II. and Alexander II., and could truly say: 'Whilst we observe or defend the statutes of the holy Fathers, we bring forward in our judgments upon ecclesiastical affairs nothing new or imagined by ourselves, but we follow and perform what they have pronounced by the Holy Ghost.'s Gregory's decrees are supported by a succession of previous canons, and he only increased the severity of some of them to suit the exigences of the time. With all his burning zeal for the purification of the clergy, and in the midst of his great struggle with faithless bishops, perfidious nobles, and evil of all kinds, he showed a tender sympathy for all the woes of Christendom, even for Greeks and Orientals.1o

1 L. ix. Ep. 21, ad univ. fideles, p. 622.

2 P. ii. Ep. 64, p. 708. Mansi, xx. 628.
3 L. ix. Ep. 2, p. 604.

4 L. vii. Ep. 8, ad Monach. Cluniac. p. 552: Nos quoque tanti culminis onus quod ultra vires est, sustinentes, ejusmodi solatio sublato, cum neminem aut vix paucos suffragatores similes inveniamus, quanto mentis angore teneamur liquido quidem potestis et ipsi perpendere.'

5 L. i. Ep. 9, ad Gottofr. Duc.; Ep. 42, ad Sicard. Apul. p. 322; 1. ii. Ep. 49, ad Hug. Abb. p. 460; Ep. 77, ad Gebh. Salisburg. p. 428; P. ii. Ep. 1, ad Lanfranc, p. 643 (Mansi, xx. 274).

L. i. Ep. 9, ad Gottofr. p. 291.

Upon investiture, cf. Cardinal Vincent Petra, Comment in Constit. Apostol. Bull. Venet. 1741, f. t. i.; Const. Callisti II. § 1, p. 235 seq.; and Card. Humbert, advers. Simon. (Martene, Thes. nov. Anecd. t. v.). This kind of investiture some held to be schismatical, some to be heretical (Ivo Carnot, Ep. 235, 238; Joh. Ludgun. Ep. ad Ivon. ap. Labbé, xii. 1190). Gottfried of Vendôme distinguishes a double investiture: 'Alia est investitura, quae episcopum perficit, alia vero quae episcopum pascit. Illa ez divino jure habetur, ista ex jure humano.' (Opusc. vi.; Migne, clvii. p. 219). 8 L. iv. Ep. 6, ad Henric. Ep. Leod. p. 460.

* Gregory (1. iv. Ep. 22, ad Hugon. Diens.) quotes the can. 22, Conc. viii. occum. (869). Bernold in his Apology points out the earlier authorities (Migne, 1.c. p. 753 seq.). Vide also Hefele, Conc. iv. pp. 759, 791; v. 21, 40 seq. In the ninth century, Florus (de Elect. Episc. c. iv. Migne, cxix. p. 13) wrote: S. ordinatio nequaquam regis potentatu, sed solo Dei nutu et Ecclesiae fidelium consensu cuique conferri potest. Quoniam episcopatus non est munus humanum, sed S. Spiritus donum.'

10 L. i. Ep. 49, p. 329; 1. ii. Ep. 37, p. 390; 1. viii. Ep. 1, p. 571 seq.

§ 9.

Gregory VII. did not fail to explain and justify his conduct in reference to Henry IV. He did this especially in two letters

to Bishop Hermann of Metz (in 1076 and 1081). This prelate was not amongst those who 'inquired of the Pope by what right he could depose the king and release his subjects from their oath of allegiance.' He merely begged to know what answer was to be given to those who asserted that kings could not be excommunicated, and that the oath of allegiance could never be dispensed. In his first letter1 Gregory dwells upon the subject of Henry's first excommunication, touching also upon its results; the second letter treats of the excommunication and the release from the oath of allegiance.2 Concerning the excommunication Gregory appeals (1) to the supreme power conferred upon St. Peter and his successors, which extends over all the faithful without exception: Whosoever denies the power of the Church to bind him denies her power to loose him, and in denying this separates himself from Christ.'s After quoting 1 Cor. vi. 3,4 Gregory says: If the Holy See, by the power granted her by God, judges spiritual things, why not temporal things also?' but the context shows that he is speaking of lay people, in so far as they are or should be members of Christ.5 He will not have it said that kings are beyond the jurisdiction of the Church, nor that the civil power is above the spiritual, for they are different in their origin and aim, and Pope Gelasius inculcated obedience. to the Holy See on the Emperor Anastasius.6 (2) Pope Julius says that the Roman Church can open and close the gates of heaven to whom she will. These and similar expressions were in use long before the time of Gregory VII. (3) Gregory appeals also to a passage in a letter from Clement to James, translated from the Greek by Rufinus, which was very ancient and much used; (4) to the conduct of St. Ambrose towards Theodosius the Great; and (5) to the measures of Pope Innocent I. against the Emperor Arcadius concerning St. John Chrysostom.10 Besides these examples he refers to the penal authority of the Apostles (2 Cor. x. 6; 1 Cor. v. 3-11). Although apocryphal as well as genuine documents are here quoted, all were in use long before the time of Gregory VII., and their genuineness had then never been disputed. The incorrectness of the documents and examples he selected need not at all affect the justice of his

This must be decided by the facts of history and

the laws then in force.

