Obrázky na stránke
PDF
ePub

Urban II., likewise, in the Councils of Melfi and Clermont, confirmed, by his authority, the decrees of some bishops, who had enjoined a suspension of hostilities from Wednesday evening of each week until Monday morning, and during the whole of Advent and Lent. The wisdom of this ordinance is acknowledged by Mills, who observes: "The clergy did much toward accustoming mankind to prefer the authority of law to the power of the sword. At their instigation private wars ceased for certain periods, and on particular days, and the observance of the Truce of God was guarded by the terrors of excommunication and anathema. Christianity could not immediately and directly change the face of the world; but she mitigated the horrors of the times by infusing herself into warlike institutions."*

In 1187, during the pontificate of Gregory VIII., which did not last quite two months, the Cardinals, in order to promote the Crusade which was then undertaken, agreed, with the assent of the Pope, to establish a general peace between all Christian princes for seven years, subjecting to excommunication all who should violate it. The assumption of this power was in accordance with the general principles and usages of the Middle Ages, and was certainly favorable to the interests of humanity.

Hallam, although he regards the Papal interference as an usurpation, admits that the project of Gerohus, a writer who lived early in the twelfth century, to refer all disputes among princes to the Pope, was calculated to find favor with benevolent minds, sickened by the cupidity and oppression of princes. "No control but that of religion appeared sufficient to restrain the abuses of society; while its salutary influence had already been displayed both in the Truce of God, which put the first check on the custom of private war, and more recently in the protection afforded to Crusaders against all aggression during the continuance of their engagement. There were certainly some instances where the temporal supremacy of Innocent III., however usurped, may appear to have been exerted beneficially. He directs one of his legates to compel the observance of peace between the Kings of Castile and Portugal, if necessary, by excommunication and interdict."+

It may surprise the reader to learn that an improvement in the laws of war, which John Adams, Benjamin Franklin, and Thomas Jefferson, as American commissioners, proposed to the Prussian minister, in the year 1784, was anticipated, more than six hundred years, by Innocent II., in the Council of Lateran. Using the civil influence with which he found himself invested, he decreed that "priests, monks, strangers, merchants, peasants, going or returning, or employed in labors of husbandry, and the animals with which they plough, and which carry the seeds to the field, should be secured from all molestation." The proposition of the † Middle Ages, ch. vii.

History of Crusades, ch. i. p. 22.

Cap. Innovamus II., de Treuga et Pace.

commissioners was "to improve the laws of war, by a mutual stipulation not to molest non-combatants, as cultivators of the earth, fishermen, merchants, and traders in unarmed ships, and artists and mechanics, inhabiting and working in open towns."* Another instance may be added, in which the humane and enlightened views of the Popes anticipated and surpassed some of the modern improvements on the laws of war. Paschal II., in a Council held at Troyes, in 1107, decreed that in war houses should not be set on fire. It is now deemed unlawful wantonly to destroy public buildings. Chancellor Kent truly observes, that "the history of Europe, during the early periods of modern history, abounds with interesting and strong cases, to show the authority of the Church over turbulent princes and fierce warriors, and the effect of that authority in meliorating manners, checking violence, and introducing a system of morals which inculcated peace, moderation, and justice."‡

Kent's Comm., vol. i. p. 91. Note.

† Chronic. Malleacense. Commentaries on American Law, by James Kent. Lecture

CHAPTER IV.

Deposing Power.

21.-ORIGIN OF THE POWER.

WHOEVER is at all acquainted with the history of the Middle Ages, cannot be ignorant of the political influence which the bishops exercised, conjointly with the secular nobility. This arose from the religious feeling of the people, which disposed them to respect their judgment, rather than from the temporal possessions attached to the sees.* Besides, as Hallam avows, "the bishops acquired and retained a great part of their ascendency by a very respectable instrument of power, intellectual superiority." Their concurrence was sought in every change of rulers, whether the sceptre passed by election to the heir of a deceased monarch, or by some revolution, into the hands of a new dynasty. In the decline of the seventh century, on the resignation of King Wamba, the Spanish bishops assembled at the instance of his successor, Ervigius, who sought at their hands the ratification of his title: and on the deposition of Louis by his son Lothaire, a French Council lent its sanction to the measure. In 859, in the Council of Savonières, Charles the Bald avowed his willingness to submit to the judgment of the bishops, and complained that he had been deposed without their sanction. They, in reality, were the chief nobles, who chiefly constituted the public council and national legislature. The Pope especially possessed immense influence in civil affairs. His judgment sealed the deposition of Childeric, and the transfer of the sceptre from the Merovingian to the Carlovingian race. When Eadbert, a clergyman, regardless of his sacred engagements, was chosen by intrigue to occupy the vacant throne of Kent, in 796, Leo III., at the instance of Ethelheard, Archbishop of Canterbury, struck the ambitious aspirant with excommunication, for the violation of his religious obligations, and threatened to exhort all the inhabitants of Britain to unite in punishing his disobedience, should he refuse to return to the clerical profession. People and princes alike appealed to the Pope in their controversies, and sought redress at his hands. The Saxons complained to Alexander II. of Henry IV., King of Germany, whose oppression and licentiousness were intolerable. The

Middle Ages, ch. viii. p. 111. † Ib. ch. vii. Lingard, Hist. England, 1.

ch. iii.

prince was accordingly summoned to answer at the tribunal of the Pontiff, whose death, however, interrupted the proceedings. Two centuries before, Nicholas I. threatened to interdict King Lothaire unless he dismissed Waldrada: which menace was understood by the Bishop of Metz to involve the throne itself in danger.

