Multimedia Mania/abacus-multimedia-mania.iso/dp/0089/00890.txt

Text File | 1993-07-27 | 32KB | 485 lines

$Unique_ID{bob00890}
$Pretitle{}
$Title{History Of Europe During The Middle Ages
Part III}
$Subtitle{}
$Author{Hallam, Henry}
$Affiliation{}
$Subject{de
footnote
church
rome
pope
bishop
gregory
upon
et
ii}
$Date{}
$Log{}
Title:       History Of Europe During The Middle Ages
Book:        Book VII: History Of Ecclesiastical Power During The Middle Ages
Author:      Hallam, Henry

Part III

     It cannot, I think, be said that any material acquisitions of
ecclesiastical power were obtained by the successors of Gregory for nearly one
hundred and fifty years. ^i As none of them possessed vigor and reputation
equal to his own, it might even appear that the papal influence was
retrograde.  But in effect the principles which supported it were taking
deeper root, and acquiring strength by occasional though not very frequent
exercise.  Appeals to the pope were sometimes made by prelates dissatisfied
with a local sentence; but his judgment of reversal was not always executed,
as we perceive by the instance of Bishop Wilfrid. ^j National councils were
still convoked by princes, and canons enacted under their authority by the
bishops who attended.  Though the church of Lombardy was under great
subjection during this period, yet those of France, and even of England,
planted as the latter had been by Gregory, continued to preserve a tolerable
measure of independence. The ^k The first striking infringement of this was
made through the influence of an Englishman, Winfrid, better known as St.
Boniface, the apostle of Germany. Having undertaken the conversion of
Thuringia, and other still heathen countries, he applied to the pope for a
commission, and was consecrated bishop without any determinate see.  Upon this
occasion he took an oath of obedience, and became ever afterwards a zealous
upholder of the apostolical chair.  His success in the conversion of Germany
was great, his reputation eminent, which enabled him to effect a material
revolution in ecclesiastical government.  Pelagius II. had, about 580, sent a
pallium, or vest peculiar to metropolitans, to the Bishop of Arles, perpetual
vicar of the Roman see in Gaul. ^l Gregory I. had made a similar present to
other metropolitans.  But it was never supposed that they were obliged to wait
for this favor before they received consecration, until a synod of the French
and German bishops, held at Frankfort in 742, by Boniface, as legate of Pope
Zachary.  It was here enacted that, as a token of their willing subjection to
the see of Rome, all metropolitans should request the pallium at the hands of
the pope, and obey his lawful commands. ^m This was construed by the popes to
mean a promise of obedience before receiving the pall, which was changed in
after times by Gregory VII. into an oath of fealty. ^n

