Hierarchy,  organization  of, 
Hilary  of   Aries,  hi.- 


J 


of    cam 


L36 
L39 


454 


quarrel  with 
Leo  I., 

Hilary,  Pope,  his  activity, 
Hildegarda   (Emp.),  her   efforts    to 
obtain  the  bestowal  of  a  bishopric, 
Hildegarda   (St.)    on    corruption   of 

church, 
Hincmar   discredits    Ingih-ain   and 

Isidor, 

he  rejects  papal  epistles, 
on  royal    nominations  of   bish 
ops, 

his  rigor  in  episcopal  elections, 
on  the  appointment. of  bishops, 
oath  exacted  from, 
interposes    between    Metz   and 

Treves, 

he  applies  for  pallium, 
lie  resists  the  appellate  juris 
diction  of  Rome, 
his  disapprobation  of  papal  in 
vective.  172  n. 
he  claims  clerical  immunity,          191 
he  ridicules  papal  assumptions,     341 

50 


Iceland,    supremacy 

law  in,  69  «•• 

ecclesiastical  jurisdiction  in,      80  n. 
clerical  immunity  not  admitted 

in,  193  n 

spiritual  affinity  in,  320  ?i. 

buiial  refused  to  excom., 
fees  for  church  services,  423  n. 

spiritual  penalties  not  used  in, 

44971 

48  I  Idiots,  communion  for,  469  n. 

50  •  Ignatius    (St.)    on    Christian    mar 
riage,  319  n. 
97  !          on  treatment  of  slaves, 

102  Illyricum,  quarrel  over  churches  of,     125 

103  Image-worship  condemned   by  the 

109  !  West,  27  n. 

modern  doctrine  on, 

149  '  Immunity  of  the  clergy,  69 

152  clerical  (see  Benefit  of  Olergy}. 

Imperial  control  over  councils, 

council    the    tribunal    for    the 

pope, 

crown  bestowed  by  the  popes,         39 
consent   requisite   for   the   pal 
lium,  14%J 


154 


590 


INDEX 


Impunity  conferred  by  clerical  im 
munity,  19:5,  208,  220,  223,  22S 
Incendiarism,  punishment  of,  409 
In  Coena  Domini,  Bull,            '230,  233,  470 
Indestructibility  of  excommunicated 

corpses,  42.) 

Index  Expurgatorius.  476 

Indifference  to  excommunication,        411 
Indulgences,  4S1  n. 

Infallibility  of  church,  doubts   as 

to,  3S8  n. 


of  pope, 

Infants,  communion  of, 
Ingilram  of  Metz,  his  canons, 
on  the  duty  of  the  state, 
Innocent  I.  and  St.  John   Chrysos- 

tom,  132 

as.-erts  appellate  power,  133 

assumes    to    rule    the    African 

church,  124 

on  necessity  of  Eucharist,  244 

asserts  Hiipremacy  of  Home,  212 

on  death  bed  communion,  261 

on  leqnisiies  for  excom.,  267  n. 

on  reception  of  excom.,  274  n. 

on  control  over  marriage,  319  n 

confession  alluded  to  by,  2SO  r> . 

Innocent  II.  and  Louis  le  j'eune,          383 
exacts    an    oath   from    Lothair 

II-,  40  n. 

excommunicates  Montpellier,        383 
Innocent  III.  asserts  original  juris 
diction,  83  n. 
claims   that   bishops   are   dele 
gates  of  popes,                          150  n. 
establishes  appellate  jurisdic 
tion,  158 
limits  clerical  exemption,  209 
lays  interdict  on  England,         381  n. 
his  estimate  of  papal  power,         3->'> 
uses  excom.  to  collect  debts, 
complains  of  abuse  of  his  let 
ters, 

his  treatment  of  Philip  Augus 
tus, 

Innocent  IV.  grants  pallium  gratu 
itously,  14.")  ;;. 
deposes  Frederic  II..  132  n. 
inquisition,  excommunicates  be 
lievers  to, 
Innocent    XII.   anathematizes   the 

Declaration  of  1682, 
Inquisition,  excommunicates  deliv 
ered  to, 

Insane,  Eucharist  forbidden  to, 
Inscription  by  accusers, 
Interdict,  introduction  of  the, 
of  England  under  John, 
of  Venice,  fruitless,  230,  471 

regulations  of,  383  n. 

for  receiving  excommunicates,      395 
for  non-enforcement  of  excom 
munication,     397,  403,  404,  40.3,  412 


Ipso  facto  excommunication,  457 

preserved     by    Council    of 

Trent,  466 

in  Hulls  "  In  Coana  Domini," 
and  "Apostolicse  Sedis,'' 

230,  233,  476 

Irensens  on  Roman  primacy,  113 

rebukes  Victor  of  Home,  114,  290 
on  corruption  of  the  church,  21-3 
on  avoidance  of  heretics,  2.30 

Irish,  slavery  among  the.  553 

jurisdiction    accorded     to     the 

church,  77 

48  I  Isidor  Mercator,  or  Peccator,  47 

331  ;  Isidor  of  Seville  on  the  duty  of  the 

state,  314 

132  ;  Islaniism,  influence  of,  5.32 

133  |  Italian  reformers,  modern,  240  n 

Italy,  primitive  church  of,  )23 

clerical    immunity   established 

i»,  182 

disregard  of  excom.  in,  334 

laws  on  excommunication,  4H 

Sicilian  Constitutions.       212,  414 


Milanese  legislation, 
Ivo   of    Chartres    on    royal    supre 
macy, 
Ize>hne  sacrifice  in  Mazdeisna, 


JAGfiS  for  penitents, 
Jean  II.,  his  laws  on  excom., 


414 


339 
243 


403 


extension  of,  456 

for  questions  of  debt,  442,  448 

abusive  use  of  the,  463 

fees  for  removing,  463  n. 

against  sovereigns,  472 

Investitures  of  bishops,  87,  357,  380 


Jerome,   St..   on    power  of    priest 
hood, 

Jerome  of  Brandenburg,  charter  of, 
Jerome  of  Prague,  his  trial, 

on  indulgences,  482  n. 

Jerusalem,   its    quarrel    with    An- 

tioch,  120 

Assizes  de,    clerical    immunity 

in,  192  7?. 

,  Jesus,  forgiveness  taught  by,  236 

4-V2     Jews,    expulsion    from    the    syna 
gogue,  244,219 
indirect  excommunication  of,         448 
forbidden     to     hold     Christian 

slaves,  561 

John  I.  sent  as  envoy  by  Theodoric,      19 
John  II.  (Cyprus)  sells  indulgences, 

459  n. 
John    II  ,    his     instructions     from 

Athalaric,  20 

John  III.  and  the  case  of  Salonius,     140 
John  VIII.  selects  the  emperor,  39 

establishes  the  authority  of  the 

Decretals,  48  n.,  50  n. 

assumes  control  over  episcopal 

nominations,  98,  103 

insists  on  use  of  pallium,  14S 

assumes  the  pardoning  power,  162 
his  abuse  of  excommunication,  333 
legislates  for  the  (Joths,  340 

auHthematizes  rebels,  341 

John  X.  admits  the  secular  appoint 
ment  of  bishops,  94  n. 
John   XII.  defines    the   sources   of 

imperial  power,  39 

Johu   XXII. ,  his  definition  of   im 
perial  power,  40 


440 


173 


40  S 


408 


26 
31] 
381 


INDEX. 


591 


121 
122 
295 
3S1 

24 

211 

327 

507 


John  XXII.— 

draws  up  the  code  of  taxes  of 

the  penitentiary,  163 

John  XXIII.  enforces  usury  by  ex 
communication,  447 
causes  sale  of  indulgences.       482  n. 
John  of  Antioch,  his  quarrel  with 

Jerusalem, 

John  the  Faster  of  Constantinople, 
John  of  C'inople  submits  to  Rome, 
John  of  England,  interdict  under, 
John  of  Philadelphia,  apostolic 

vicar, 

John    of  Prag   asserts  clerical  im 
munity. 
Jonah  of  Orleans  on  disregard  of 

excom., 

Jongs  for  peiiitpnts, 
Judges,  ecclei-iastieal,  corruption  of,   453 
Julian    re-enacts    the    Senatuscon- 

sulturn  Claudianurn,  546 

Julius    I.,   .appellate     power    con 
ferred  on  him,  118,  129 
his  episile  to  C.  of  Antioch,  15 
Jnnia  Noibana  (lex)  on  fieedmen,       533 
Jurisdiction,  confusion  of  civil  and 

spiritual.  83  n.,  327 

ecclesiastical,  origin  of,  74 

not  favored  by  Valeutinian 

III.,  76 

encouraged  by  Justinian,  76 

extended  under  the  Barba 
rians,  77 
especially  by  the  Wisigoths,     78  j 
under  the  Franks,  80 
objected  to  by  the  church,        80 
extended     over     freedmen 

and  orphans,  80,  568 

abolished  by  Charlemagne,       81 
enforced  by  the  forgeries,  S3 

enlarged     by    Charles      le 

Chauve,  85,  338  | 

extent  of,  in  middle  ages,      84  n.  j 

supremacy  of,  174  j 

enforced  by  the  state,  330  j 

papal,   extended    by    Innocent 

III,  83  n. 

evils  arising  from,  451 

universal,  claimed  by  Rome,          126 
of  the  kirk-sessions,  498 

Jury  of  barbers,  216 

Justification  by  faith,  484 

Justin  I.  submits  to  Home,  295 

Justin  II.  sells  episcopal  appoint 
ments,  100 
Justin   Martyr,  his  account  of  Eu 
charist,      '                                               240  [ 
Jusiina,  Empress,  overcome  by  St. 