1 L. iv. Ep. 2, p. 454.

2 L. viii. Ep. 21, p. 594: Quod . . . . postulasti te quasi nostris scriptis juvari ac praemuniri contra illorum insaniam, qui nefando ore garriunt, auctoritatem S. et Ap. Sedis non potuisse regem Henricum, hominem Christianae legis contemptorem, ecclesiarum videl. et imperii destructorem atque haereticorum auctorem et consentaneum, excommunicare nec quemquam a sacramento fidelitatis ejus absolvere.'

L. iv. Ep. 2, pp. 454, 455; 1. viii. Ep. 21, pp. 594, 595.

4 Know you not that we shall judge angels? How much more things of this world' (1 Cor. vi. 3). This passage, in which St. Paul admonishes the faithful not to bring their causes before heathen judges, but to suffer their disputes to be decided by the saints' in the Church, was adduced even in patristic times in favour of ecclesiastical jurisdiction. Cf. Thomassin, de Vet. et Nova Eccl. Disciplina, P. ii. 1. iii. c. ci. cii. J. a. Bennettis, Vindiciae Privileg. S. Petri, t. vi. pp. 509-516.

....

5 These words (1. iv. Ep. 2, p. 455) follow immediately: Reges quidem et principes hujus saeculi qui honorem suum et lucra temporalia justitiae Dei praeponunt ejusque honorem negligendo proprium quaerunt, cujus sint membra cuive adhaereant, vestra non ignorat charitas. Si ergo spirituales viri cum oportet judicantur, cur non saeculares amplius de suis pravis actibus constringunt?' The following passage (1. viii. Ep. 21) is to be interpreted in the same way: 'Habet enim (Eccl. Rom.) potestatem singulari privilegio concessam aperire et claudere januas regni coelestis quibus voluerit. Cui ergo aperiendi claudendique coeli data potestas est, de terra judicare non licet? Absit. Num retinetis quod ait beatissimus Paulus Ap.: Nescitis quia angelos judicabimus? Quanto magis saecularia?' Cf. 1. iv. Ep. 24, p. 480; Paul Bernried, n. 86, p. 85. Bernold (Apologet. Rat. c. ix. and de Solut. Juram. c. iv. Migne, 1.c. pp. 1223, 1253) understands by saecularia' the saeculares principes utpote membra Ecclesiae. Here as elsewhere he expresses Gregory's idea with great exactness.

6 L. viii. Ep. 21, p. 595, where, in treating of the respect of the Fathers for the Roman Church, he uses what are in fact the words of St. Gelasius: Etsi cunctis generaliter sacerdotibus,' &c. (Gelas. Ep. 8, ad Anast.; Mansi, viii. 30 seq.; Jaffé, n. 387); but in 1. iv. Ep. 2, this was left out, probably through the omission of the rough draughtsman, or even earlier of the clerk to whom it was dictated; and Pseudo-Ambrose was therefore mentioned (Ambrosius in suo Pastorali, as c. x. d. 96, § ult. Honor.). The falsification asserted by Janus, p. 115, is by no means proved. Bernold, de Solut. Jur. c. iv. (1.c. p. 1253), gives the text in Gratian up to § 1 more accurately. In 1. viii. Ep. 21, pp. 597, 598, the passage from Pseudo-Ambrose follows in another order.

In Anti-Janus, p. 137, No. 81, I quoted the words of Pope Boniface I. which are quite analogous to the passage of Julius in Pseudo-Isidore, Ep. c. xi. p. 464, ed. Hirsch, which, according to Janus, p. 116, was one of the pillars of the foundation on which Gregory VII. built his notions of dominion.' The letter of Pope Julius here in question was quoted in France

in the ninth century (Hincmar, Laudun. Ep. ad Hincmar; Rem. Opp. Hinem. ii. 613, ed. Sirm.; Hincmar, Op. ad Laudun. c. xx.). St. Bernard agrees, Ep. 42, Si quis tentat excipere, conatur decipere,' that no one can be excepted from the words of St. Matt. xiv. 18, 19.