[Footnote i: I observe that some modern publications annex considerable
importance to a supposed concession of the title of Universal Bishop, made by
the Emperor Phocas in 606 to Boniface III., and even appear to date the papal
supremacy from this epoch.  Those who have imbibed this notion may probably
have been misled by a loose expression in Mosheim's Ecclesiastical History,
vol. ii. p. 169; though the general tenor of that passage by no means gives
countenance to their opinion.  But there are several strong objections to our
considering this as a leading fact, much less as marking an era in the history
of the papacy.  1. Its truth, as commonly stated, appears more than
questionable.  The Roman pontiffs, Gregory I. and Boniface III., had been
vehemently opposing the assumption of this title by the patriarch of
Constantinople, not as due to themselves, but as one to which no bishop could
legitimately pretend. There would be something almost ridiculous in the
emperors immediately conferring an appellation on themselves which they had
just disclaimed; and though this objection would not stand against evidence,
yet when we find no better authority quoted for the fact than Baronius, who is
no authority at all, it retains considerable weight.  And indeed the want of
early testimony is so decisive an objection to any alleged historical fact,
that, but for the strange prepossessions of some men, one might rest the case
here.  Fleury takes no notice of this part of the story, though he tells us
that Phocas compelled the patriarch of Constantinople to resign his title.  2.
But if the strongest proof could be advanced for the authenticity of this
circumstance, we might well deny its importance.  The concession of Phocas
could have been of no validity in Lombardy, France, and other western
countries, where nevertheless the papal supremacy was incomparably more
established than in the East.  3. Even within the empire it could have had no
efficacy after the violent death of that usurper, which followed soon
afterwards.  4. The title of Universal Bishop is not very intelligible; but,
whatever it meant, the patriarchs of Constantinople had borne it before, and
continued to bear it ever afterwards.  (Dupin, De Antiqua Disciplina, p. 329.)
5. The preceding popes, Pelagius II. and Gregory I., had constantly disclaimed
the appellation, though it had been adopted by some towards Leo the Great in
the council of Chalcedon (Fleury, t. viii. p. 95); nor does it appear to have
been retained by the successors of Boniface.  It is even laid down in the
decretum of Gratian that the pope is not styled universal: nec etiam Romanus
pontifex universalis appellatur (p. 303, edit. 1591), though some refer its
assumption to the ninth century.  Nouveau Traite de Diplomatique, t. v. p. 93.
In fact it has never been a usual title.  6. The popes had unquestionably
exercised a species of supremacy for more than two centuries before this time,
which had lately reached a high point of authority under Gregory I.  The
rescript of Valentinian III. in 455, quoted in a former note, would certainly
be more to the purpose than the letter of Phocas.  7. Lastly, there are no
sensible marks of this supremacy making a more rapid progress for a century
and a half after the pretended grant of that emperor.  [1818.] The earliest
mention of this transaction that I have found, and one which puts an end to
the pretended concession of such a title as Universal Bishop, is in a brief
general chronology, by Bede, entitled "De Temporum Ratione." He only says of
Phocas, - Hic, rogante papa Bonifacio, statuit sedem Romanae et apostolicae
ecclesiae caput esse omnium ecclesiarum, quia ecclesia Constantinopolitana
primam se omnium ecclesiarum scribebat.  Bedae Opera, cura Giles, vol. vi. p.
323.  This was probably the exact truth; and the subsequent additions were
made by some zealous partisans of Rome, to be seized hold of in a later age,
and turned against her by some of her equally zealous enemies.  The
distinction generally made is, that the pope is "universalis ecclesiae
episcopus," but not "episcopus universalis"; that is, he has no immediate
jurisdiction in the dioceses of other bishops, though he can correct them for
the undue exercise of their own. The Ultramontanes of course go further.]

[Footnote j: I refer to the English historians for the history of Wilfrid,
which neither altogether supports, nor much impeaches, the independence of our
Anglo-Saxon church in 700; a matter hardly worth so much contention as Usher
and Stillingfleet seem to have thought.  The consecration of Theodore by Pope
Vitalian in 668 is a stronger fact, and cannot be got over by those
injudicious Protestants who take the bull by the horns.  The history of
Wilfrid has been lately put in a light as favorable as possible to himself and
to the authority of Rome by Dr. Lingard.  We have for this to rely on Eddius
(published in Gale's Scriptores), a panegyrist in the usual style of legendary
biography, - a style which has, on me at least, the effect of producing utter
distrust.  Mendacity is the badge of all the tribe.  Bede is more respectable;
but in this case we do not learn much from him.  It seems impossible to deny
that, if Eddius is a trustworthy historian, Dr. Lingard has made out his case;
and that we must own appeals to Rome to have been recognized in the
Anglo-Saxon church.  Nor do I perceive any improbability in this, considering
that the church had been founded by Augustin, and restored by Theodore, both
under the authority of the Roman see.  This intrinsic presumption is worth
more than the testimony of Eddius.  But we see by the rest of Wilfrid's
history that it was not easy to put the sentence of Rome in execution.  The
plain facts are, that, having gone to Rome claiming the see of York, and
having had his claim recognized by the pope, he ended his days as bishop of
Hexham.]

[Footnote k: Schmidt, t. i. pp. 386, 394.]

