Chapter IV: The Counter-Reformation (9)

4. =The French Societies.=--What these found fault with
in the Catholic church was, not its dogmatics, to which,
with the single exception of the doctrine of purgatory
and all therewith connected, indulgence, masses for souls,
foundations, alms, and works of piety on behalf of the dead,
they firmly adhered; nor yet its liturgical institutions,
which, with the exception of masses for souls, they left
untouched; nor yet its hierarchical constitutions _per
se_, for they transferred its leading principles into
their own organization: but it was simply this, that its
clergy had become guilty of the deadly sin of assuming and
exercising the apostolic prerogative without undertaking
the obligations of apostolic poverty, the apostolic life,
and the apostolic vocation, which alone warranted such
assumption. But as they thus, nevertheless, firmly adhered
to the Catholic principle of the validity of a sacrament
administered even by an unworthy person, if only he had
authority for doing so from the church, they could allow
themselves, and specially their lay adherents, to take
part in all Catholic services and acts of worship, without
regarding themselves or their followers as under obligation
to yield obedience to the pope and the bishops, or to
recognise their spiritual jurisdiction, authority to
inflict punishment, and right of arbitrary legislation
in regard to fasts, festivals, impediments to marriage,
etc.--As to the organization of the society, it is now
perfectly clear that there was a threefold division of
offices: bishops, presbyters, and deacons. Reception into
the _Societas Fratrum_ was consummated by the imparting
of the ordination of deacon. This, however, was preceded
by a longer or shorter novitiate, _i.e._ a period of trial
and preparation for the apostolic vocation of preaching.
The entrance into this novitiate (_conversio_) required
the surrender of all property for the benefit of the poor,
and on the part of those already married the abandonment
of every form of marital relationship; and on reception
into the brotherhood the vow of obedience to the superiors
was exacted, as well as a vow of celibacy and chastity.--To
the bishop, who as such was also called _minister_ and
_major_ or _majoralis_, belonged the right to administer
the sacraments of penance and ordination, as well as the
consecration of the eucharistic elements; he might preach
wherever he chose, and he assigned to presbyters and deacons
their spheres of labour. The presbyters, in addition to
preaching, also heard confessions, imposed penance, and
granted absolution, but did not administer the punishments
imposed, for this was the exclusive function of the
bishop.--The deacons were only to preach, but not to
hear confession, and their special duty consisted in
collecting contributions for the support of the brethren.
That also women, on the basis of Titus ii. 3, 4, were
admitted into these societies is an undoubted fact. Their
position was essentially the same as that of the deacons;
but the number of preaching sisters continued always
relatively small.--After the death of the founder the
society once a year chose from among the existing bishops
two _rectores_, who now together administered that supreme
government and high priesthood which had previously been
exercised by the founder alone. It was, however, by-and-by
found desirable to revert to the older monarchical
constitution, but all through the 13th century this
office was held only by a yearly tenure. The retiring
bishops, however, received for life the rank and title
of _major_. But even over the rector stood the _commune_
or _congregatio_; _i.e._ the general chapter assembled
once or twice in the year, in which the brethren of all
the three orders had a seat and vote. The obligation
to wear the apostolic dress, persistence in which would
have in a very short time thrown all the brethren into
the Moloch arms of the Inquisition, was abandoned soon
after the erection of that tribunal in A.D. 1232.--The
lay adherents attracted by the preaching and pastoral
activity of the brethren, the so-called _Amici, Fautores,
Receptatores_, were not organized as exclusive and
independent communities, because their continued
participation in the services and sacraments of the
Catholic church was regarded as permissible. On the
other hand, they maintained, as far as possible, regular
intercourse with the brethren, who in various styles of
dress visited them secretly, preached to them, exhorted
and instructed them, prayed with them and said grace at
their tables, heard their confessions, imposed penances
and granted absolution, uttering the formula of absolution,
however, not in the language of an absolute judicial
proclamation, but as a supplication and fervent desire.
The _Amici_ were allowed to make their Easter confession
and observance of the Supper at the Catholic service. The
brethren had of course also an independent celebration
of the Lord’s Supper, which occurred only once a year,
on Maundy Thursday, but was confined as a rule to the
brothers and sisters there assembled. The profound
acquaintance with Holy Scripture, especially the New
Testament, not only among the preaching “brothers,” but
also among their “friends,” many of whom knew by heart
a large portion of the New Testament, was the subject of
general remark and the occasion of astonishment. Besides
Holy Scripture, the selection of patristic passages used
by Valdez and the _Moralia_ of Gregory the Great were in
high repute as means of instruction and edification.--The
systematic efforts put forth from A.D. 1232 for the
uprooting and extirpating of heresy wrought effectually
among the French Waldensian “brethren” and “friends.” The
remnants of them that survived the persecution were driven
farther and farther into the remotest valleys of the western
and eastern spurs of the Cottian Alps, into Dauphiné
and Provence on the French side, and into Piedmont on
the Italian side.--The most important sources are: _Adv.
Valdens. sectam_, of Bernard Abbot of Fonscalidus, who
died in A.D. 1193; _Doctrina de Moda Procedendi a Hæret._
of the Inquisition at Carcassone and Toulouse of A.D. 1280;
the _consultatio_ of Arch. Peter Amelius of Narbonne and
the provincial synods held under him in A.D. 1243, 1244;
and the recently published _Practica Inquisition._ of the
inquisitor Bernard Guidonis of A.D. 1321.--Continuation,
§ 119, 9A.