We find the words in Greg. VII. 1. viii. Ep. 21, p. 596. They are briefly mentioned, 1. ii. Ep. 2. See Ep. ad Jacob. c. xviii. (Migne, PP. gr. ii. p. 54), used by the Council of Metz, 888, c. 12, and John VIII. Ep. 234. The letter was especially used in old times. Cf. note in Ep. cit. Cotel. PP. Apost. i. 484.

* L. viii. Ep. 21, p. 597; 1. iv. Ep. 2, p. 454. The fact is treated of by Soz, H. E. vii. 25; Theod. H. E. v. 17; the Hist. Tripart; and also the later Greek chroniclers, e.g. George Hamart, Chron. pp. 476, 477, ed. Petrop.

10 Baron, a. 407, n. 22, 23, ex Glyca (Ann. pp. 480, 482). Nicephoro Call. (H. E. xiii. 34). Gennad. (Georg. Alex. in Vita Chyrs. Cf. Phot. Bibl. cod. 96). Pallad. Vita Chrys. c. xxiv. xxviii. xxxi. Jaffé, Reg. p. 932 (the genuine letters, ib. pp. 23, 24).

11 Bianchi, t. i. 1. ii. § 11, n. 2, p. 290.

$ 10.

Concerning the release from the oath of allegiance and the deposition of sovereigns, Gregory appeals, in his own justification, (1) to the action of Pope Zacharias against Chilperic in favour of Pipin.1 This example was very telling; because the Frankish annalists throughout favour his view, and show that however these facts might be explained, at least he was not the first to ascribe Pipin's elevation to the authority of the Pope. He appeals (2) to the privileges granted by Gregory the Great to a xenodochium (hospital), a convent, and the church of St. Martin in Autun, to which was appended the decree that any one injuring these institutions, whether he were king, priest, or judge, should forfeit his authority. The defenders of Janus (p. 6) briefly dispose of these privileges by calling them spurious. They disregard the fact that the only reason Janus alleges for this (p. 114, No. 53), viz. Launoi's assertion on the subject, has been long since refuted, like the remarks of Blondell elsewhere appealed to.5 The authenticity of these privileges is vouched for by the most ancient and best manuscripts, and has been placed beyond dispute by learned French critics." They were granted at the request of Queen Brunhilda, and all was arranged according to her wish. We find analogous formulas in the Councils, for instance, in the fifth of Orleans, A.D.

549, concerning a hospital founded by King Childebert in Lyons.8 Hence most Gallican theologians have made objection to these 'privileges' on other grounds, i.e. that the clause is to be taken in a distributive sense, not cumulative; and that for ecclesiastics deposition is to be understood, and for laics excommunication; or they would make it out to be rather a curse than a judicial sentence ;10 they never ventured to assert them to be entire forgeries. According to the views universal in his age it was perfectly open to Gregory to appeal, as he frequently did, to divine and human laws. He was forced to inflict the ban until amendment had begun, and he could declare that the penalties attached thereto by public law had been incurred. It was the opinion of his contemporaries that, under certain conditions, the oath of allegiance ceased to bind, and that it could be dispensed by the Pope, 12 who could also depose sovereigns in certain circumstances.13 With regard to the withdrawal of obedience from an excommunicated prince, it would have been easy for Gregory to appeal to the proceedings of Gregory II. against the iconoclastic Emperor Leo II., as related with much admiration by the Greek chroniclers. The Pope in this case freed Italy from its obedience to an heretical emperor, forbad that tribute should be paid him, and joined in alliance with the Franks.14 Even if the Greek accounts of the affair are open to the charge of inaccuracy, 15 they must in the eleventh century have satisfied all the requirements of an authentic historical document, and testify at least the conviction of their authors, who speak throughout in praise of the proceedings they describe.

1 Vide for details: Bianchi, 1.c. n. 9 seq. pp. 304-327; Charlas, de Libert. Gallic. 1. vii. c. x. p. 39 seq. t. ii. ed. 1720; Bennettis, Privil. S. Petri, P. ii. t. vi. p. 384 seq.; Mamachi, Orig. et Ant. t. iv. 224-239. Also Gosselin, t. i. sect. 2, c. ii, a. 2. Doc. No. vii.

2 We find there: Secundum Romani Pontificis sanctionem rex Francorum appellatus est ad hujus dignitatem honoris unctus sacra unctione' (Pipinus sc.; Annal. Lauresh.). Zacharias Papa mandavit, ut melius esset illum regem vocari, qui potestatem haberet. . . . . Per auctoritatem ergo apostolicam jussit Pipinum regem fieri' (Ann. Loissel). Zacharias P. er auctoritate S. Petri Apostoli mandat populo Francorum, ut Pipinus, qui potestate regia utebatur, nominis quoque dignitate frueretur' (Annal.