[Footnote l: Ut ad instar suum, in Galliarum partibus primi sacerdotis locum
obtineat, et quidquid ad gubernationem vel dispensationem ecclesiastici status
gerendum est, servatis patrum regulis, et sedis apostolicae constitutis,
faciat.  Praeterea, pallium illi concedit. &c. Dupin, p. 34.  Gregory I.
confirmed this vicariate to Virgilius Bishop of Arles, and gave him the power
of convoking synods.  De Marca, l. vi. c. 7.]

[Footnote m: Decrevimus, says Boniface, in nostro synodali conventu, et
confessi sumus fidem catholicam, et unitatem et subjectionem Romanae ecclesiae
fine tenus servare, S. Petro et vicario ejus velle subjici, metropolitanos
pallia ab illa sede quaerere, et. per omnia, praecepta S. Petri canonice
sequi.  De Marca, l. vi. c. 7; Schmidt, t. i. pp. 424, 438, 446.  This writer
justly remarks the obligation which Rome had to St. Boniface, who anticipated
the system of Isidore.  We have a letter from him to the English clergy, with
a copy of canons passed in one of his synods, for the exaltation of the
apostolic see, but the church of England was not then inclined to acknowledge
so great a supremacy in Rome. Collier's Eccles.  History, p. 128.

     In the eighth general council, that of Constantinople in 872, this
prerogative of sending the pallium to metropolitans was not only confirmed to
the pope, but extended to the other patriarchs, who had every disposition to
become as great usurpers as their more fortunate elder brother.]

[Footnote n: De Marca, ubi supra.  Schmidt, t. ii. p. 262.  According to the
latter, this oath of fidelity was exacted in the ninth century; which is very
probable, since Gregory VII. himself did but fill up the sketch which Nicholas
I. and John VIII.  had delineated.  I have since found this confirmed by
Gratian, p. 305.]

     This council of Frankfort claims a leading place as an epoch in the
history of the papacy.  Several events ensued, chiefly of a political nature,
which rapidly elevated that usurpation almost to its greatest height.
Subjects of the throne of Constantinople, the popes had not as yet interfered,
unless by mere admonition, with the temporal magistrate. The first instance
wherein the civil duties of a nation and the rights of a crown appear to have
been submitted to his decision was in that famous reference as to the
deposition of Childeric.  It is impossible to consider this in any other light
than as a point of casuistry laid before the first religious judge in the
church.  Certainly, the Franks who raised the king of their choice upon their
shields never dreamed that a foreign priest had conferred upon him the right
of governing.  Yet it was easy for succeeding advocates of Rome to construe
this transaction very favorably for its usurpation over the thrones of the
earth. ^o

[Footnote o: Eginhard says that Pepin was made king per auctoritatem Romani
pontificis; an ambiguous word, which may rise to "command," or sink to
"advice," according to the disposition of the interpreter.]

     I shall but just glance at the subsequent political revolutions of that
period; the invasion of Italy by Pepin, his donation of the exarchate to the
Holy See, the conquest of Lombardy by Charlemagne, the patriarchate of Rome
conferred upon both these princes, and the revival of the Western empire in
the person of the latter.  These events had a natural tendency to exalt the
papal supremacy, which it is needless to indicate.  But a circumstance of a
very different nature contributed to this in a still greater degree.  About
the conclusion of the eighth century there appeared, under the name of one
Isidore, an unknown person, a collection of ecclesiastical canons, now
commonly denominated the False Decretals. ^p These purported to be rescripts
or decrees of the early bishops of Rome; and their effect was to diminish the
authority of metropolitans over their suffragans, by establishing an appellant
jurisdiction of the Roman See in all causes, and by forbidding national
councils to be holden without its consent.  Every bishop, according to the
decretals of Isidore, was amenable only to the immediate tribunal of the pope;
by which one of the most ancient rights of the provincial synod was abrogated.
Every accused person might not only appeal from an inferior sentence, but
remove an unfinished process before the supreme pontiff.  And the latter,
instead of directing a revision of the proceedings by the original judges,
might annul them by his own authority; a strain of jurisdiction beyond the
canons of Sardica, but certainly warranted by the more recent practice of
Rome.  New sees were not to be erected, nor bishops translated from one see to
another, nor their resignations accepted, without the sanction of the pope.
They were still indeed to be consecrated by the metropolitan, but in the
pope's name.  It has been plausibly suspected that these decretals were forged
by some bishop, in jealousy or resentment; and their general reception may at
least be partly ascribed to such sentiments.  The archbishops were exceedingly
powerful, and might often abuse their superiority over inferior prelates; but
the whole episcopal aristocracy had abundant reason to lament their
acquiescence in a system of which the metropolitans were but the earliest
victims.  Upon these spurious decretals was built the great fabric of papal
supremacy over the different national churches; a fabric which has stood after
its foundation crumbled beneath it; for no one has pretended to deny, for the
last two centuries, that the imposture is too palpable for any but the most
ignorant ages to credit. ^q

