II. We proceed to Encroachment of Ecclesiastical on Civil Authority.

examine the encroachments of Church upon State during the same period; and this part of our subject might again be subdivided under three heads

the general usurpations of the See of Rome on any temporal rights-the particular usurpations of national councils of Bishops on the civil authorities-and the individual usurpations of the episcopal office on that of the secular magistrate. But, not to perplex this matter by an attempt at exceeding minuteness, we shall rather follow the course of events and illustrate them with such observations as they may appear severally to demand. The first edict which permitted legal jurisdiction to the Episcopal order, and supported its decisions by civil authority, sowed the seeds of that confusion which afterwards involved and nearly obliterated the limits of temporal and spiritual power. There

is scarcely any crime which an ingenious casuist might not construe into an offence against religion, and subject to Ecclesiastical cognizance, in a rude and illiterate age; while, on the other hand, the best defined and most certain rights of an unarmed and dependent authority were liable to continual outrage either from a sovereign possessing no fixed principles of government, or from a lawless aristocracy more powerful than the sovereign. In the Eastern empire, indeed, this evil was greatly neutralized by the decided and unvarying supremacy of the civil power, nor was it immediately felt even in the West; at least we read little or nothing about the usurpation of the Clergy, until after the death of Charlemagne. The Popes, it is true, had displayed, from a very early period, great anxiety to enlarge their authority; but the efforts of Leo and even of Gregory were confined to the acquisition of some privilege from their own Metropolitans, or some title or province from their rival at Constantinople. The dream of universal empire seems at no time to have warmed the imagination of those more moderate Pontiffs. It is not that we may not occasionally discover both in the writings and in the conduct of the prelates of earlier days an abundance of spiritual zeal ever ready to overflow its just bounds, and gain somewhat upon the secular empire. The latter, too, found its occasions to retort; but we may remark, that while its operations were generally violent and interrupted, those of the clergy were more systematic and continuous. In the mean time the distinction between the two parties was becoming wider, and their differences were approaching near to dissension, before, and even during, the reign of Charlemagne how beit, the vigorous grasp of that monarch so firmly wielded the double sceptre, that the rent which was beginning to divide it

was

In the Capitularies of Interrogations' proposed by Charlemagne, three years before his death,—' First,' (he says) 'I will separate the bishops, the abbots, and the secular 'nobles, and speak to them in private. I will ask them why they are not willing to 'assist each other, whether at home or in the camp, when the interests of their country ' demand it? Whence come those frequent complaints which I hear, either concerning 'their property or the vassals which pass from the one to the other? In what the eccle'siastics impede the service of the laity, the laity that of the ecclesiastics? To what 'extent a bishop or abbot ought to interfere in secular affairs; or a count or other lay'man in ecclesiastical matters,' &c. (Fleury, H. Eccl. 1. xiv. sect. 51. Guizot, Hist. Mod. Leçon 21.) Soon afterwards, in 826, the Council of Paris, after proposing some very extravagant episcopal claims, observes, as one great obstacle to harmony, that the princes have long mixed too much in ecclesiastical matters, and that the clergy, whether through avarice or ignorance, take unbecoming interest in secular matters. Again, at the second of Aix-la-Chapelle (in 836) all the evils of the time are expressly attributed to the mutual encroachments of the spiritual and secular powers.

barely perceptible, when it fell from his hand; but scarcely had it begun to tremble with the feeble touch of Lewis his son, when its ill-cemented materials exhibited a wide and irreparable incoherence.

The extraordinary change which had taken place in the institutions of the Western Empire during the two preceding, and which was progressive during the two present, centuries, greatly increased both to church and state the facility of mutual encroachment. Until the permanent settlement of the northern nations generally introduced the feudal system of government, the Clergy, though enjoying great immunities and ample possessions, yet, as they lived under absolute rule, had little real, and no independent power, excepting such as indirectly accrued to them through their influence. If they had lands, no jurisdiction was necessarily annexed to them; they had no place in legislative assemblies; they had no control, as a body, in the direction of the state.