Although, from these facts, it is plain that St. Gregory VII. was not the first who claimed or exercised authority over princes, he appears to be the first who actually undertook to depose them. In the year 1074, he wrote to the French bishops, complaining of the crimes of Philip I., whom he designated, not a king, but a tyrant, and requiring of them to admonish him, and lay the kingdom under interdict; adding a solemn threat, that if these measures failed, he would leave no means untried to free the nation from its unworthy ruler, as he could no longer suffer so illustrious a kingdom and its vast population to be ruined by the misconduct of one man. This presents to us a principle very popular in our days, that royalty is but a trust for the people, and that when the public interests are trampled under foot by the prince, he is a tyrant, unfit to hold the reins of government, and no longer entitled to the obedience of the people. Similar views had been delivered by Nicholas I. in the ninth century. To propagate this doctrine, leaving to every one to determine for himself when it is that the ruler has forfeited his rights, would be to preach revolution and anarchy. The assumption, however, of the right of judgment between subjects and their sovereign, has been represented as a daring usurpation. But as all the kingdoms of Europe had arisen under the protection of the Holy See, and all by the very profession of Christianity were considered as acknowledging its parental guidance, which by express acts they declared in the most solemn manner, the Pope was expected to interpose in all great controversies, whether domestic or external. His interference was generally sought, even when he seemed to act unsolicited.

In the Roman Council of the year 1075, excommunication was denounced against Philip, in case he should not yield to the admonitions of the apostolic legate despatched for his correction. The zeal of the Pontiff was soon enkindled against a more powerful prince, Henry IV., King of Germany, and emperor elect. In the lifetime of his father, Henry III., he had been chosen, with the assent of the German nobles, to succeed to the imperial throne, on the usual condition that he should govern justly. The violation of this pledge had, as we have seen above, provoked the complaints of the Saxons, who subsequently revolted; and having, in an assembly at Gersteng, declared him unworthy to reign, on the accession of Gregory they most urgently besought him to come to their relief, while Henry at the same time implored his authority against

*"Si rector justus futurus esset." Herman. contract., ad. an. 1057.

"Quibus ut, vel per se, vel pur nuntium, genti pene perditæ consolator esset, suppliciter oraverunt." Bruno, de bello Saxonico, apud script. rerum Germ., t. i. p. 133.

the rebels.

"When the Saxons revolted," Saint-Priest observes, "the Emperor Henry IV., at the foot of the throne of Gregory VII., accused them of sedition and sacrilege. Thus the King of Germany made the Pope judge of his German subjects."* Gregory, accordingly, expostulated with the insurgents, calling on them to desist from violence, and despatched legates to them and to the king, with a view to bring their disputes to a peaceful termination. In the mean time, Henry threatened with death all who had appealed to the tribunal of the Pontiff. It was then that the measure of his iniquities seemed to overflow, so that Gregory took upon himself to forbid him to govern the kingdom of the Germans and of Italy, and absolved all Christians from the oath by which they had bound themselves to obey him as king.

This extraordinary act naturally leads us to inquire by what authority it was attempted. In a letter to the German bishops, nobles, and people, Gregory states that "Henry was guilty of crimes so enormous, as to deserve not only to be excommunicated, but, according to all divine and human laws, to be deprived of the royal dignity." The various historical documents specify those crimes, namely, utter disregard of the public interests, the cruel oppression of his subjects, the dishonor of the wives and daughters of the princes, and the butchery of many innocent persons. In the national Council held by the German princes, in 1076, they complained that Henry had wantonly shed the blood of his subjects, and laid an intolerable yoke on the necks of a free people. He had, likewise, committed great crimes against religion, by the sale of bishoprics, which he bestowed on unworthy men, and last of all, by the sacrilegious attempt to depose the sovereign Pontiff. Both classes of crimes, those against society and religion, concurred to provoke his condemnation, because, as king, he had bound himself to protect the Church, and maintain her rights inviolate but the last act, in that state of society, was justly deemed treason against the head of the Christian commonwealth. Christianity was the basis of society and its supreme law, and the Pontiff was regarded as its guardian and expounder.

It was the firm persuasion of the German princes that Henry, by his violation of the compact which, at his coronation, he had sworn to observe, had forfeited his title to the throne. "Freemen," says a writer almost contemporary, "put over themselves Henry as king, on condition that he should judge his constituents with justice, and govern them with royal care which compact he has constantly broken and disregarded. Therefore, even without the judgment of the Apostolic See, the princes could justly refuse to acknowledge him any longer as king, since he has not fulfilled the pledge which he gave at his election; the violation of which brings with it the forfeiture of kingly power." They sought,

* Histoire de la Royauté, par Saint-Priest, 1. x. vol. ii. p. 549.

"Liberi homines Henricum eo pacto sibi præposuerunt in regem, ut electores suos juste judicare, et regali providentia gubernare satageret, quod pactum ille postea præ

« PredošláPokračovať »