Ambrose,  282  | 

Justinian,    his     treatment    of    the 

p:ipacy,  20 

enlarges  episcopal  jurisdiction,      76  j 
on  election  of  bishops,  100  j 

his  legislation  on  clerical   im- 

rnumiy,  181  I 

enforces      supremacy     of      the 

state,  182 

controls  excommunication,  273  i 

his    delay   in    authorizing    the 
pallium,  142 


Justinian — 

his  detestation  of  slavery,  549 

laws  in  favor  of  freedom,  550 

on  ordination  of  slaves,  573 

Justinian   II.   fails   to   .-ubdue    the 

papacy,  24 

Juvenal'on  cruelty  to  slaves,  529 

KINGS,  deposition  of,  by  popes,  363 
divine   right   of,   enforced   by 

excommunication,  515 
Kirk-sessions,  their  power  and  its 

exercise,  498 
Knox   (John)   on  functions  of  min- 

ist^r,  497 

his  influence  on  Scottish  kirk,  498 

enforces  segregation,  504 


T  ACTANTIUS  on  manumission,  537 
I  j        on   equality   of    master   and 

slaves,  539 
Laity,  their    separation  from  the 

"  clergy,  300 
not  allowed  to  enter  the  church 

without  permission,  62 
not      allowed    to    accuse     the 

clergy,  70 
deprived  of  voice  in  episcopal 

elections,  99 
Lambert  of    Spoleto   and    the    pa 
pacy,  340 
Lambeth,  council  of,  in  1261,         195,  397 
Languedoc,   estates   of,   their   com 
plaints,                                            218,  443 
Laodicsea,  council  of,  in  320, 

87,  99  n.,  240  n. 

Latse  Senteutise  excommunication,  457 

Lateran,  council  of,  in  1102,  374 
in  1215,               475  n. 
Latin    church,   its    relations    with 

slavery,  553 

Latini,  a  class  of  freedmen,  533 

abrogated  by  Justinian,  552 
Law,     secular,     subjected     to     the 

canons,  68 

supplemented  by  excom.,  436 

Laws,  Barbarian,  on  slavery,  554 

Lawyers,  privilege  of,  448 

Leeches,  excommunication  of,  431 
Legislation,    imperial,    on    church 

matters,  17 
of  the  Franks,  how  conducted,  62 
Legislative  functions  of  the  church,  255 
Le  Mans,  synod  of,  in  1248,       4S1  n.,  458 
Leo  (Emp.),  his  law  on  clerical  im 
munity,  ISO 
on  lex  talionis, 

prohibits  ordination  of  slaves,  573 

Leo  the  Isaurian,  25 

excom.  by  Gregory  II.,  26 
obrains  the  churches  of  Illyri- 

cum,  126 
Leo  I.  and  the  council  of  Chalcedon,  15 
on    the    council   of    Constanti 
nople,  16 
his  legates  at  Ephesus,            122,  138 
sends  forged  canons  to  Chalce 
don,  122 


592 


INDEX. 


136 
136 
1,36 
137 
138 


314 


Leo  I.— 

establishes  the   prerogative   of 

Rome, 
his     quarrel     with     Hilary    of 

Aries, 
his  doctrine  as  to  supremacy  of 

St.  Peter, 
his  absolution  of  Theodoret  of 

Cyrus, 
his     falsification     of    Sardican 

canons, 

his  rules  for  penitents,  257,  25 .^ 

on  death-bed  communion,  261 

on  abuse  of  excommunication,       272  j 
affirms  excom.  of  dead,  264  • 

excommuuic.ites  Dioscorus,  292  | 

forbids  general  excommunication,  311  i 
prohibits  ordination  of  slaves,       572  i 
L<>o   II.  restrains   warlike  ardor  of 

dorks, 
Leo    III.,    his    servility    to    Charle 

rnagne, 

is  tried  by  Charlemagne, 
crowns  Charlemagne, 
invades  the  imperial   jurisdic 
tion,  41 
vainly   resists  the  insertion  of 

filinquf.  in  the  creed,  65 

admits  the  secular  appointment 

of  bishops,  94  n. 

submits    to    imperial    jurisdic 
tion,  187 
Leo  IV.  promises  obedience   to  the 

imperial  laws,  67 

admits  the  royal  nomination  of 

bishops,  98 

Leo  X.  on  clerical  immunity,  219 

his  taxes  of  the  penitentiary,  163 
his  concordat  with  France,  "  395,  404 
excommunicates  Luther,  486 

Leo  XIII.  on  marriage,  318  n. 

Leptines,  council  of,  in  743,  93 

Lerida,  council  of,  in  523,  559 

Letters  of  communion,  273 

of  excommunication,  424,  453 

papal,  abuses  arising  from,  451 

Leudoxald   of   Bayeux,  first   inter 
dict  by,  312 
Lever,  Ralph,  on  abuses  of  excom 
munication,                                               511 
Lex  taliouis  applied  to  excom.,            269 
Liberius,   persecuted   by    Coustan- 

tius,  18 

Libertinus  of  Fondi,  305 

Liberty-cap  worn  by  freedmen,  533,  550 
Libiau,  bishop,  his  use  of  excom.,  334 
Library  protected  by  excom.,  435 

Libya,  governor  of,  his  excom.,  281 

Li£ge,  synod  of,  in  1287,  481  n. 

bigamous  clerks  in,  212 

Liegeois,    burial   of   Henry    IV.  by 

the,  379 

Limoges,  second  council  of,  in  1031, 

383  ».,  423 

Linnens  for  penitents,  506  ! 

Litigation,  encouragement  of,  454 

Litterse    formats?,     or     commenda- 

titise,  273 

Livy  on  increase  of  slaves,  528 

Llywelyn,  Prince  of  Wales,  399  : 


Lochiell,    his  description  of   kirk- 
sessions,  498 
Lollards  forced  to  worship  images, 

30  n. 

of  Kyle,  479 
Lombard  law,  accusations  between 

clerks  and  laymen  in,  72 

benefit  of  clergy  in,  186 

rights  of  church  uuder,  301  n. 

on  slavery,  55S 

Lombards  assist  Gregory  11.,  '26 

their  reception  of  Henry  IV.,  368 

Lombardy,  clerical  immunity  in,  203 

London,  council  of,  in  1342,  397 

citizens  of,  complain  of  excoin- 

mnnicat'on,  513 

Lothair  I.  crowned  by  Paschal  I.,  43 

reduces  Rome  to  subjection,  43 
receives  promise  of  obedience 

from  Leo  IV..  67 

prohibits  bigamy,  321 

his  edict  of  824,  166 
donation  to  John  of  Trieste,  81  n. 
he  deposes  Louis  le  Debon- 

uaire,  329 

he  protects  Ebbo  of  Rheims,  152 
he  pledges  the  state  to  enforce 

excommunication,  32S 
Lothair  II.  restores  Innocent  II.,      40  n. 
Lothair    of    Lotharingia  forbidden 
to    influence   episcopal    elec 
tions,  98 
his  marriage  with  Teutbers/a,  168 
he     abandons     her     for     Wal- 

draila,  169 

is  arraigned  by  Nicholas  I.,  170 

submits  to  the  papal  decision,  172 

endeavors  to  elude  it,  172 
admitted  to  ordeal  by  Adrian 

II.,  173 

dies  at  Piacenza,  174 

Louis  If.  attacks  Nicholas  I.,  171 

his  claims  on  Lothariugia,  3tO 

Louis  le  Begue,  oaths  given  at  his 

coronation,  109 
Louis      le      Dt-bonnaire      declares 

against  image  worship,  28  n. 

crowned  king  of  Aquitaine  by 

the  pope,  36 

crowned  emperor,  41 

reduces  Leo  III.  to  subjection,  42 

sends  Lothair  I.  to  Italy,  43 

his  supremacy  over  the  church,  66 

dethroned  by  his  sons,  69 
forbids  accusations  between 

clerks  and  laymen,  72 

legislation  protecting  the  clergy,  73 
he  grants  the  right  of  episcopal 

election,  96 
but  exercises   the  right  of  ap 
pointment,  96 
disregards  the  appellate  juris 
diction  of  Rome,  146 
his  donation  to  St.  Peter,  165 
his  disregard  of  clerical  immu 
nity,  187 
ecclesiastical     cases    tried    by 

him,  189 
grants  the  Roman  law  to  Lom 
bard  church,                              301  n. 


INDEX 


593 


328 


329 
333 


Louis  le  Dt-bonnaire— 

submits  to  penance  at  Attigny, 
extends  and  enforces  spiri'ual 

jurisdiction, 
is   degraded   and   subjected   to 

penitence, 

forged  decree  attributed  to, 
L  >uis  ~le   Germaniqne,  his   control 

over  the  church, 
Louis,  St.,  on  clerical  immunity, 
his  laws  on  excom.. 
on  excom.  for  debt, 
Louis     VII.     and     Archbishop     of 

Bourses, 
Louis  X.  on  clerical  immunity, 

on  excommunication. 
Louis    XIV.   creatt'S   mixed    tribu 
nals, 

his  independence  of  the  church, 
Louis  1 1.  of  Bourbon  procures  burial 

for  his  father, 
Louis  of  Bavaria,  his  quarrel  with 

the  papacy,  I9-  n- 

Lucius  III.  uses  excommunication 

to  collect  debts, 
Lull,  his  death  for  disregarding  the 

church, 
Lull,  St.,  appeals  to  Rome, 

neglects  to  apply  for  pallium, 
Lupus   of    Ferrieres    on    papal    si 
mony,  ( 
Luther  on  clerical  immunity, 
slow  progress  made  by, 
his  ninety-five  propositions, 
his  sermon  on  excom., 
he  asserts  the  right  of  private 

j  udgment, 

his  excommunication, 
his  -treatise  on  the  captivity  of 

the  church, 

he   denies  sacramental   ordina 
tion,         \ 

he  excommunicates  the  pope, 
and  burns  the  bull  and  canon 

law, 

final  doctrines  of  his  followers,    491 
Lutheran    doctrines    as   to    church 

and  state, 

as  to  excommunication, 
Lyndesay,  Sir  David,  on  clerical  im 
munity, 

on  indulgences, 
Lyons,  council  of,  in  517, 
in  567, 
in  1274, 
cure  of,  his  sacrilege, 


7271. 