The devout spirit of the Barbarians presently increased the extent of their landed possessions without withholding from them any of the rights which, according to their system, were inseparable from land; and thus they entered upon temporal jurisdiction co-extensive with their estates. By these means the Episcopal Courts became possessed of a double jurisdiction-over the Clergy and Laity of their diocese for the cognizance of crimes against the ecclesiastical law, and over the vassals of their barony as lords paramount; and these two departments they frequently so far confounded as to use the spiritual weapon of excommunication to enforce the judgments of both*. In the next place the Clergy became an order in the state, and thus entered into the enjoyment of privileges entirely unconnected with their spiritual character. Yet the necessary effect of the union of ecclesiastical with secular dignities was to blend two powers in the same person almost undistinguishably; and to confound, by indiscriminate use, the prerogatives of the bishop with those of the baron. Again, the Bishops being once established as feudal lords, had great advantages in increasing their possessions, owing to the influence which necessarily devolved on them, not only from their greater virtues and knowledge, but also from the command of spiritual authority. And as the vassals of the Church grew gradually to be better secured from oppression and outrage than those of the lay nobility, its protection was more courted and its patrimonial domain more amply extended.

At the first establishment of the system, vassalage to an ecclesiastic conferred exemption from military service; but, among rude and warlike nations, when the greater force was generally the better law, this privilege could not possibly be of long duration. It was withdrawn universally, at different times, by different princes, according to their power or their necessities. The Church fiefdoms thus assumed a very different appearance, and the spirituality of the sacred character became still further corrupted; for, as soon as the vassals became military, it was found difficult to hold them in subjection to an unarmed lord, and the Clergy were, in

This subject is treated clearly, though shortly, by Burke, in his Abridgment of English History. Mosheim, who ascribes the secular encroachments of the Bishops to their acquisition of secular titles, denies that such titles were conferred on them before the tenth age. Louis Thomassin (De Disciplin. Eccles. Vet. et Nova) endeavours to trace the practice to the ninth and even to the eighth century. Whatever may be the fact respecting the titles, the jurisdiction certainly gained great ground during the ninth age; more, perhaps, through the superstition of the people, and the weakness of the princes, than by its own legitimacy.

R

many instances, obliged to descend from their peaceful condition, assume the sword and helmet, and conduct their subjects into battle in many instances they did so without any such obligation. This direct dereliction of the pastoral character became the immediate means of securing their property† and increasing their power; but, notwithstanding the contempt to which the peaceful virtues are occasionally exposed among rude and military nations, it is probable that they lost thereby as much in influence as they gained in power.

Again, the strange and irrational method of Trials which even now came generally into use, must have tended, by the intermixture of superstition, to enlarge the dominion of ecclesiastical influence. The ordinary proofs by fire, by water, by hot iron, indicate some imposture perhaps only practicable by the more informed craft of the clergy. The proofs of the Cross and the Eucharist bear more obvious marks of sacerdotal superintendence‡. The clergy disgraced themselves by upholding such abuses of their judicial authority, and they divide that disgrace with the Kings and the civil magistrates of the time; but they had not the crime of introducing them. They received and executed them as they were handed down from a remote and blind antiquity; and it is but justice to add, that they made frequent attempts to abolish them§.

Moreover, through the free spirit which formed the only merit of the feudal system, the affairs of the state were more or less regulated by public assemblies, and the higher ranks of the clergy found a place in these. Thus, again, were they placed in contact with the great temporal interests of their country, and invited to examine and direct them; and no doubt their feudal temporalities, as well as their spiritual influence, added weight and authority to their counsel. But, besides these, which some might overbear and others might affect to despise, their political consideration was derived from another-a more honourable and a more certain instrument of power-their intellectual superiority. The learning of the age con

The practice crept, without the same excuse, and of course with much less frequency, into the Greek Church. In the year 713 a Subdeacon commanded the troops of Naples; and the Admiral of the Emperor's fleet was a Deacon. (Fleury, ix. 172, &c.) But the low ecclesiastical rank which these officers held would prove, if it were necessary, that they did not take the field as feudal lords. In the West this practice appears to have commenced soon after the admission of barbarians to the clerical order; which, if we are to judge by names, scarcely took place before the seventh century.