[Footnote p: The era of the False Decretals has not been precisely fixed; they
have seldom been supposed, however, to have appeared much before 800. But
there is a genuine collection of canons published by Adrian I. in 785, which
contain nearly the same principles, and many of which are copied by Isidore,
as well as Charlemagne in his Capitularies.  De Marca, l. vii. c. 20;
Giannone, l. v. c. 6; Dupin, De Antiqua Disciplina, p. 133.  Fleury, Hist.
Eccles., t. ix. p. 500, seems to consider the decretals as older than this
collection of Adrian; but I have not observed the same opinion in any other
writer.  The right of appeal from a sentence of the metropolitan deposing a
bishop to the Holy See is positively recognized in the Capitularies of Louis
the Debonair (Baluze, p. 1000); the three last books of which, according to
the collection of Ansegisus, are said to be apostolica auctoritate roborata,
quia his cudendis maxime apostolica interfuit legatio. P. 1132.]

[Footnote q: I have not seen any account of the decretals so clear and
judicious as in Schmidt's History of Germany, t. ii. p. 249.  Indeed all the
ecclesiastical part of that work is executed in a very superior manner.  See
also De Marca, l. iii. c. 5; l. vii. c. 20.  The latter writer, from whom I
have derived much information, is by no means a strenuous adversary of
ultramontane pretensions.  In fact, it was his object to please both in France
and at Rome, to become both an archbishop and a cardinal.  He failed
nevertheless of the latter hope; it being impossible at that time (1650) to
satisfy the papal court, without sacrificing altogether the Gallican church
and the crown.]

     The Gallican church made for some time a spirited though unavailing
struggle against this rising despotism.  Gregory IV., having come into France
to abet the children of Louis the Debonair in their rebellion, and threatened
to excommunicate the bishops who adhered to the emperor, was repelled with
indignation by those prelates.  "If he comes here to excommunicate," said
they, "he shall depart hence excommunicated." ^r In the subsequent reign of
Charles the Bald a bold defender of ecclesiastical independence was found in
Hincmar Archbishop of Rheims, the most distinguished statesman of his age.
Appeals to the pope even by ordinary clerks had become common, and the
provincial councils, hitherto the supreme spiritual tribunal, as well as
legislature, were falling rapidly into decay.  The frame of church government,
which had lasted from the third or fourth century, was nearly dissolved; a
refractory bishop was sure to invoke the supreme court of appeal, and
generally met there with a more favorable judicature.  Hincmar, a man equal in
ambition, and almost in public estimation, to any pontiff, sometimes came off
successfully in his contentions with Rome. ^s But time is fatal to the
unanimity of coalitions; the French bishops were accessible to superstitious
prejudice, to corrupt influence, to mutual jealousy.  Above all, they were
conscious that a persuasion of the pope's omnipotence had taken hold of the
laity. Though they complained loudly, and invoked, like patriots of a dying
state, names and principles of a freedom that was no more, they submitted
almost in every instance to the continual usurpations of the Holy See. One of
those which most annoyed their aristocracy was the concession to monasteries
of exemption from episcopal authority.  These had been very uncommon till
about the eighth century, after which they were studiously multiplied. ^t It
was naturally a favorite object with the abbots; and sovereigns, in those ages
of blind veneration for monastic establishments, were pleased to see their own
foundations rendered, as it would seem, more respectable by privileges of
independence.  The popes had a closer interest in granting exemptions, which
attached to them the regular clergy, and lowered the dignity of the bishops.
In the eleventh and twelfth centuries whole orders of monks were declared
exempt at a single stroke; and the abuse began to awaken loud complaints,
though it did not fail to be aggravated afterwards.