483  n. 

541 

of,     in 


67 

208 
400, 404 
441 


384 
208 
401 

231 
471 


440 

307 
144 
145 


480 
482 
485 

485 
486 

4S7 

488 
4SS 

489 


222 

482  n. 
312 

141,570 
482  n. 
420 


Mainz,  council  of — . 
in  851, 
in  1451, 

Manichseism,  influence  of, 
Manumission,     ceremonies 

Rome,  '^1 

restricted  by  Augustus, 
regarded  as  a  pious  act,  537,  543,  564 
at  the  altar, 

543,  464,  568,  570  n.,  575  n. 
restrictions    removed    by    Jus- 

549 
565 


timat 
of  church  slaves, 


Mapes   Walter,  on  Roman  avarice,  56  n. 

Maranatha,  anathema, 

Marca.    P.,   <3e,    on    the    grant    of 

Adrian,  94  «• 

Marcian    (Kmp.)    and     council     of 

Chalcedon,  16,139 

suppresses  Alexandrian  insub 

ordination, 

Marcion,  his  appeal  to  Rome, 
Marcion  of  Aries,  his  heresy, 
Marcovefa.  her  fate, 


293 
127 
114 
310 


MACEDONIA,   bishops    of,    com 
plain  of  Rome, 
quarrel  over  churches  or, 
Macon    council  of,  in  531,  185,561 

in  585,        SO,  187  «.,  313,  562,  569 
Mngna   Charta  guaranteed   by  ex 
communication, 
Mainz,  see  of,  its  relations    to  the 


forgeries, 
clergy  of,  resisting  Ro 
council  of,  in  813, 
in  8  47, 


48,  68,  144 


Margaret  of  Parma  forces  the  coun- 
cil  of  Trent  on  the  Nether 
lands, 

reproves  abuse  of  excom  , 
Marriage,  relations  of  early  church 

to, 
control  gradually  acquired  over 

it, 

incestuous,  prohibited, 
doctrine  of  spiritual  affinity, 
prohibited  during  penitence, 

during  interdict, 
use  made  by  the  church  of  its 

power  over, 
of  slaves, 

between  freeman  and  slave, 
between  freewoman  and  slave, 

526,  545,  550,  557,  564 
Married  clerks  subjected  to  secular 

courts,  207,  209,  212,  215 

immunity     granted     them     at 

Trent," 

Married  men,  benefit  of  clergy  ex 
tended  to,  in  England, 
refused  in  France, 
Marsiac,  council  of,  in  1326, 
Marsiglio  of  Padua  ou  the  donation 

of  Constantine,  179  n. 

on  clerical  immunity,  192  n. 

Martial,  case  of, 
Martin  I.,  exile  of, 
Martin  V.  on  appellate  jurisdiction 

of  Rome,  om 

on  clerical  immunity, 
excommunicates  Peter  de  Luna,  393 
his  concordats, 
Martin,  St.,  of  Tours,  delegates  his 

judicial  functions, 
Martin  of  Aries   on  excommunica 
tion  of  animals, 
Martinus  Polouus,  his  Chronol.  Pon- 

tificum, 

Mary  Magdalen,  church  of  St.,  <395 

Mary,    Queen,   restores    benefit    ot 

243 


468 
470 

318 

318 
322 
319 
257 
422 

356 
540 
551 


226 

198 
215 
443 


76 


72,  322,  325  n.         clergy, 

67,  72  I  Mass,  form  of,  in  Mazdeism, 


594 


INDEX. 


Massachusetts,  bene4fit  of  clergy  in, 

200  n. 

Mathias  of  Hungary  restricts  eccle 
siastical  jurisdiction,  So  n. 
Matthew    of   Vendome    on    papal 

power,  386 

Maurice  (Ernp.)  his  control  over  the 

church,  22,  23 

Maurice  of  Rouen,  interdict  by,  420 

Maximus   (Emp.)   excommunicated 

by  Ambrose,  282 

Maximus  of  Spalatro,  298 

Maximus  of  Valence,  case  of,  135 

Mazdeau  sacrifices,  243 

Meals,  sacrificial,  243 

Meilleraie,  Due  de  la,  case  of,  472 

Melanchthon,  his  apology  for  Augs 
burg  Confession,  492 
Melchiades  (Pope)  appointed  judge 

by  Constantine,  ]2S 

Meletius,  St.,  of  Antioch,  17 

Melun,  council  of,  in  1216,  399 

Merida,  council  of,  in  666,  567 

Mermeillod   (Bish.)  on   divinity   of 

Pins  IX.,  389 

Merovingians,    their    control    over 

the  church,  61 

sale  of  bishoprics  by,  S9 

their  contempt  for  excommuni 
cation,  312 
Metz,    synod    of,    condemns    Teut- 

berga,  169 

Mexico    abolishes    clerical    immu 
nity,  232 
Miguel    de    Santa    Maria    justifies 

perjury,  438 

Milan,  equality  of,  with  Home,  124  | 

clerical  immunity  in,  202  ' 

schism  in  church  of,  358  ! 

laws  of,  on  excommunication,       414 
Military  habits  of  clerks,  314 

service  in  Rome,  52") 

Miuuiius  Felix  on  slaves  as  brethren,  539  I 
Miracles  necessary  for  protection  of 

church,  304  ! 

character  of  Italian,  30.1! 

of  Prankish,  ;;07 

of  the  Eucharist,  242  n.,  244  n. 

Modoin  of  A  utuii  disregards  clerical 

immunity,  1S9 

Monasteries,  slaves  of,  566 

as  asylums  for  slaves,  572,  574 

Money  payment  for  indulgences,    481  n 
Monuoires,  437}  472 

Montanus  on  unpardonable  sin,  254 

Montpellier,  consuls  of,  excom.,  383 

Muratori  on  the  donation  of  Louis 

le  Debonnaire,  166  n. 

Murder  justified  by  Urban  II.,  379 

of  slaves, 

529,  536,  544,  556,  557,  559,  560 
Myrc's,  John,  formula  of  excom.,        382 


Napoleon  I.  adopts  the  Declaration 
, of  1682,  472  n. 

Nature,  excommunication  of,  426 

i  Nemours,  council  of,  in  1096,  2t>6 

I  Nero   humanity  to  slaves  under.          535 
i  Netherlands,  remonstrance*  against 

council  of  Trent,  in  the,          227  n. 
reception  of  council  of  Trent  in 

the,  468 

i  Neustiian   bishop-,  their  letter   to 

Louis  le  Gerrnaniqiie,  97 

on  oaths  of  allegiance,  109 

New   Grenada,   complaints   against 

the  clergy  in  1745,  231 

abolishes  clerical  immunity,  232 

j  Nicsea,  council  of,  in  325,  99  n.,  119, 

243,  261,  26S,  274  n..  290 
in  787,  64,  99 

Arabic  canons  of,  278 

'  Xicene  creed,  alteration  in,  64 

1  Nicephorus    Phocus    sells    bishop 
rics,  100 
Nicetius,  St..  of  Treves,                  310,  321 
Nicholas  de  Claminges  on  the  pa- 

1'acy,  lOtj  n.,  450 

on  concordats,  104  n. 

on  papal  exactions,  453 

on  abuse  of  excommunication,       461 

Nicholas  I.  asserts  the  freedom  of 

episcopal  elections,  98 

confines  them  to  the  clergy,  99 

his  vigor  in  the  case  of  Ebbo,        152 
in  the  case  of  Rothadus,  153 

adopts  the  False  Decretals,    154,  162 
his  domineering  spirit,  168  n. 

exalts  the  pardoning  power  of 

Rome,  162 

interposes    in    favor    of    Teut- 

berga,  170 

condemns  Gunthair  and  Thiet- 

gaud,  170 

is  attacked  by  Louis  II.,  171 

triumphs  over  the  Lotharingian 

prelates,  172 

excommunicates  Waldrada,  173 

establishes  supremacy  of  eccle 
siastical  jurisdiction,  174 
asserts  clerical  immunity,               192 
assimilates  the  popes  to  God,         387 
Nicholas  V.  grants  indulgences,     459  n. 
Nicholas  (St.),  story  of  his  relic,     481  n. 
Noachian  curse,  slavery  attributed 

to,  538 

Norman  kings  of  Naples  and  the  ap 
pellate  power,  158 
Normandy,  clerical  immunity  in,  194,  207 
Nougaro,  council  of,  in  1290,                  452 
Novatians,  their  heresy,            248  n.,  2)4 
Noyoii,  council  of,  in  1344,               210,  212 
Nunez  Sancho  of  Roussillon,                406 
Niirnberg  decree  of  Frederic  I.,            409 
diet  of,  grievances  of  the, 

160,  221,  447,  462 


TVTANTINUS    of    Augouleme,    his 

11      fate,  309 

Naples,   appellate    jurisdiction    of 

Rome  in,  15S  | 

clerical  immunity  in,  202 

excommunication  in,  414  ' 


OATH  of  allegiance  exacted  of  the 
popes  and  Romans,  43 

exacted    of    bishops    and 

clergy.  107 

its  significance,  107 


INDEX 


595 


Oath  of  allegiance — 

gradual  change  in  its  char 
acter,  148.  147  n. 
release  from,  by  the  popes,  162,  377 
Obedience,  implicit,  claimed  for  the 

church,  86 

enjoined  by  the  state,  314 

Oblations,  Eucharistic,  their  nature,    241 
of  cruel  masters  rejected,  539 

Occupations  forbidden  to  Christians,    279 
Odoacer,    his    law   on    church    pro 
perty, 

his  control  over  papacy,  88  n. 