In the address (already mentioned) which was presented on this subject to Charlemagne by his people, it is remarkable that the petitioners felt it necessary to offer a solemn assurance, that their motive for disarming the Clergy was not (as might, it seems, have been suspected) a design to plunder their property. We may add, that the indecent violation of the sacerdotal character is a reason, which seems to have been overlooked by both parties.

Even the trial by Duel, which seems the farthest removed from priestly interference, was preceded by some religious forms; great precautions were taken to prevent the arms from being enchanted; and in case of any injustice a miracle was constantly expected to remedy it.

A council held at Attigni, probably in 822, under Lewis the Meek, especially prohibited the Trial by the Cross; according to which, the two parties stood up before a cross, and whichever of them fell first lost his cause. Again, at the Council of Worms (in 829), these judgments were strongly discouraged. Agobard, Archbishop of Lyons, an influential prelate, had written expressly against them. The Council of Valence, held in 855, published the following canon. Duels shall not be suffered, though authorised by custom. He who shall have slain his adversary shall be subject to the penance of homicide; he who shall have been slain, shall be deprived of the prayers and sepulture of the church. The Emperor shall be prayed to abolish that abuse by public ordinance.' See Fleury, 1. xlvi., s. 48. 1. xlvii, s. 30. 1. xlix., s. 25.

tinued still to be confined to their order*; few among the laity could even read, and therefore few were qualified for any public duty, and thus the various offices requiring any degree of literature fell necessarily into the hands of the clergy. Those who consider their advance to such offices as usurpations do not sufficiently weigh the circumstances of the times; they do not reflect that there are moral as well as physical necessities, and that a state of society is not even possible, in which the only persons at all qualified to fill the offices of the state should be the only persons excluded from them. It is far from our intention to advocate any general departure from the spiritual character in the sacred orders; and the divines of the ninth and tenth centuries would undoubtedly have been great gainers both in virtue and in happiness, had they preserved that character pure and uncontaminated. But it was made impossible by the political system under which they lived, that it could be so; and without seeking any excuse for the individual misconduct of thousands among them, we cannot avoid perceiving, that their interference in temporal affairs, to a certain extent, was absolutely unavoidable-and where and by whom, in those unsettled ages, were the limits of that interference to be drawn and preserved?

If the clergy were in many respects gainers by the imperfection of civil government, it would be partial to conceal, that they were sufferers by it also. In times of confusion (and those days were seldom tranquil) the property of the Church was the constant object of cupidity and invasion.† On such occasions no inconsiderable portion of its revenues passed into the hands of lay impropriators, who employed curates at the cheapest rate. ‡ And both Bishops and Monasteries were obliged to invest powerful lay protectors, under the name of Advocates, with considerable fiefs, as the price of their protection against depredators. But those Advocates became themselves too often the spoilers, and oppressed the helpless ecclesiastics for whose defence they had been engaged.

We have thought it right, though at the risk of some repetition, to premise this general view of the relative situation of the clergy and laity during the period which we are describing; otherwise it would be difficult to form any just and impartial views, or even any very definite notions, of the real character of the events which it contains.

In the civil war which took place in the year 833 between Lewis the

*In many of the councils held during the ninth century, canons were enacted enjoining the Bishop to suspend a Priest for ignorance, and to promote and regulate the schools which were established for the education of the clergy.

