the laws

mony.

si

XIV. This vehement contest excited great tumults and divisions, which however were gradually calmed The dispute through length of time, and also by the perseve-investitures rance of the obstinate pontiff; nor did any of the occasioned by European kings and princes concern themselves so against much about the marriages of the clergy as to maintain their cause, and thereby to prolong the controversy. But the troubles that arose from the law that regarded the extirpation of simony, were not so easily appeased; the tumults it occasioned grew greater from day to day; the methods of reconciliation more difficult; and it involved both state and church during several years in the deepest calamities and in the most complicated scenes of confusion and distress." Henry IV. received indeed graciously the legates of Gregory, and applauded his zeal for the extirpation of simony; but neither this prince, nor the German bishops, would permit these legates to assemble a council in Germany, or to proceed judicially against those, who in time past had been chargeable with simoniacal practices. The pontiff, exasperated at this restraint in the execution of his designs, called another council to meet at Rome in the year 1075, in which he pursued his adventurous pro

rim. Nec putetis eos qui ita sentiunt....ecclesiasticorum graduum incontinentiam talibus defensionibus fovere velle. Honestam conversationem in desiderio habent, nec aliter, quam oportet, ecclesiasticæ ultionis censuram intentari gaudent."

u We have extant a great number both of ancient and modern writers, who have related the circumstances of this dispute concerning investitures, which was begun by Gregory VII. was carried on by him and his successors on the one side, and the emperors, Henry IV. and V. on the other, and became a source of innumerable calamities to the greatest part of Europe. But few or none of these writers have treated this weighty subject with an entire impartiality. They all plead either the cause of the pontiff's or that of the emperors, and decide the controversy, not by the laws then in being, which ought, no doubt, to be principally consulted, nor by the opinions that generally prevailed at the time of this contest, but by laws of their own invention, and by the opinions of modern times. The famous Gretser, in his Apologia pro Gregorio VII. which is published in the sixth volume of his works, and also separately, bas collected the principal of the ancient writers who maintained the cause of the pontiff; in opposition to whom, they who defended the cause of Henry IV, are collected by Melchior Goldastus, in his Replicatio contra Gretserum et Apologia pro Henrico IV. Hanov. 1611, 4to. Among the modern writers who have treated this subject, we may count the Centuriatores Magdeburgenses, Baronius, the German and Italian hstorians, and those who have wrote the life of the famous Mathilda. But beside these, it will be highly proper to consult Jo. Schilterus, De libertate Ecclesia Germanicæ, lib. iv. p. 481. Christ. Thomasius, Historia contentionis inter Imperium et Sucerdotium. Hen. Meibomius, Lib. de jure Investituræ Episcopalis, tom. iii. Scriptorum rer. Germanicar. Just. Chr. Dithmarus Historia Belli inter Imperium et Sacerdotium, published at Frankfort, in 1741, in 8vo. and above all, the famous cardinal Noris, who far surpasses in point of erudition those whom we have mentioned, and whose Istoria delle Investiture, della dignita Ecclesiastiche, which was published at Mantua, after his death, in the year 1741, is a most learned work, though it be imperfect and probably maimed, and also extremely partial in favour of the pontiffs; which is not surprising from the pen of a cardinal. See also Jo. Jac. Maseovii Commentarii de rebus imperii Germanici sub Henrico IV. et V.. published at Leipsic, in 4to. in the year 1749. 22

VOL. II.

ject with greater impetuosity and vehemence than ever; for he not only excluded from the communion of the church, several German and Italian bishops, and certain favourites of Henry, whose counsels that prince was said to make use of in the traffic of ecclesiastical dignities, but also pronounced, in a formal edict, "Anathema against whoever received the investiture of a bishopric or abbacy from the hands of a layman, as also against those by whom the investiture should be performed." This decree was every way proper to surprise the emperors, kings, and princes of Europe, who, in consequence of a prevailing custom, had the right of conferring the more important ecclesiastical dignities, and the government of monasteries and convents of which they disposed, in a solemn manner, by the wellknown ceremony of the ring and the staff, or crosier, which they presented to the candidate on whom their choice fell. This solemn investiture was the main support of that power of creating bishops and abbots, which the European princes claimed as their undoubted right, and the occasion of that corrupt commerce called simony, in consequence of which, ecclesiastical promotion was suddenly sold to the highest bidder; and hence the zeal and ardour of Gregory to annul these investitures, that he might extirpate simony on the one hand, and diminish the power of princes in ecclesiastical matters on the other.