(Ecumenic  patriarch,  title  of,  122 

Oneisimus,  523 

Opstalboom,  clerical   immunity   in 

laws  of,  192  7i. 

Orange,  council  of,  in  441, 

263,  274  n.,  548,  569 
Ordeal  of  Eucharist  administered  to 

Lochair,  173 

Ordenarniento  de  Alcala,  79  n. 

Ordination,  sacramental,  denied  by 

Luther,  491 

of  slaves,  571 

general  restrictions  on,  572 

Organization  of  primitive  church,        112 

Oriental  influences  in  early  church,     541 

Origen  excoin.  after  death,  265 

Orleans,  council  of,  in  oil,       62,  559,  574 

in  538,  184,  575 

in  541,  184 

in  549,  559,569,575 

in  554,  62 

in  819,  89 

Orphans  protected  by  the  church,          80 

Ostrogoths,  their  control  over  the 

church,  18 

Otho   the   Great,   his   control   over 

bishoprics,  94  n. 

legend  of  his  death,  349 

Otho  III.,  his  control  over  the  pa 
pacy,  94  n. 
he  denies  the  donation  of  Con- 

stautine,  167w. 

Otho  IV.  and  the  laws  of  Charle 
magne,  54 
admits  appellate  jurisdiction,        158 
Outlawry  of  excommunicates, 

363,  396,  407,  403 

of  heretics  demanded  by  Leo  X.,    486 
Owen  of  Gwynnedd  and  bishopric 
of  Bangor,  104 


>AG  AN  mockery  of  excom.,  271, 

Pallium,    introduced    in  aid    of 

papal  jurisdiction,  142 

at  first  requires  consent  of  em 
peror,  142 
powers  bestowed  with  it,  142 
St.  Boniface   endeavors    to   re 
vive  it,                                             143 
complaints  of  papal  exactions 

in  its  bestowal,  144 

reluctance  of  prelates  to  apply 

for  it,  145 

privilege  of  appeal  attached  to 

it,  146 

alluded  to  by  Theodulf,      110  n. 


Pallium- 
John  VIII.  tries  to  make  it  ob 
ligatory,  148 
its  utility  in  establishing  papal 

supremacy,  147  n. 

delay  in  adopting  it,  148  n. 

objections  to  it  in  17S6,  148  n. 

Papacy,  cause  of  its   elevation   in 

the  seventh  century,  25 

rendered   independent   of  Con 
stantinople,  23 
its  subjection  to  the  Carlovin- 

gians,  37 

its  control  over  the  Empire,  39 

strives  for  independence, 
its  use  of  forgery,  46 

its  greed  and  avarice,  5r>  n. 

its  claim  of  omnipotence,  386 

it  infects  the  whole  church,  391 

concPiitration  of  authority  in,  419 
its  inevitable  abuses  451 

its  pretensions  to-day,  477 

Papal  power  over  councils,  15 

apo'n-isarii  at  Constantinople,  22 
autocracy  denied  by  Hincmar,  50 
claims  of  control  over  general 

councils,  15,  21 

over  episcopal  nominations,      98 
collectors,  exactions  of,  453 

dispensations,  scandal  of,  164 

degradation  in  tenth  century,        176 
elections,  control  of  by  the  sove 
reign,  19,  20,  22,  24,  36,  37,  42,  44, 

94  n. 

exactions,  55 n.,  144, 145n.,  148  n.,450 
excommunication  despised, 

172  «.,  341,  344 
jurisdiction  (see  Appellate  and 

Popes}. 

letters,  abuses  of,  452 

reception   of,   forbidden   in 

France,  473  n. 

monitoire  annulled  in  Alsace,        472 

power  of  dethronement,  363 

simony  justified,  58  n. 

supremacy  established,  175 

absoluteness  of,  385 

Pardoners,  481  n. 

descriptions  of,  482  n. 

Pardoning  power  assumed  by  Rome,     162 

conceded  by  the  Welsh  laws,    163 

Paris,  council  of  in  557,  90 

in  615,  91,  185',  187  n.,  669 

in  82 r),  28  n. 

in  882,  96 

in  1105,  ?,1V 

in  1528,  106  n. 

Huguenot  council  of,  in  1565,         494 

Parker,  Archbishop,  on  excom.,  510 

Parlement  of  Paris,  enforces  secular 

jurisdiction,  214,217 

on  excommunication,        401,  404 
Parliament  (Bug.)  curtails  benefit  of 

clergy  in  1402,  196 

Long,  on  excommunication,  517 

retains  control  over  church,  518 

Parliament,  Scotch,  removes   civil 

penalties  of  excommunication,          508 
Partidas,  Siete,  clerical   immunity 

in,  192  7i.,  205 


596 


i  N  D  i :  x . 


Partidas,  Siete— 

on  eccles.  jurisdiction,          78  n. 
ou  excommunication,  407 

Paschal   I.  deprecates  imperial  re 
sentment, 

crowns  Lothair  I.  43 

Paschal  II.,  his  venality,  57  n. 

he  absolves  Philip  of  France,        374 
denounces  a  new  heresy,  375 

releases  Henry  V.  from  his  oath,    377 
forced  to  abandon  the  investi 
tures, 

Paschasinus  of  Lilybfpum,  16,  1-2 

PaschaMuK  Radbertus,  his  account 

of  the  forgeries,  67 

Paterl'ainilias,  powers  of, 
Patriarch,  powers  of  the,  278 

of  Constant.,  his  legal  title,  122 

of  Constantinople,  his  relations 

with  emperors,  120 

Patriciate  of  Koine,  the,  36 

Patrick,  St.,  on  redemption  of  cap 
tives,  56? 
Patrons,  their  claims  on  freedmen, 

534,  546 

Paul,  St.,  encourages  arbitration,  74 
his  teachings,  23S 

ou  segregation  of  sinners,  240 

his  epistle  to  Philemon,  523 

Paul   III.,   his  project  of  reforma 
tion,  58w.,160,  391 
excommunication  by,  437 
Paul  IV.,  project  of  reformation  by, 

391  n. 
Paul  V.,liis  quarrel  with  Venice, 

230,  471 
Paul  of  Bernried  on  subjection  of 

the  empire,  ,33  n. 

Paul  of  Samosata,  115 

P.iuliiius  of  Aquiloia,  63 

Paullus  JEmilius   reduces    Epirots 

to  slavery,  52S 

Pavia,  synod  of,  in  876,  340 

Pazzi,  conspiracy  of  the, 
Peculiuni  of  slaves,  5G2 

Pedanmis  Secundus,  case  of,  531 

Pedro  II.  (Aragon)  on  excom.,  407 

Pelagius  1.,  appointed  by  Justinian,  23 
decretal  attributed  to  him,  149  n. 
on  necessity  of  Eucharist,  244 

Pelayo,  Alvarez,  40,  87  n.,  205,  3S9 

Penal  servitude  abolished  by  Jus 
tinian,  551 
Penitence,                                                    252 
its  enforcement,                                 253 
simplicity  of,  in  early  times,          253 
its  four  stages,                                   253 
tendency  to  increased  severity,     254 
expands  into  a  criminal  code,         255 
lengthened  terms  of  penance,         255 
penal  ties  and  disabilities  added,    256 
indelible  character  of,                       257 
it  enhances  sacerdota  authority,  2-">S 
alleviations  of,  for  the  rich,            326 
inflicted  on  Louis  le  Deb.,               329 
on  Emp.  Heury  IV.,                   369 
in  Scottish  kirk,                                506 
stool  and  pillar  of  repent 
ance,  506 
the  harden-gown,                        506 


Penitence  in  Scottish  kirk — 

the  branks,  507 

the  jaggs,  5i>7 

posthumous,  384,  425 

Penitentiary,  taxes  of  the,  J64 

Penitents,  disabilities  of,  256 

ineligible  to  holy  orders,  257 

safeguards  for,  327 

Pepin  lo  Bref  and  the  church,  32 

he  disapproves  of  images,  27  n. 

his  grant  to  the  Roman  Repub 

lie,  35 

he  confirms  clerical  immunity,  186 
his   policy  with  regard    to    the 

church,  315 

he  enforces  excom.,  317 
he  prohibits  niarringe  in  fourth 

degree,  321 

Pepin  of  Italy  crowned  by  the  pope,  36 

he  requires  oath  of  allegiance,  107 

his  laws  on  clerical  immunity,  1S6 

i  Perjury  justified  by  Urban  11.,  377 

by  .Miguel  de  Santa  Maria,  438 

i  Persecution  by  Christian  emperors,  277 

Peru,  excommunication  of  ants  ia,  434 

•  Peter,    St.,   bestows    the    imperial 

crown  through  the  popes,  39 

his  Jewish  exclusiveuess,  249 

forged  epistle  of,  35 
Peter  d'Ailly  on  corruptions  of  the 

church,  159 

on  exactions  of  papal  curia,        58  n. 

j  Peter  the  Venerable,  miracle  by,     2<>3  n. 

!  Peter  Cantor  on  papal  power,  390 

ou  corruptions  of  ctiurch,  454 

!  Peter  Moggus  of  Alexandria,  293 

;  Peter  of  Braga  and  the  pallium,      148  n. 