The councils of the ninth century abound with complaints of the spoliation of Church property by laymen, who are frequently specified; and new Capitularies were continually enacted to prevent or allay differences between the Clergy and the laity. The confusion generally prevalent is proved by the capitularies published at Quercy (in 857), by which every diocesan is exhorted to preach against pillage and violence, as well as by the Letters of Hincmar published in 859, and that of the Bishops of France to King Lewis, attributed to the same prelate. The frequency too of personal assaults on the Clergy is evinced by various regulations for their protection, and even more so, perhaps, by the slight punishment attached to such offences. Some promulgated in France (probably in 822) ordain as follows-the murderer of a Deacon or Priest is condemned to a penance of twelve years and a fine of 900 sous; the murderer of a Bishop is to abstain from flesh and wine for the whole of his life, to quit the profession of arms, and abstain from marriage. Yet the confirmation of this canon was thought highly important by the episcopal order. Fleury 1. xlvi, s. 48; 1. xlix, s. 40.

An abuse (as Mr. Hallam remarks) which has never ceased in the Church. Middle Ages, chap. vii. We take this opportunity of acknowledging various obligations to that historian.

Penance of Lewis the Meek.

The

Meek and his sons, Pope Gregory IV. presented himself in France at the camp of the rebels. motive which he pretended was to reconcile the combatants and terminate a dissension † so scandalous to Christendom; and such really may have been his design. At least it is certain that his interference was a single and inconsequent act, unaccompanied by any insolence of pretension; the Pope offered his mediation, and, though we may suspect his impartiality, he advanced no claim of apostolical authority to dispose of the crown. We shall, therefore, pass on from this event to one which immediately followed it, and which French historians consider as the first instance of ecclesiastical aggression on the rights of their sovereign. Lewis was betrayed by his soldiers into the hands of his sons, who immediately deposed him and divided the empire amongst themselves: but fearing that he might hereafter be restored by popular favour, they determined to inflict upon him a still deeper and even hopeless humiliation. An assembly held at Compiègne condemned him to perform public penance, and he submitted with some reluctance to the sentence. Having received a paper containing the list of his pretended crimes, and confessed his guilt, he prostrated himself on a rough mat at the foot of the altar, cast aside his baldric, his sword, and his secular vestments, and assumed the garb of a penitent. And, after the Bishops had placed their hands on him, and the customary psalms and prayers had been performed, he was conducted in sackcloth to the cell assigned for his perpetual residence. It was intended by those who condemned him to this ignominy, thereby to disqualify their former sovereign for every office both civil and military. But neither does it appear that such was the necessary consequence of canonical penance, unless when imposed for life; nor could they have forgotten that eleven years previously the same monarch had already performed a public penance, for certain political offences then charged on him. It proved then, as might have been expected, that the ceremony described had no more important effect than the temporary humiliation of the royal person. Probably his popularity was increased by the show of persecution; and, as soon as political circumstances changed in his favour, the Bishops immediately reconciled the penitent to the Church, and replaced him on the throne §.

This stretch of episcopal power is blamed by many Roman Catholic historians, who, at the same time, are careful to show that it was simply an act of penance, not of deposition, justified by the memorable submission of Theodosius to ecclesiastical discipline. Nevertheless, we cannot in justice otherwise consider it, than as a daring outrage committed on the highest temporal authority, with the intention of perpetuating the de

** Charlemagne died in 814; Lewis the Meek in 840, and his successor, Charles the Bald, in 877. The empire passed from Charlemagne's descendants to the German Conrad just a century after his death; and in 987 his dynasty was extinguished in France by the accession of Hugh Capet.

Baron., ann. 833, s. v. Gregory held the See from 828 to 844. It was made a complaint against the Emperor by Agobard, the Archbishop of Lyons (ap. Baron., ann. 833, s. vi.) that he did not address the Pope with the due expressions of respect-since he saluted him, in a letter, Brother and Papa indiscriminately: the paternal appellation should alone, it seems, have been adopted.

The prohibition to carry arms or discharge civil offices did not extend beyond the duration of the penance. See Fleury, 1. xlvii. s. 40. Baron, ann. 882. s. i.; ann. 833. s. xix.

We read in Baronius (ann. 834, s. i.), that, during the time of his deposition, violent and unseasonable tempests prevailed, which instantly dispersed at his restoration.