of the Council of Basle is in accordance neither with the expressions themselves nor, least of all, with the general proceedings of this assembly, which, before it broke up, was without a head and utterly schismatical. For it went further than any Pope or Council in treating of civil and especially feudal questions, so much so that Sigismund complained loudly of this, and of its interference with his rights of sovereignty; 10 it even sought to be judge in the quarrel between Duke Eric of Sachsen-Lauenburg and Frederick II. of Saxony, on the electoral dignity.11 Ostensibly it adhered closely in all things to the proceedings of Constance, but from time to time it went beyond them. Even were the statement of Gosselin admitted,12 in which he says: 'The Councils of Constance and Basle might take for granted the consent of Christian princes to the decrees in question, especially since they confine themselves entirely (?) to confirming and renewing punishments enjoined by the universal legislature of Catholic Europe for heresy and excommunication,'—still this view neither explains the facts nor is it consistent with them. On the contrary, these Councils took for granted the sum-total of the rights claimed and exercised in that day by the Church upon any title whatsoever, whether spiritual or temporal; and thus they placed themselves on an equal footing with the analogous Papal Briefs, which have no more given a decisive doctrinal utterance than have these Councils. They met with opposition neither greater nor less than did the analogous decrees of the Roman Pontiffs, and they found support in the same principles which held sway throughout the Middle Ages. A 'supremacy of the Pope over princes and people in political things'13 was certainly not asserted by the Bishops of Rome in the first ten centuries; but neither was it asserted by those of later centuries either in any universal sense, apart from special titles, or in relation to such things as were purely temporal. Only in so far as things temporal entrenched upon the province of the Church and in extremest need, when the salvation of souls and the stability of the Church were in danger, did they take upon themselves a further power, in the firm conviction that it lay within their authority to employ means requisite to the desired

VOL. I.

Z

end,14 and supported in this conviction by the principles universally held in that day. As a rule, they made use of their spiritual power alone; but a moral superiority over temporal princes was given them by the whole growth of Christian States, and their position as the fathers and leaders of Christendom prepared for them an extensive field of action. When things spiritual and things temporal were so closely united such could not fail to be the case.

1 Roncaglia, p. 302.

2 Bianchi, 1.c. n. 3, pp. 161, 162.

3 Mamachi, p. 246, nota: Agi deinde de officiis et beneficiis Bossuetius censet, quae Ecclesiae vel innato vel acquisito jure essent. Hoc autem si verum est, quid opus esset consensione principum ad privandos refractarios officio ac beneficio, quod Ecclesiae vel innato vel acquisito jure competeret? Quid ergo? Vir gravissimus vi argumenti pressus modo hoc, modo illud opponit, ut tueri se posset.'

Bianchi, 1.c. n. 4, pp. 162, 163.

5 Bossuet, 1.c. c. iv. p. 342.

Bianchi, 1.c. n. 4, 5, pp. 163-165.

'Secundum tenorem decreti et sententiae generalis Concilii Const., qua reus declarandus fuerat ac privandus comitatu Armeniacensi et Ruthensi ac omuium aliarum terrarum et dominiorum suorum,' Mansi, note 2 in Nat. Alex. 1.c. p. 303, who adds: Hic non agitur de feudis imperialibus vel ecclesiasticis, quae elusio est P. Alexandri, sermo est de sententia Concilii executioni mandanda. Quid hic reponet P. Alexander?' Measures contra dominos temporales ac populos qui illos [the Popes deposed at Pisa] fovere ac sustinere voluerint, had already been taken into consideration. Döllinger, Beiträge, ii. p. 302.

8 Roncaglia, 1.c. p. 302. Bossuet, l.c. p. 357:

eos extenditur qui imperiali, 10 Bossuet, 1.c. p. 358.

Martene et Durand. viii. 722. Monumenta Concil. General. saec. 15, Vindob, 1857, pp. 520-522.

11 Döllinger, Lehrbuch der Kirchengeschichte, ii. p. 330.

12 P. ii. p. 275

13 Huber, p. 6.

14 According to the sentence: Cui jurisdictio data est, ea quoque concessa esse videntur, sine quibus jurisdictio explicari non potuit' (1. ii. Cui Dig. ii. 1, de Jurisd.).

ESSAY VII.

CIVIL RULERS AND THE HOLY SEE.

CIVIL rulers in the Middle Ages regarded their relation to the Church as it was regarded by Popes and theologians, and shared their opinions except when passion or self-interest interfered. They considered that to support the action of the Church by their civil authority, to punish those who disobeyed her, and to act always as her defenders and protectors, were amongst their gravest duties. The most powerful princes have expressed in many documents their desire to secure, through pious zeal for the Church, peace and prosperity to their governments and everlasting blessedness to themselves.2 I. The jurisdiction of the Church was especially exercised by Popes over princes in their matrimonial affairs. II. This ecclesiastical jurisdiction was expressly recognised by princes.

PART I ECCLESIASTICAL JURISDICTION EXERCISED BY THE POPES OVER CIVIL PRINCES IN THEIR MATRIMONIAL AFFAIRS.

§ 1. King Robert of France. § 2, 3. Simony of Philip I. § 4-7. His marriages. § 8-11. Philip Augustus. § 12. The King of Leon.

§ 1.