;  Peter  de  Luna,  excom.  of,  393 

Petronia  (lex)  on  gladiators,  535 

Philemon,  epistle  to, 

Philip  I.  (  b' ranee),  his  excom., 

his  submission,  374 

Philip  II.  on  clerical  immunity,  207 

Philip  III.  on  clerical  immunity,  207 

on  excommunication,  401 
Philip  IV.  declares  ecclesiasiics  in 
competent  as  judges,                 SO  n. 

on  clerical  immunity,  207 

on  excommunication,  4()2 
i  Philip    VI.    restricts   ecclesiastical 

jurisdiction,  84  n. 

complains  of  clerical  immunity,  210 

restricts  it,  212 
Philip    II.   (Spain),  his    control   of 

the  church,  470 
Philip  Count  Palatine,  excommuni 
cation  of,  385 
Philippe  Maria  Viscouti,  204 
Phillips  defends  the  Isidorian  theo 
ries,                                                       59  n. 
Phocas    admits   the   supremacy   of 

Rome,  123  n. 

Photius.  excommunication  of,  271 

Piacenza,  council  of,  in  1095,  373 
Pierre  of  Bourbon,  burial  refused 

to,  444 

'.  Pigeons,  excommunication  of,  434 

,  Pilgrimage  of  Grace,  198 

Pisa,    bishop    of,    hauged    by    the 

Florentines,  462 


INDEX. 


597 


Pistes,  capitulary  of,  in  862,  336 

edict  of,  in  864,  337 
Pithou,    Pierre,     his    liberties     of 

Galilean  church,  471 

Pius  III.,  his  Bull  of  Reformation,  223 
Pius   V.  urges   the  suppression   of 

concubinage.  229 
forbids  medical  aid   to  the  un- 

confessed,  '  475  n. 

Pius   VH.   excommunicates    Napo- 

leou,                                                  472  n. 
Pius  IX.  maintains  clerical  immu 
nity,  232 
his  bull  "Apostolicse  Sedis,"   233,  476 
forbids  medical  aid  to  heretics,  475 
Pliny,     his     torture     of    Christian 

slaves,                                                571  n. 
Poissy,  colloquy  of,                               30  n 
Poitiers,  council  of,  in  1100,  374 
Poland,     clerical    immunity    abol 
ished,  229 
excommunication  in,  415 
Politics,  control  of  the  church  over,  478 
Pollio,  Vedius,  his  cruelty,  529 
Polycavp  and  Anicetus,  113 
Polycrates  of  Ephesus  asserts  inde 
pendence,  290 
Pontyon,  synod  of,  in  S76,  85 
Poor  of  the  church,  fed  on   Eucha 
rist,  242 
1'opes  not  consecrated  without  con 
sent  of  emperor,  42 
to  be  tried  by  imperial  council,  IS 
by  emperor,  37 
supreme    original    jurisdiction 

of,  289 
uot     recognized     in     early 

church.'  290 
assumed  in  the  dissensions 

of  the  East,  292 
asserted      over    Constanti 
nople, 

abolished  by  Justinian,  297 

asserted  in  "the  west,  298 

case  of  Maximus  of  Salona,  298 
omnipotence  of, 

are  gods  on  earth,  390 
Portugal,  reforms  suggested  by,  at 

Trent,  224 

Poulet,  Sir  Amias,  his  promises,  513 

Powder  and  ball,  exorcism  of,          434  n. 

Pratr,  council  of,  in  1365,  211 

in  1374,  211 

in  1377,  456 

Prayers  for  those  in  slavery,  540 

Prerogatives,  supernatural,  growth 

of,  300 
Pretextatus  of  Rouen,                     141,312 

Priesthood  emancipates  the  slave,  573 

Priesthood  denied  by  Luther,  487 

Priests  superior  to  angels,  388 

Primitive  church,  organization  of,  112 

Prohibited  degrees  of  marriage,  319 

Property,  church,  guarded  by  curses,  302 

excommunication  for  recovery  of,  437 
Propitiation,  penitence  assumed  as 

a,  257  n. 

Proscription  for  excommunicates,  411 
Prostitution   of  slaves,  limited   by 

Hadrian,  535 

51 


Provisors,  statute  of,  398 
Prussia  limits  excommunication,  477 
Pseudo-Isidor  (see  Forgeries). 
Purgatory,  rise  of  doctrine  of,  262  n. 
Puritans,  complain  of  excom.,  512 
endeavor  to  retain  it,  518 
Pyrrhus  of  Constantinople,  excom 
munication  of,  271 


QU^ESTUAKII,  481  n. 

Quarterly  curse  in  England, 
382,  397,  457,  458 

Quartodeciman  controversy,  290 

Qninifsext  in  Trullo  rejects  the  su 
premacy  of  Rome,  123  n. 
Quintianus,  St.,  of  Auvergne.  89 


RABELAIS  on  the  decretals,  54 

Rainfroy  of  Rheims,  case  of,        190 
Rather! us  of  Verona  on   contempt 

of  clergy,  345  n. 

Rats,  excommunication  of,  430 

Ravenna    assumes     equality    with 

Rome,  124 

synod  of,  in  877,  148,  192,  335  n. 

Raymond    of    Nismes    on    clerical 

abuses,  210 

Reading  test  in  benefit  of  clergy, 

197,  199 
Rebellion,  the   Great,  its   influence 

on  excommunication,  518 

j  Reception  of  excommunicates,  274 

i  Redemption  of  slaves,  570 

!  Reform,  project  of,  at  Trent,         226,  465 
character  of  the  Tridentine,  466 

Reformation  attempted  by  Pius  III.,  223 
!  Reformation,  controversy  on  image- 
worship  in  the,  30  n. 
gradual  progress  of,  480 
Reformers,   their    assaults    on   the 

church,  221 

Relics,  reverence  inculcated  for,  307 
Relics,  false,  sales  of,  prohibited,  482  n. 
Religious  privileges  for  slaves,  560 

Remission  of  sins,  Luther  on,  484 

Remy,  St.,  Testament  of,  34  n. 

Remy  of  Coire  introduces  the  for 
geries.  50 
Repasts,  sacrificial,                                  243 
Rheims,  council  of,  in  625, 

91,  561,566,  570 

in  1303,  481  n. 

in  1408,  403 

Rhys   of  Wales     excommunication 

of,  384 

Ricaswind,  laws  of,  on  episcopal 

jurisdiction,  78 

Richard  II.  on  excommunication,  398 
Richardot  of  Arras  defends  clerical 

immunity,  227  w. 

urges  reception    of    council   of 

Trent,  468 

deplores  abuse  of  excom.,  470 

Richstich  Landrecht  on  papal  power,  390 
Riculfus  of  Mainz  introduces  the 

false  decretals,  48 

Rimini,  synod  of,  in  360,  14 

Ring,  gold,  permitted  to  freedmen,      552   ,  > 


598 


INDEX. 


Kipuarian   law,   rights   of    church 

under,  £01  n. 

slavery  under,  557,  568,  570 

Robber  synod  of  Ephesus, 

121,  137,  269,  292 
Robert  le  Fort  obtains  abbey  of  St. 

Martin,  102 

Robert  the  Good  of  Naples,  220 

Rodez,  Bishop  of,  sells  pardons,  214 

Rodolph  of  Bourges   permits  civil 

suits  of  clergy,  190 

Rodolph  of  llapsburg  admits  appel 
late  jurisdiction,  158 
confirms  the  papal  possessions,  38  n. 
is  selected  by  the  pope,  39 
remonstrates" against  interdict,      420 
Rodolph  of  Suabi;i,  his  designs,           364 
elected  emperor,                                370 
his  death,                                               371 
Roisel,  Jean,  case  of,                       404,  417 
Roman  bankers  protected  by  excom 
munication,                                             439 
Roman  bishopric,  primacy  of, 

causes  of  its  influence,  113 

honorary  rather  than  poten 
tial,  113 
its  liberality,  113 
its  superiority  contested,                 114 
its    influence    with    the    empe 
rors,                                                     115 
its  progress  in  the  Arian  contro 
versy,                                                  117  I 
its  contest  with  Constantinople, 

Hit.  121,  123,  13*.  2*6,  293  j 
its  opportunities  in  tin;  eastern 

quarrels,  120 

its  supremacy  admitted  by  Pho- 

cas  in  607,  123  n. 

its  efforts  in  the  West,  123 

its  claim  to  universal  jurisdic 
tion,  126 
based      on      the      Sarilican 

canons,  129 

asserted  by  Innocent  I.,  133 

denied      by      the      African 

church,  134 

submitted  to  by  Gaul,  136 

confirmed    by    Yaleutiuiau 

III.,  136 

rejected  by  the  East,  137 

established  in  the  West,          139 
overthrown   by  the  Barba 
rians,  140 
attempts  to  resuscitate  it  by 

the  pallium,  142 

endeavors  of  Boniface,  143 

Charlemagne  disregards  the 

claim,  146 

it  is  renewed  by  the  false 

decretals,  149 

established  by  Nicholas  I.,      153 

evils  of  the  system,  155 

pardoning  power  assumed  by,       162 

jurisdiction  (see  Popes}, 

appellate  (see  Appellate). 
Roman  curia,  exactions  of, 

55  «,.,  144,  145  n.,  148  n. 

its  overgrown  business,  451 

its  spirit  at  Trent,  465 

Empire,  autocracy  of,  13 


Roman — 

law,  the  church    privileged  to 

use  the,  301 

Republic  restored  by  Pepin,  35 

Rome,  sack  of,  by  Guiscard,  371 
forged  councils,  under  Silves 
ter,                                           42,  140  n. 

synod  of,  in  384,  274  n. 

in  488,  256 

in  498  and  502,  18 

in  501,  19 

in  863  170 

in  877,  341 

in  1075,  357 

in  1076,  36  L 

in  10SO,  371 

in  1102,  374 

slavery  in,  524 

freeman  not  to  be  enslaved,  525 

Rota,  greed  of  the,  161 

Rothadus  of  Soissons,  case  of,  153 

Rouen,  council  of,  in  650,  560 
Roussillon,  excommunication  in,         406 

lluffec,  council  of,  441 

Rufinus    his   account  of  council  of 

Mrsea.  178 


RABBATH,    rigidity    of,    in    Scot 
land,  501 
Sacerdotal    power,   commencement 

of  the,  247 

intervention  denied  by  Luther,     4.^4 

Sachsenspiegel,  excom.  iu,  412 

Sackcloth  for  penitents,  506 

Sacraments    (see    Eucharist     and 

Communion.) 

power  obtained  through  the,          235 

allowed  during  interdict,  383  n. 