A SHORT DIGRESSION CONCERNING INVESTITURES,

It will not be improper to cast some illustrations upon the custom now mentioned, of investing bishops and abbots in their respective dignities by the ceremony of the ring and crosier, since this custom has been ill understood by some, and but imperfectly explained by others. Even the learned cardinal Noris appears highly defective here; for though in his History of Investitures, there are many pertinent reflections upon the reasons which engaged Gregory to prohibit investitures altogether, yet that learned prelate does not appear to have had a complete notion of this important matter, since he omits in his history certain points that are necessary to the understanding it thoroughly.

w Ant. Pagi Critica in Baronium, tom. iii. ad A. 1075. Hen. Noris, Hist. Investiturarum, p. 39. Christ. Lupus, Scholia et Dissertation. ad Concilia, tom. vi. opp. p. 39–44. . x Here the translator has transposed the note r of the original into text, under the form of a dissertation.

y Chap. ii. p. 56.

The investiture of bishops and abbots commenced, undoubtedly, at that period of time when the European emperors, kings, and princes made grants to the clergy of certain territories, lands, forests, castles, &c. According to the laws of those times, laws which still remain in force, none were considered as lawful possessors of the lands or tenements which they derived from the emperors or other princes, before they repaired to court, took the oath of allegiance to their respective sovereigns as the supreme proprietors, and received from their hands a solemn mark by which the property of their respective grants was transferred to them. Such was the manner in which the nobility, and those who had distinguished themselves by military exploits, were confirmed in the possessions which they owed to the liberality of their sovereigns. But the custom of investing the bishops and abbots with the ring and the crosier, which are the ensigns of the sacred function, is of a much more recent date, and was then first introduced, when the European emperors and princes, annulling the elections that were made in the church according to the ecclesiastical laws that had been from the earliest times established for that purpose, assumed to themselves the power of conferring on whom they pleased the bishoprics and abbeys that became vacant in their dominions, nay, even of selling them to the highest bidder. This power then, being once usurped by the kings and princes of Europe, they at first confirmed the bishops and abbots in their dignities and possessions, with the same forms and ceremonies that were used in investing the counts, knights, and others, in their feudal tenures, even by written contracts, and the ceremony of presenting them with a wand or bough. And this custom of investing the clergy and the laity with the same ceremonies would have undoubtedly continued, had not the clergy to whom the right of electing bishops and abbots originally belonged, eluded artfully the usurpation of the emperors and other

.

z This appears from a passage in cardinal Humbert's third book, Adversus Simoniacos, which was composed before Gregory had set on foot the dispute concerning_in vestitures, and which is published in Martene's Thesaur. Anecd. tom. v. p. 787. The passage is as follows; "Potestas secularis primo ambitiosis ecclesiasticarum dignitatum vel possessionum cupidis favebat prece, dein minis, deinceps verbis concessivis; in quibus omnibus cernens sibi contradictorem neminem, nec qui moveret pennam, vel aperiret os et ganniret, ad majora progeditur, et jam sub nomine investituræ dare primo tabellas vel qualescumque porrigere virgulas, dein Baculos. Quod maximum nefas sic inolevit, ut id solum canonicum credatur, nec quæ sit ecclesiastica regula sciatur aut attendatur."

princes by the following stratagem. When a bishop or abbot died, they who looked upon themselves as authorized to fill up the vacancy, elected immediately some one of their order in the place of the deceased, and were careful to have him consecrated without delay. The consecration being thus performed, the prince who had proposed to himself the profit of selling the vacant benefice, or the pleasure of conferring it upon some of his favourites, was obliged to desist from his purpose, and to consent to the election, which the ceremony of consecration rendered irrevocable. Many examples of the success of this stratagem, which was practised both in chapters and monasteries, and which disappointed the liberality or avarice of several princes, might here be alleged; they abound in the records of the tenth century, to which we refer the curious reader. No sooner did the emperors and princes perceive this artful management, than they turned their attention to the properest means of rendering it ineffectual, and of preserving the valuable privilege they had usurped. For this purpose they ordered, that as soon as a bishop expired, his ring and crosier should be transmitted to the prince, to whose jurisdiction his diocess was subject. For it was by the solemn delivery of the ring and crosier of the deceased to the new bishop that his election was irrevocably confirmed, and this ceremony was an essential part of his consecration; so that when these two badges of the episcopal dignity were in the hands of the sovereign, the clergy could not consecrate the person whom their suffrages had appointed to fill the vacancy. Thus their stratagem was defeated, as every election that was not confirmed by the ceremony of consecration might be lawfully annulled and rejected; nor was the bishop qualified to exercise any of the episcopal functions before the performance of that important ceremony. As soon therefore as a bishop drew his last breath, the magistrate of the city in which he had resided, or the governor of the province, seized upon his ring and crosier, and sent them to court. The emperor or prince