That kings were, as Christians, subject in their private lives like all other believers to the supremacy of the Church was never doubted, and Popes often punished and censured their misdeeds. Pope Nicholas I. maintained the sanctity of marriage in regard to Lothair II., who had divorced his wife Theutberge, and lived in adultery with Waldrade.3 Another striking instance is that of King Robert of France, who, with the consent of several bishops of his kingdom, had incestuously married his

kinswoman Bertha.

For this satisfaction was required of him from Gregory V., A.D. 997; and the following year he was sentenced to do penance for seven years. In the year 1000 the zealous Abbot of Fleury (who died in 1004) succeeded in inducing the king to submission; he renounced his connection with Bertha, and lived till his death in 1031 an exemplary life.5 Even if the stories of St. Peter Damiani6 are mere hearsay, we have plenty of proof of the impression made in France by ecclesiastical censures. There was no cause for deposing the king, and Robert's final decision set him quite straight with the Church.8 Later, in 1069, a new scandal threatened the Church when Henry IV. of Germany wished to separate from his wife; but St. Peter Damiani dissuaded him from his idea.9

1 Childebert in Capitul. (Labbé, Conc. vi. p. 487, ed Venet.): 'Et quia necesse est, ut plebs, quae sacerdotis praecepta non ita ut oportet custodit nostro etiam corrigatur imperio,' &c. Facundus of Hermiane (pro Defens. trium Capitulorum, 1. xii. c. iii.) praised the Emperor Marcian because he 'suo contentus officio ecclesiasticorum canonum executor esse voluit.'

2 Cf. the diploma granted in 1150 by Conrad II. to the monastery of Corvei (Migne, PP. Lat. clxxxix. p. 1497).

6

3 Baron. a. 866, n. 37-42. Lothair wrote: Cernuo lumine vestram affatim deposcimus paternitatem, ut dum nos vobis missisque vestris... per omnia super omnes coaequales nostros obedire volumus, non aliquem nostri Deo miserante consimilem super nos extollere aut terrae praeponere vestrae libeat paternitati.' Nicholas had only warned him that if he did not amend a severe sentence would fall upon him: Coram tota et cum tota Ecclesia luce clarius peremtorio Dei judicio, tota producta spicula, patieris et procul dubio cunctis videntibus praecipitaberis' (Floss, Leonis P. Privilegium, Doc. iv. p. 32).

4 Mansi, xix. 233, 223. Pertz, v. 694. Hefele, iv. 619, 622. Hofler, Deutsche Päpste, i. 125, 170.

5 Mabillon, Ann. O.S.B. 1. i. c. lxxiv. Helgaldi, Epit. Vitae Roberti Reg. ap. Bouquet, x. 107. Hofler, l.c. p. 184.

Petr. Dam. Opusc. 34, c. vi.; Opp. iii. 260.

p. 237.

Bossuet clearly shows that there was none, Defens. P. i. 1. ii, c. xxvii.

8 Leo IX. wrote subsequently to King Henry (Jaffé, n. 3270, p. 377): 'Pater tuus Robertus laude et consultu episcoporum regni tui Bertam, matrem Odonis comitis, duxit uxorem; ob quam rem, quoniam sibi erat carnis affinitate conjuncta, ab antecessore nostro cum episcopis, qui placito interfuerant, excommunicati, post ad Sedem Apostolicam venientes cum satisfactione, sumpta poenitentia, redierunt ad propria.'

Hefele, iv. p. 817 seq.

§ 2.

Half a century after Robert, the French King Philip I. was a cause of great sorrow to the Holy See, on account of his oppression of the Church, his practice of simony, and his immoral conduct. In a Brief of the year 1073, addressed to the Bishop of Châlons-sur-Saone,2 Gregory VII. complains of him, saying at the same time that as he hears through the chamberlain Alberich that Philip has promised amendment, he has delayed to proceed against him with canonical severity; Philip shall now, however, renounce the practice of simony, and without demanding any payment allow the Archdeacon of Autun, elected lawfully and with the royal consent, to be consecrated for the long-vacant see of Macon. If this were not done the Pope would no longer suffer the corrupt state of things, but would punish his stubborn obstinacy with the authority of the Prince of the Apostles. For either the king will abandon the shameful trade of simony, or the French people, if they do not wish to renounce the Christian faith and be laid under an interdict, will refuse any longer to obey him.'3 This censure was used as a last resort for the amendment of the king; its terms, as well as those of the following Briefs, show plainly that the temporal effects of ecclesiastical censure had a recognised authority in France.

The king did not dare to disobey, and he made known to the Pope his fidelity and willingness to comply. Gregory answered him on the 13th April 1074 in a truly sublime Brief." Philip should first make good the injuries done to the Church at Beauvais, and reconcile himself to God, considering well that his predecessors enjoyed much fame as long as they defended the Church, thus receiving for their virtue honour and power, and losing them with the loss of their virtue. But Philip's obedience proved to be one of words merely, not of deeds; whereupon the Pope sent an encyclical letter to all the French bishops, lamenting the ruin of France, the multitude of crimes and the impiety that prevailed, and laying all to the charge of the bad king. He said Philip had disgraced the kingly dignity by sacrilege, adultery, and perjury, and by plundering foreign merchants like a common high

6