Sacrificial  meats,  243 

Sadler,  Sir  Ralph,  complaints  of,         513 

Sagittarius  of  Gap,  case  of,  140 

Sain  tea,  synod  of,  in  579.  309 

Salic  law,  wer-gilds  under,  301  n. 

on  incestuous  marriage,      320  n. 

slavery  in,  554,  555,  556 

Salonius  of  Embrun,  case  of,  140 

Salvation,  the  church's  treasure  of, 

481  n. 

Salzburg,  council  of,  in  1418,  463  n. 

in  1456,  424,  461,  483  n. 

in  1548,  223 

in  1569,  467 

its  code  of  discipline,        227 

in  1573,  469  n. 

Sanuti  (Marino)  on  excom.,  417  n. 

Saragossa,  council  of,  in  681,  567 

Sardica,  council  of,  in  367, 

16,  87,  116,  274  n. 
canons    of,    in    favor    of   Pope 

Julius,  118 

nature  of  the  canons,  129 

they  are  disregarded,  130 

are'revived  by  Rome,  133 

and    attributed    to    council    of 

Nicsea,  133,138 

are  rejected  by  the  churches,         134 

Saumur,  synod  of,  in  1596,  74  n. 

Saw  tree,  Wm.,   tried   for    Lollard.- 

ism,  ~30n. 


INDEX. 


599 


Saxon  emperors,  their  control  over 

laws,  ou  excommunication, 

slavery  in, 
Saxons  defeated  by  Henry  IV., 

fresh  rebellion  of, 

Saxony,    Charlemagne's    organiza 
tion  of,  315 
School-boys  fed  on  remains  of  Eu 
charist, 

Schoolmen,   their   theory  of  indul 
gences.  4S1  «• 
Schools,   Belgian,   clerical   opposi 
tion  to,  47/ 
Schwabenspiegel,  founded  on  laws 

of  Charlemagne,  ;>4 

papal  supremacy  in, 
clerical  immunity  in,  192  n.,  20' 

excommunication  in, 
Scotland,  accusations  between  clerks 

and  laymen  forbidden,  72  n. 

clerical  immunity  in, 
tyranny  of  kirk-sessions  in, 
civil  penalties  of  excommunica 
tion  abolished, 

Scourging  bodies  of  excom.,  384,  425 

Sebastian  of  Portugal,  reforms  sug 
gested  by, 
Secular  power,  enforcement  of  ex- 

corurnuui cation  by, 
under  Merovingians, 
under  Carlovingians, 
in  England, 
in  Wales, 
in  France, 
in  Spain, 
in  Germany, 
in  Itiily. 

in  Poland,  415 

in  Hungary, 

in  Sweden,  415 

interference    of,   prohibited    at 

Trent,  467 

resistance    to   this    by    the 

state, 

Secularization  of  excommunication,    4 
Segregation  of  excommunicates,  239,  247 
origin  of. 

enforced  by  Stephen  I., 
becomes  the  general  practice  of 

the  church, 
examples  of  it, 

effects  of  it,  253 

revived  by  Carlovingians,  317 

deprivation  of  intercourse  and 

assistance, 

punishment  for  its  infraction,        394 
reforms  attempted  at  Constance 

and  Bale, 

complaints  of  citizens  of  Berlin,    3 
ulterior  consequences, 
mildness  of,  in  Spain, 
severity  of,  in  Germany, 
in  Scottish  kirk,  »04 

Seignorial  "  droits  de  justice,"  ori 
gin  of, 

jurisdictions  of  the  church, 
Self-extinguishing  candles,  in  ex 
communication, 
Seligenstadt,  council  of,  in  1018. 


Senatusconsultum  Claudianum, 

525,  545,  546,  550 

Senchus  Mor,  slavery  in  the,  553 

Senlis,  council  of,  in  1326, 
Sens,  Archbishop  of,  his  curse, 
Sepulture,  interdiction  of, 

422,  423,  444,  465 

Serenus  of  Marseilles  destroys  im 
ages,  27??; 
Sergius  I.  defies  the  emperors, 
sergius  II.  asserts  the  jurisdiction 

of  Rome,  152 

Servitude,  penal,  abolished  by  Jus 
tinian,  °° 
Seville   council  of,  in  618, 

in  LVO. 

Sicilian  slaves,  rebellion  of,  _     o30 

Sicily,    appellate    jurisdiction     of 

Rome  in, 

clerical  immunity  in,  *VA 

excommunication  in. 
Siegfrid  of  Mainz  and  the  pallium,  147  n. 

his  excommunication, 
Siete  Partidas,  las  (sec  Partidas). 
Siu-ebert   II.,  his   control   over   the 

church. 

Sigebod  of  Narbonne,  his  complaint,    340 
Silvanus  of  the  Troad,  76 

Silverius  buys  the  papacy. 

his  condemnation, 
Silvester  I.,  forged  councils  under, 

42,  140  n. 
epistles  of, 
Simaiicus  of  Badajos  on  image  wor- 

on  papal  power, 
of  the  Roman  curia, 

55?i.,  144,  145  «.,  148  n. 
j  nstified,  **°  n- 

protected  by  excommunication,     419 
Sin  involved  in  lawsuits, 
Siricius,  authority  of  his  decretals,     124 
he  disclaims  appellate  j  urisdic- 

tion, 

on  death-bed  communion, 
Sixtus  III.,  forged  trial  of, 
Sixtus  IV.,  his  abuse  of  excommu 
nication,  455 
excommunicates  Florence, 
Slave  families  their  separation  for 
bidden,                                     544,558 
trade,  military,  of  Rome,  528 
international,  forbidden,          561 
owner,    murder    of,    how   pun 
ished, 

women,  their  children  slaves,       ->-i-> 
Slaveholding  by  the  church, 
Slavery  and  the  church, 

and  the  Eastern  church,  549 

and  the  Latin  church,  553 

an  unnatural  condition, 
tolerated  by  the  church,  537 

Slaves    devoted    to    combat    with 

beasts,  *>o 

ordination  of,  "'* 

Soissons,  council  of,  in  744, 
in  863, 

in  1403,  21& 

South  American  Republics,  coucor- 
dat  of  1863, 


600 


INDEX. 


Spain,    ecclesiastical    jurisdiction 

in,  78  7i.  , 

resistance  to  Rome  in  253,  127 

in  1306,  106  «, 

in  18th  century,  101  ; 

its  submission  to  Rome,  139  ! 

clerical  immunity  iu,          192  ?i.,  204  i 
maintained  to  a  late  period,    231  i 
excomniunicalioii  of  animals  iu,    432  i 
privilege  of  lawyers  in,  448  ! 

slavery  among  the  Goths,  567  ! 

proposes  reforms  at  Trent,  224 

laws  on  excommunication  in,        405 
influence  of  Gothic  laws,  406 

the  Fuero  Juzgo,  78  n.,  204,  406 

the  Siete  Partidas, 

78  71.,  192  n.,  205,  407 
Spandel,  Chris.,  on  clerical  vices,  229  n. 
Spanish  rule  iu  Milan,  204 

Spartacus,  revolt  of,  5:H 

Speyer,  burial  of  emperors  at, 

379  n.,  3SO  n.  : 

Spiritual  affinity,  doctrine  of,  319 

authority  all  delegated  from  the 

pope,  449 

Spoliation  of  the  chnrch,  repressed 

by  Charlemagne,  324 

increases  under  the  later  Carlo- 

vingians,  2.'>1 

in  Gothic  codo  ,  340 

Spottiswoode,  John,  his  excom.,  504 

St.  Andree,  Bishop  of,  on  usurers,  424 
St.  Andrews,  kirk-sessions  of,  502,507 
St  Gall,  monk  of,  his  account  of 

Charlemagne,  95,  108,  1S8  : 

St.  Macra,  synod  of,  in  SSI,  38  n.  ' 

St.  Martin,  Abbey  of,  bestowed  on 

the  Capets,  ]02 

monks  of,  their  trial,  1S8  : 

St.  Riquier,  Abbot  of,  case  of,  404,  417 
St.  Savin,  Valley  of,  426  : 

St.  Tiberius,  council  of,  in  13S9,  217 

Staphylus,  Fred.,  his  remonstrance 

at  Trent,  224 

State,  the,  seeks  support  from  the 

church,  335  | 

subjection  of,  to  the  church  in 

1869,  476 

Statute  of  Provisors,  39S  ( 

Stephen  I.  appealed  to  by  the  Ly- 

onese,  114 

his   contest   with    the    Spanish 

church,  127 

with  Cypriau,  290  ; 

on  segregation   of  excommuni 
cates,  250  ' 
Stephen  II.  forges  an  epistle  of  St. 