[Footnote r: De Marca, l. iv. c. II: Velly, &c.]

[Footnote s: De Marca, l. iv. c. 68, &c.; l. vi. c. 14, 28; l. vii. c. 21.
Dupin, p. 133, &c.  Hist. du Droit Eccles.  Francois, pp. 188, 224. Velly, &c.
Hincmar, however, was not consistent; for, having obtained the see of Rheims
in an equivocal manner, he had applied for confirmation at Rome, and in other
respects impaired the Gallican rights.  Pasquier, Recherches de la France, l.
iii. c. 12.]

[Footnote t: The earliest instance of a papal exemption is in 455, which
indeed is a respectable antiquity.  Others scarcely occur till the pontificate
of Zachary in the middle of the eighth century, who granted an exemption to
Monte Casino, ita ut nullius juri subjaceat, nisi solius Romani pontificis.
See this discussed in Giannone, l. v. c. 6. Precedents for the exemption of
monasteries from episcopal jurisdiction occur in Marculfus' forms compiled
towards the end of the seventh century, but these were by royal authority.
The kings of France were supreme heads of their national church.  Schmidt, t.
i. p. 382.  De Marca, l.  ii. c. 16; Fleury, Institutions au Droit, t. i. p.
228.  Muratori, Dissert. 70 (t. iii. p. 104, Italian), is of opinion that
exemptions of monasteries from episcopal visitation did not become frequent in
Italy till the eleventh century; and that many charters of this kind are
forgeries.  It is held also by some English antiquaries that no Anglo-Saxon
monastery was exempt, and that the first instance is that of Battle Abbey
under the Conqueror; the charters of an earlier date having been forged.  Hody
on Convocations, pp. 20 and 170.  It is remarkable that this grant is made by
William, and confirmed by Lanfranc.  Collier, p. 256. Exemptions became very
usual in England afterwards.  Henry, vol. v. p. 337.  It is nevertheless to be
admitted that the bishops had exercised an arbitrary, and sometimes a
tyrannical power over the secular clergy; and after the monks became part of
the church, which was before the close of the sixth century, they also fell
under a control not always fairly exerted.  Both complained greatly, as the
acts of councils bear witness: - Un fait important et trop peu remarque se
revele ca et la dans le cours de cette epoque; c'est la lutte des pretres de
paroisse contre les eveques. Guizot, Hist. de la Civilis. en France, Lecon 13.
In this contention the weaker must have given way: but the regulars, sustained
by public respect, and having the countenance of the see of Rome, which began
to encroach upon episcopal authority, came out successful in securing
themselves by exemptions from the jurisdiction of the bishops.  The latter
furnished a good pretext by their own relaxation of manners.  The monasteries
in the eighth and ninth centuries seem not to have given occasion to much
reproach, at least in comparison with the prelacy.  Au commencement du
huitieme siecle, l'eglise etait elle tombee dans un desordre presque egal a
celui de la societe civile.  Sans superieurs et sans inferieurs a redouter,
degages de la surveillance des metropolitains comme des conciles et de
l'influence des pretres, une foule d'eveques se livraient aux plus scandaleux
exces.]