a We see this fact confirmed in the following passage in Ebbo's Life of Otho, bishop of Bamberg, lib. i. § 8, 9, in Actis Sanctor. mensis Julii, tom. i. p. 426. "Nec multo post annulus cum virga pastorali Bremensis episcopi ad aulam regiam translata est. Eo siquidem tempore ecclesia liberam electionem non habebant...sed cum quilibet antistes viam universe carnis ingressus fuisset, mox capitanei civitatis illius annulum et virgam pastoralem ad Palatium transmittebant, sicque regia auctoritate, communicato cum aulicis consilio, orbatæ plebi idoneum constituebat præsulem... Post paucos vero dies rursum annulus et virga pastoralis Bambenbergensis episcopi Domino imperatori

conferred the vacant see upon the person whom he had chosen by delivering to him these two badges of the episcopal office, after which the new bishop, thus invested by his sovereign, repaired to his metropolitan, to whom it belonged to perform the ceremony of consecration, and delivered to him the ring and crosier which he had received from his prince, that he might receive it again from his hands, and be thus doubly confirmed in his sacred function. It appears therefore from this account, that each new bishop and abbot received twice the ring and the crosier; once from the hands of the sovereign, and once from those of the metropolitan bishop, by whom they were consecrated."

C

It is highly uncertain by what prince this custom of creating the bishops by the ceremonies of the ring and crosier was first introduced. If we may believe Adam of Bremen, this privilege was exercised by Lewis the Meek, who, in the ninth century, granted to the new bishops the use and possessions of the episcopal revenues, and confirmed this grant by the ceremony now under consideration. But the accuracy of this historian is liable to suspicion; and it is extremely probable that he attributed to the transactions of ancient times, the same form that accompanied similar transactions in the eleventh century in which he lived. For it is certain, that in the ninth century the greatest part of the European princes made no opposition to the right of electing the bishops, which was both claimed and exercised by the clergy and the people, and of consequence, there was then no occasion for the investiture mentioned by Adam of Bremen." We therefore choose to adopt the supposition of cardinal Humbert," who places

transmissa est. Quo audito, multi nobiles; ad aulum regiam conflucbant, qui alteram harum prece vel pretio sibi comparare tentabant."

b This appears from a variety of ancient records. See particularly Humbert, lib. iii. contra Simoniacos, cap. vi. in Martene's Thasaur. Anecdot. tom. v. p. 779, in which we find the following passage. "Sic encœniatus," i. e. the bishops invested by the emperor, "violentus invadit clerum, plebem et ordinem prius dominaturus quam ab eis cognoscatur, quæratur, petatur. Sic metropolitanum aggreditur, non ab eo judicandus, sed ipsium judicaturus. Quid enim sibi jam pertinet aut prodest baculum et annulum, quos portat reddere? Numquid quia laica persona dati sunt? Cur redditur quod habetur, nisi ut aut denuo res ecclesiastica sub hac specie jussionis vel donationis vendatur, aut certe ut presumptio laicæ ordinationis pallietur colore et velamento quodam disciplinæ clericalis?""

c In his Historia Ecclesiastica, lib. i. cap. xxxii. p. 10, xxxix. p. 12, published in the Scriptores Septentrionales of Lindenbrogius.

d Add to this the refutation of Adam of Bremen, by Daniel Papebroch, in the Acta Sanctorum, tom. i. Febr. p. 557.

e Humbert, lib. iii. contra Simoniacos, cap. vii. p. 780, et cap. xi. p. 787.