Peter,  33 

crowns  Pepin  le  Bref,  34  I 

and  Charlemagne,  36  i 

appealed  to  by  Boniface,  144 

Stephen  IV.  crowns   Louis  le    De- 

bonnaire,  41  ; 

Stephen,  St.,  of  Hungary,  his  rever 
ence  for  bishops,  35  n.  ! 
he    forbids     accusation    of 

clergy,  73  n. 

he    grants    clerical    immu 
nity,  192  n. 
Sterility  caused  by  excom.,  427 


Stoicism  in  early  church,  538,  541 

Stoning  houses  of  excommunicates,    395 
Strangers,  letters  of  communion  re 
quired  by,  273 
Suabian  code  (see  Schwibenspiegel). 
Sudra,  indelible  slavery  of,              535  n. 
Sulpicius,  St.,  of  Bourges,                     307 
Sulpicius  Severus  on  authority  of 

bishops,  115 

Sunday,  observance  of,  in  Scotland,    501 

manumission  permitted  on,  547 

Supervision,  minute,  in  the  church.    279 

in  the  Scottish  kirk,  502 

Supremacy,  papal,  established   by 

Adrian  II.,  175 

Supreme  jurisdiction  of  Rome,     289,  3S."> 
Suze.  Henri  de,  excom.  by,  421 

Swallows,  excommunication  of,  428 

Sweden,  clerical  immunity  in.          192  n 
punishment  of  excom.  in,  415 

Syllabus  of  1864,  233,  475 

Symbol,  Niceiie,  altered  by  Charle 
magne,  64 
Symmachus,    his    contest    for    the 

papacy,  19 

Synesius  complains  of  his  judicial 

functions,  75 

excommunicates  Andronicus, 

•>ri9     9«?1 
*-»>J,  — ol 

his  formula  of  excommunication,  275 


mALIO,  application  of,  to  excom- 
JL      munication,  269 

Tarentum,  sack  of,  523 

Tarasius  of  Constantinople  on  the 

creed,  64  n, 

Tarragona,  council  of,  in  516,  7S 

Tarragoneusiaii  bishops,  their  ap 
peal  to  Rome,  139 
Tassilo,  constitution  of,  570 
Tatian,  indifference  as  to  slavery,  542 
Taxes  of  the  Penitentiary,  164 
Tedaldo  of  Milan,  359,  360 
Temporal  penalties  of  excom.,  392,  510 
Temporalities  of  the  church,  88 

their  evil  influence,  474 

Territorial  jurisdiction  of  vassals,        81 

restricted  by  Charlemagne,  82 

Tertulliau,  1m  resistance  to  Rome,      116 

reverence    for    kings     taught 
by,  13  n. 

on  marriage  ceremony,  318  n. 

Testamentary      manumission      re 
stricted,  532 

restriction  removed,  550 

Testimony  of  excom.  refused,       257,  404 
Tetzol  and  his  indulgences,  480 

Teutberga,  the  divorce  of,  168 

married  to  Lothair,  168 

divorced  by  synod  of  Aix,  169 

appeals  to  Rome,  169 

is  taken  back  by  order  of  Nich 
olas  I.,  172 

entreats   to   be  separated   from 

him,  173 

Tewdwrof  Brecknock,  his  excom 
munication,  334 
Theft,  excommunication  for,         345,  437 
Theloall  on  excommunication,  512 


INDEX. 


601 


Theocratic      constitution      of     the 

church,  278 

inevitable  results  of,  451 

Theodatus  imposes  Silverius  on  the 

Roman  church, 

Theodebert  of  Metz  aud  St.  Nice- 
tin 


310 

,    20  . 
T3n.  I 

265  j 
271 


Theodora,  her  treatment  of  Vigiliu 
Theodore  of  Canterbury, 

on  peculiurn  of  slaves, 
Theodore  of  Mopsuestia.  case  of, 
Theodore  (Pope)  excom.' Pyrrhus, 
Theodore    Studita    (St.)   on    slave- 
holding,  552  i 
Theodoret  of  Cyrus,  case  of, 
Theodoric,  anti-pope, 
Theodoric  controls  papal  elections, 
sends  John  I.  as  envoy, 
enforces  submission  of  church,      181 
on  denial  of  sepulture, 
on  murder  of  slaves,  557  ; 
Theodoric  of  Mainz  summoned  by 

the  Vehmgericht, 

Theodoric  of  Utrecht  excommuni 
cated  for  debt, 

Theodoius  aud  Froculus  of  Tours, 
Theudosian   code,  forgery   inserted 

in, 

foisted  on  Charlemagne, 
persecution  in, 
Theodosius  the  Great  excommuni 
cated  by  Ambrose, 
his  conscientiousness, 
his  law  on  capital  punishment,     285 
laws  in  favor  of  slaves,  547 

Theodosius  II.  on  the  confirmation 

of  bishops, 
transfers  the   churches  of  Illy- 


201 


440 
89 


ricuni, 

his  limitations  on  freedmen,  -; 

grants  right  of  asylum,  < 

Theodulf  of  Orleans,  his  imprison 
ment,  no 

admits  the  supremacy  of  Charle- 
magne, 


63 


Theophilus  attacks  Chrysostom,  120,  121 
excommunicates  Origen,  265 

Theutmir  and  Dungal,  28  n. 

Thiet"aud  of  Treves  released  from 

'his  oath,  162 

condemned  by  Roman  synod,         170 
submits  to  the  sentence,  171 

Thionville,  council  of,  in  845, 

66,  97,  189 
Thomas  a  Becket  and  Bishopric  of 

Bangor,  104 

he    vindicates    clerical    immu 
nity,  W5 
asserts  clerical  supremacy, 
Thomas  Aquinas  on  indulgences,   481  n. 
opinions  ascribed  to  him,     38  n.,  386 
Three  Chapters,  the,                  21,  125,  265 
Thurstan  of  York,  case  of, 
Tithes,  enforced  by  Charlemagne,        310 
by  excommunication,        458,  464 
lay  jurisdiction  over,                  202  n. 
Toledo,  council  of,  in  400,                251,  279 
in  589,                               64,  18:5,  567 
in  597,                                     561,  567 
in  638,  567 


Toledo,  council  of— 

in  6.)5,  567 

in  675  78,  183,  260  n.,  275 

in  633,  64,  79,  311  n.,  406  re. 

in  681  92,  339,  405,  406  n. 

in  1582,  439 

Tolls,  excommunication  for  collect 
ing,  459 
Tonsure  as  proof  of  clerkship,     209,  211 
assumed  to  obtain  immunity, 

209,  214 

respect  claimed  for  it,  215 

Torture  of  slaves  in  Salic  law,  555 

Tours,  bishops  of,  under  the  Merov 
ingians, 

council  of,  in  567.  185 

in  SI  3,  322,32571. 

Trade  forbidden  to  penitents, 
Trades  forbidden  to  Christians,  279 

Trades  subjected  to   ecclesiastical 

jurisdiction, 
Traffic  in  excommunications, 

in  indulgences,  _    481  n. 

Travellers,    letters    of    communion 

required  by,  273 

Treason,     bishops     punished     for, 

under  Carlovingians,  110 

clerks   punished    for,    in    Eng 
land,  196,198 
Treasury     of      salvation     in      the 

church,  481  »• 

Trent,   council   of,   on   image   wor 

ship,  29  n. 

on  appellate  jurisdiction,  160 
admission  of  clerical  cor 
ruption,  (  229  n. 
reforms  requested  of,  224,  464 
reactionary  spirit  of,  465 
device  for  eluding  reforma- 

tion,  225,  466 

conservative     character    ot 

reforms,  226,  466 

opposition    to   reception    of 

the  council,  2:-'0,  468 

on  indulgences,  484  n. 

i  Treves,    pallium    granted     gratui 
tously  to,  145  »• 
j  Trial  of  Leo  III.  by  Charlemagne,        37 
of  animals,  430 
Tribur,  council  of,  in  895, 

156,  192,  342,  560 

diet  of,  in  1076,  365 

:  Trieste,  jurisdiction  of,   granted  to 

bishop,  81  n. 

••  Troves,  synod  of,  in  878, 
Truce  of  God,  clerical    infractions 

of,  193 

i  Turin,  council  of,  in  401, 
:  Twelve  Tables,  law  of,  slavery  in,      527 

cruelty  to  debtors, 
i  Tyre,  council  of,  in  335, 

UDO  of  Treves  and  Henry  IV.,         365 
Ulpiau  on  slavery,  524 

Umbrician  matron,  punishment  of,       836 
Unction,  extreme,  neglect  of, 
enforced  by  Pius  IX., 
United  States,  benefit  of  clergy  in, 


602 


INDEX 


Urban   II.  enforces  clerical  immu 
nity,  206 
excommunicates  the   Imperial- 
its,  372 
excommunicates    Philip    I.    of 

France,  373 

annuls    oaths     to    excommuni 
cates,  377 
justifies  murder,  379 
grants  indulgences  at  Clermont, 

4S1  n. 
Urban    IV.   uses   excommunication 

to  collect  debts,  441 

Urban  V.,  his  dread  of  excom.,  4").) 