     The principles of ecclesiastical supremacy were readily applied by the
popes to support still more insolent usurpations.  Chiefs by divine commission
of the whole church, every earthly sovereign must be subject to their
interference.  The bishops indeed had, with the common weapons of their order,
kept their own sovereigns in check; and it could not seem any extraordinary
stretch in their supreme head to assert an equal prerogative.  Gregory IV., as
I have mentioned, became a party in the revolt against Louis I., but he never
carried his threats of excommunication into effect.  The first instance where
the Roman pontiffs actually tried the force of their arms against a sovereign
was the excommunication of Lothaire King of Lorraine and grandson of Louis the
Debonair.  This prince had repudiated his wife, upon unjust pretexts, but with
the approbation of a national council, and had subsequently married his
concubine.  Nicolas I., the actual pope, despatched two legates to investigate
this business, and decide according to the canons.  They hold a council at
Metz, and confirm the divorce and marriage.  Enraged at this conduct of his
ambassadors, the pope summons a council at Rome, annuls the sentence, deposes
the archbishops of Treves and Cologne, and directs the king to discard his
mistress.  After some shuffling on the part of Lothaire he is excommunicated;
and, in a short time, we find both the king and his prelates, who had begun
with expressions of passionate contempt towards the pope, suing humbly for
absolution at the feet of Adrian II., successor of Nicolas, which was not
granted without difficulty.  In all its most impudent pretensions the Holy See
has attended to the circumstances of the time.  Lothaire had powerful
neighbors, the kings of France and Germany, eager to invade his dominions on
the first intimation from Rome; while the real scandalousness of his behavior
must have intimidated his conscience, and disgusted his subjects.

     Excommunication, whatever opinions may be entertained as to its religious
efficacy, was originally nothing more in appearance than the exercise of a
right which every society claims, the expulsion of refractory members from its
body.  No direct temporal disadvantages attended this penalty for several
ages; but as it was the most severe of spiritual censures, and tended to
exclude the object of it not only from a participation in religious rites, but
in a considerable degree from the intercourse of Christian society, it was
used sparingly and upon the gravest occasions.  Gradually, as the church
became more powerful and more imperious, excommunications were issued upon
every provocation, rather as a weapon of ecclesiastical warfare than with any
regard to its original intention.  There was certainly some pretext for many
of these censures, as the only means of defence within the reach of the clergy
when their possessions were lawlessly violated. ^u Others were founded upon
the necessity of enforcing their contentious jurisdiction, which, while it was
rapidly extending itself over almost all persons and causes, had not acquired
any proper coercive process.  The spiritual courts in England, whose
jurisdiction is so multifarious, and, in general, so little of a religious
nature, had till lately no means even of compelling an appearance, much less
of enforcing a sentence, but by excommunication. ^v Princes who felt the
inadequacy of their own laws to secure obedience called in the assistance of
more formidable sanctions.  Several capitularies of Charlemagne denounce the
penalty of excommunication against incendiaries or deserters from the army.
Charles the Bald procured similar censures against his revolted vassals.  Thus
the boundary between temporal and spiritual offences grew every day less
distinct; and the clergy were encouraged to fresh encroachments, as they
discovered the secret of rendering them successful. ^w

[Footnote u: Schmidt, t. iv. p. 217; Fleury, Institutions au Droit, t. ii. p.
192.]

[Footnote v: By a recent statute, 53 G. III. c. 127, the writ de excommunicato
capiendo, as a process in contempt, was abolished in England, but retained in
Ireland.]

[Footnote w: Mem.  de l'Acad.  des Inscript. t. xxxix. p. 596, &c.]

     The civil magistrate ought undoubtedly to protect the just rights and
lawful jurisdiction of the church.  It is not so evident that he should attach
temporal penalties to her censures.  Excommunication has never carried such a
presumption of moral turpitude as to disable a man, upon any solid principles,
from the usual privileges of society.  Superstition and tyranny, however,
decided otherwise.  The support due to church censures by temporal judges is
vaguely declared in the capitularies of Pepin and Charlemagne.  It became in
later ages a more established principle in France and England, and, I presume,
in other countries.  By our common law an excommunicated person is incapable
of being a witness or of bringing an action; and he may be detained in prison
until he obtains absolution.  By the Establishments of St. Louis, his estate
or person might be attached by the magistrate. ^x These actual penalties were
attended by marks of abhorrence and ignominy still more calculated to make an
impression on ordinary minds.  They were to be shunned, like men infected with
leprosy, by their servants, their friends, and their families.  Two attendants
only, if we may trust a current history, remained with Robert King of France,
who, on account of an irregular marriage, was put to this ban by Gregory V.,
and these threw all the meats which had passed his table into the fire. ^y
Indeed the mere intercourse with a proscribed person incurred what was called
the lesser excommunication, or privation of the sacraments, and required
penitence and absolution.  In some places a bier was set before the door of an
excommunicated individual, and stones thrown at his windows: a singular method
of compelling his submission. ^z Everywhere the excommunicated were debarred
of a regular sepulture, which, though obviously a matter of police, has,
through the superstition of consecrating burial-grounds, been treated as
belonging to ecclesiastical control.  Their carcasses were supposed to be
incapable of corruption, which seems to have been thought a privilege unfit
for those who had died in so irregular a manner. ^a