Urban  VI.  enforces  clerical  immu 
nity,  '_>o.3 
Urban  VIII.  re  issues  the  bull  '*  In 

Coena  Domini,"  2.30 

Urraca  of  Castile,  case  of,  3S4 

Ursinus,  the  antipope,  17 

Utrecht,     Bishop     of,     excommuni 
cated  for  debt,  440 


VAISOX,  first  council  of,  in  442, 
260  ?i.,  268 

Valence,  clergy  of,  appeal  to  Boni 
face  I.,  13.5 
council  of,  in  85.">,  ]01 
Valencia,  excommunication  in,  437 
council  of,  in  15»>fj,  43S 
Valens  enforces  claims  of  service.  572 
Valentinian  1.  re-enacts  the  Claud- 

iiiu  law,  516 
Valentiuian     II.    rebuked   by    Am 
brose.  282 
hi."  limitations  on  freedmeu.  517 
Valentinian    III.    and    the    council 

of  Ephesus.  14 
legislates  in  favor  of  bishops,  70 
limits    the    episcopal   jurisdic 
tion,  70 
confers    universal    jurisdiction 

on  Roman  Bishop's,  136 
his    laws   on    episcopal    immu 
nity,  179 
Value  of  slaves  in  Rome,                 529  n. 
Van nes,  council  of,  in  405,  256 
Vehmgericht     disregards      clerical 

immunity,  201 
Venice,  disregard  of  clerical  immu 
nity  in,                                               230,  471 

Verberie,  synod  of,  in  752,  321 

Vermin,  exorcism  of,  433 
Verneuil.  synod  of,  in  755, 

186,  317,  322  n. 

in  844,              67  «.,  97,  189,  332  n. 
Verona,  disregard  of  clerical  privi 
leges  in,  202 
Viaticum,  not  always  effi.-acious,  264 
control  of,  by  Charlemagne,  31(i 
neglect  of,  4t;9 
Vic-en-Bigorre,      excommunication 

procured  by,  437 

Vico,  Fran,  and  Battista,  417 

Victor  I.  and  the  Asian  bishops,  114 

rebuked  for  his  pretensions,  290 

Vienna,  council  of,  in  1311,  482  n. 

Vigil  ins,  Pope,  his  career,  20 

is  excommunicated  by  Africa,  125 


Vigilius— 

bestows  the  pallium  on  Auxa- 

nius,  H2 

on  excommunication  of  dead,        265 
Vindicta,  manumission  by,  531 

Virgil   of   Aries   receives    the   pal 
lium,  142 
Visconti,  they  limit  clerical  immu 
nity.  203 
on  excommunication,                       414 
Vislitza,  statute  of,                                    415 
Vitoduranus  on  temporalities,  ]06 
Vladislas    II.  restricts    ecclesiasti 
cal  jurisdiction,                                 84  n. 


WAGER     of    battle    offered     by 

Loth  air,  173 

forbidden  to  ecclesiastics,  188 
Wala  presents  the  forged  decretals 

to  Gregory  IV.,  67 
Walafrid  Strabo  on  image  worship, 

28  7». 

Waldrada   a  concubine  of  Lothair,  ins 

is  married  to  him,  169 

is  separated  by  Nicholas  I.,  172 

obliged  to  go  to  Koine,  173 

Wales,  ecclesiastics  not  competent 

as  judges  in,                                 79  n. 
pardoning  power  of  Rome  ad- 
mitred.  165 
laws  on  excommunication,  39-S 
oo  benefit  of  c  ergy.             192  n.,  194 
ordination  confers  freedom,       575  n. 
Walo  of  Metz,  pallium  granted  to,  119 
Weddings,  regulations  of,  in  Scot 
land,  501 
Wee  !s,  excommunication  of,  4'JS 
Weichi  ild,  Saxon,  on  excom.,  413 
Weissenberg,  Abbot  of,  385 
Weldou,    Sir    Andrew,    on    Scottish 

discipline,  498 

Wenilo  of  ?ens,  his  treachery,  110 

he  appeals  to  false  decretals,  153 

Wer-gilds  for  ecclesiastics,  301 

Westminster,  assembly  of  51S 

Wihald  of  Corvey,  419 

Wiberto  of  Ravenna,  364 

becomes  antipope,  371 

his  death,  374 

Wickliffe.  his  opinion  of  decretals,  59 
of  Roman  supremacy,          119  «.. 

of  excommunication,  479 

Widows  protected  by  the  church,  80 

Wife  of  excommunicate,  401 
Wilibert   of    Cologne,    pallium    re 
fused  to,                                               50  n. 

Wilibert  of  Chalons,  102 
Wilibrod    sent   as    missionary    by 

Sergius,  1-13 

Will,  nberg  on  excommunication,  494 
William  of  Bavaria  reproaches  the 

church,  223 

William  IT.  of  Montpellier,  383 

William  of  Scotland,  case  of,  384 
William  of  Sicily  admits  appellate 

jurisdiction,  ]5S 

William  of  Utrecht,  his  death,  364 
Wimpfeling  (Jacob),  complaints  of, 
as  to  pallium,                                     148  n. 


INDEX. 


603 


Winchester,  council  of,  in  1142,          38  n. 
Winemar  murders  Fulk  of  Kheims,     343 
disregards  excommunication,        344 
Wisigoths    insert  filioque    in    the 
%reed, 

enlarge  episcopal  jurisdiction,        <8 
refuse  clerical  immunity, 
invoke  the  church  in  political 

compacts,  311  n. 

on  duty  of  state  to  enforce  cen 
sures  of  church, 

laws  on  sacrilege,  340 

laws  on  slavery,  556 

Witchcraft,  persecution  of,  in  Scot- 

land,  500 

Witnesses,  numbers  of,  required  in 

charges  against  clerks,  73 

penitents  ineligible  as,  207 

excommunicates  ineligible  as, 

256,  404 

slaves  eligible  as,  539 

Wolff,  Christian,  ou   Ihe   donation 

of  Constantino,  167  n. 

Wolsey    endeavors    to   reform   the 

church,  198 

Women,  their  marriage  with  slaves, 

526,  545,  550,  557,  564 
Worms,    assembly    of,    on    church 
spoliation, 


Worms — 

council  of,  in  S68,  560  n. 

in  1176,  360 

Writ  de  excommunicate  capiendo, 

397,  510,  516,  519 

de  coutumace  capiendo,  520 

Wulfarius   of    liheims   appears   in 

secular  courts, 
Wiirdtwein   on  appellate  jurisdic- 


160 


tion, 


,TORK,  synod  of,  in  1640, 


r/ABARELLA  (Card.),  his  project 
/j    of  reform,  4o6 

Zachary,   Pope,  authorizes   the  de 
thronement   of   the   Merovin 
gians, 
his    description    of      Frankish 

clergy, 
Zeno,  his  Henoticon, 

papal  toleration  for  him,  286 

Zimiskes,  John,  renounces  the  sale 

of  bishoprics,  100 

Zozimus,  his  deceit  as  to  Sardican 


BY  THE  SAME  AUTHOR— Just  Published. 
I. 

SUPERSTITION  AND  FORCE: 

ESSAYS  ON  THE  WAGER  OF  LAW,  THE  WAGER  OF 
BATTLE,  THE  ORDEAL,  AND  TORTURE. 

THIRD  EDITION,  REVISED. 
In  one  handsome  volume,  royal  12mo.,  of  552  pages,  extra  cloth,  $2  50. 

The  copious  collection  cf  facts  by  which  Mr.  Lea  has  illustrated  his  subject  shows  In 
the  fullest  manner  the  constant  conflict  and  varying  success,  the  advances  and  defeats, 
by  which  the  progress  of  humane  legislation  has  been  and  is  still  marked.  This  work 
fills  up  with  the  fullest  exemplification  and  detail  the  wise  remarks  which  we  hav« 
quoted  above.  As  a  book  of  ready  reference  on  the  subject  it  is  of  the  highest  value  — 
Westminster  Review,  Oct.  1867. 

This  is  a  book  of  extraordinary  research.  Mr.  Lea  has  entered  into  his  subject  con 
amore:  and  a  more  striking  record  of  the  cruel  superstitions  of  our  unhappy  Middle 
Ages  could  not  possibly  have  been  compiled.  ...  As  a  work  of  curious  inquiry  on  cer 
tain  outlying  points  of  obsolete  law,  -'Superstition  and  Force1' is  one  of  the  most  re 
markable  buoks  we  have  met  with. — London  Atherutuvi,  Nov.  3,  1866. 

One  of  the  gloomiest  chapters  in  the  history  of  mankind  is  that  of  the  miseries  which 
have  resulted  from  their  errors  in  the  search  for  truth,  and  the  false  methods  adopted 
to  discover  it.  And  there  are  few  more  striking  episodes  in  this  chapter  than  that 
which  Mr.  Lea  has  set  before  us  in  his  excellent  volume.— Forth  American  Review  Oct 


II. 

AN  HISTORICAL  SKETCH 

OF 

SACERDOTAL  CELIBACY  IN  THE  CHRISTIAN  CHURCH. 

In  one  handsome  octavo  volume  of  COO  pages,  extra  cloth,  $3  75. 

This  subject  has  recently  been  treated  with  very  great  learning  and  with  admirable 
impartiality  by  an  American  author,  Mr.  Henry  C.  Lea,  in  hie  History  of  Sacerdotal 
Celibacy,  which  is  certainly  one  of  the  most  valuable  works  that  America  has  produced 
Since  the  great  history  of  Dean  Milman,  I  know  no  work  in  English  which  has  thrown 
more  light  on  the  moral  condition  of  the  Middle  Age",  and  none  which  is  more  fitted  to 
dispel  the  gro^s  illusions  concerning  that  period  which  Positive  writers  and  writers  of 
a  certain  ecclesiastical  school  have  conspired  to  sustain.— Lecky's  History  of  European 
Morals,  Chap.  V. 

In  freshness  and  exactness  of  detail,  in  conscientious  citation  of  authorities,  in  the 
impartiality  with  which  all  possible  sources  of  information  have  been  searched,  in  learn 
ing  and  scholarly  finish,  it  is  absolutely  unapproached  by  any  similar  treatise  which 
has  issued  from  the  American  press.  Indeed,  the  number  of  foreign  historical  works 
which  have  equalled  it  in  these  particulars  might  be  readily  counted  on  the  finders  — 
Quarterly  Journal  of  Psychological  Medicine,  Oct.  1867. 

Thus,  his  chapter  on  the  Anglican  church  is  perhaps  the  most  connected  and  most 
satisfactory  account  of  our  own  Reformation,  as  to  the  question  of  celibacy  or  marriage 
that  could  be  found  — Quarterly  Review.  Oct.  1869. 


OINOHOI  JO  lIISHaAIM