[Footnote x: Ordonnances des Rois, t. i. p. 121.  But an excommunicated person
might sue in the lay, though not in the spiritual court.  No law seems to have
been so severe in this respect as that of England; though it is not strictly
accurate to say, with Dr. Cosens (Gibson's Codex, p. 1102), that the writ de
excommun. capiendo is a privilege peculiar to the English church.]

[Footnote y: Velly, t. ii.]

[Footnote z: Vaissette, Hist. de Languedoc, t. iii.  Appendix, p. 350; Du
Cange, v. Excommunicatio.]

[Footnote a: Du Cange, v. Imblocatus: where several authors are referred to,
for the constant opinion among the members of the Greek church, that the
bodies of excommunicated persons remain in statu quo.]

     But as excommunication, which attacked only one and perhaps a hardened
sinner, was not always efficacious, the church had recourse to a more
comprehensive punishment.  For the offence of a nobleman she put a county, for
that of a prince his entire kingdom, under an interdict or suspension of
religious offices.  No stretch of her tyranny was perhaps so outrageous as
this.  During an interdict the churches were closed, the bells silent, the
dead unburied, no rite but those of baptism and extreme unction performed.
The penalty fell upon those who had neither partaken nor could have prevented
the offence; and the offence was often but a private dispute, in which the
pride of a pope or bishop had been wounded. Interdicts were so rare before the
time of Gregory VII., that some have referred them to him as their author;
instances may however be found of an earlier date, and especially that which
accompanied the above-mentioned excommunication of Robert King of France.
They were afterwards issued not unfrequently against kingdoms; but in
particular districts they continually occurred. ^b

[Footnote b: Giannone, l. vii. c. 1; Schmidt, t. iv. p. 220; Dupin, De Antiqua
Eccl. Disciplina, p. 288; St. Marc, t. ii. p. 535; Fleury, Institutions, t.
ii. p. 200.]

     This was the mainspring of the machinery that the clergy set in motion,
the lever by which they moved the world.  From the moment that these
interdicts and excommunications had been tried the powers of the earth might
be said to have existed only by sufferance.  Nor was the validity of such
denunciations supposed to depend upon their justice.  The imposer indeed of an
unjust excommunication was guilty of a sin; but the party subjected to it had
no remedy but submission.  He who disregards such a sentence, says Beaumanoir,
renders his good cause bad. ^c And indeed, without annexing so much importance
to the direct consequences of an ungrounded censure, it is evident that the
received theory of religion concerning the indispensable obligation and
mysterious efficacy of the rights of communion and confession must have
induced scrupulous minds to make any temporal sacrifice rather than incur
their privation.  One is rather surprised at the instances of failure than of
success in the employment of these spiritual weapons against sovereigns or the
laity in general.  It was perhaps a fortunate circumstance for Europe that
they were not introduced, upon a large scale, during the darkest ages of
superstition.  In the eighth or ninth centuries they would probably have met
with a more implicit obedience.  But after Gregory VII., as the spirit of
ecclesiastical usurpation became more violent, there grew up by slow degrees
an opposite feeling in the laity, which ripened into an alienation of
sentiment from the church, and a conviction of that sacred truth which
superstition and sophistry have endeavored to eradicate from the heart of man,
that no tyrannical government can be founded on a divine commission.

[Footnote c: p. 261.]