§ 108.14.

A representation of the origin and character of the old
Waldensian movement completely different from that given
in the sources mentioned and used in the preceding sections,
especially in reference to the French societies, has
been current since the middle of the 16th century in the
modern Waldensian tradition, and by means of falsified or
misunderstood documents has been repeated by most Protestant
historians down to and including U. Hahn. The investigations
of Dieckhoff and Herzog first demolished for ever those
fabulous creations of Waldensian mythology, though more
recent Waldensian writers, _e.g._ Hudry-Ménos, but not
Comba, seek still tenaciously to assert their truth.
According to these traditions, long before the days of
Waldus of Lyons there were Waldensian, _i.e._ Vallensian
communities in the valleys of Piedmont, the “Israel of
the Alps,” the bearers of pure gospel truth, whose origin
was to be traced back at least to Claudius of Turin, while
others fondly carried it back to the Apostle Paul, who on
his journey to Spain (Rom. xv. 24) may have also visited
the Piedmontese valleys. It was to them that Peter of
Lyons owed his spiritual awakening and his surname of
Waldus, _i.e._ the Waldensian. For proof of this assertion
we are referred to a pretty copious manuscript literature
said to be old Waldensian, written in a peculiar Romance
dialect, deposited in the libraries of Geneva, Dublin,
Cambridge, Zürich, Grenoble, and Paris. Upon close and
unprejudiced examination of these literary pieces, of
which the oldest portion cannot possibly claim an earlier
date than the beginning of the 14th century, it has become
quite apparent that these, in so far as they are not
fabrications or interpolations, do not afford the least
grounds for justifying those Waldensian fantasies. This
view is further corroborated by the fact, that the most
careful and thorough investigator in this department, Carl
Müller, confidently maintains the conviction and shows
the basis on which it rests, “that the whole so-called
Waldensian literature of the pre-Hussite period has been
without exception derived from Catholic and not from
Waldensian sources.” The falsifications in this reputed
old Waldensian group of writings referred to, by means
of interpolation, omission, and alteration in the tracts
belonging to that collection, as well as the forging
of new writings, and that simply for the purpose of
vindicating for their society the mythical fame of
a primitive, independent, and ever pure evangelical
church, first found place after the Protestantizing
of the Romance or Piedmontese Waldensians, and were
thereafter successfully turned to account _bona_ or
_mala fide_ by their historians, Perrin, Leger, Muston,
Monastier, etc. In the _Nobla laiczon_ (=_lectio_),
_e.g._ a religious doctrinal poem, in the statement of
_vv._ 6, 7, that since the origin of the New Testament
writings 1,400 years had passed (mil e 4 cent anz) the
figure 4 was erased, so that it might appear to be an
ascertained fact that in A.D. 1100, seventy years before
the appearance of Waldus, there were already Waldensian
communities in existence. But when, in A.D. 1862, the
Morland manuscripts, which had been lost for 200 years,
were again discovered in Cambridge library, there was
found among them a copy of the _Nobla laiczon_, in which
before the word _cent_ an erasure was observable, in
which the outlines of the loop of the Arabic numeral 4
were still clearly discernible. In another piece contained
in this collection the passage referred to was quoted
as “mil e CCCC anz.” Hussite writings translated from
the Bohemian were also palmed off as genuine Waldensian
works of the earlier centuries, and were in addition
provided with the corresponding date. A manuscript of the
New Testament at Zürich was assigned to the 12th century;
but on more careful scrutiny it was shown that the writer
must have had before him the Greek Testament of Erasmus.
But the most glaring case of falsification is seen in
the “Waldensian Confession of Faith,” first adduced by
Perrin as evidence of the faith of the old Waldensians,
to which a later hand had ascribed as the date of its
composition the year 1120. It copies almost word for
word the utterances of Bucer as given in Morel’s report
of his negotiations with that divine and Œcolampadius.
In this way a new stamp has been put upon the doctrinal
articles of the old Waldensians.[320]

§ 108.15.

5. =The Lombard-German Branch.=--In regard to the Lombards
themselves, since the epistle of Bergamo we have only
scanty reports, and these are found in the treatise of
Monata, of 1240, _Adv. Catharos et Valdenses_, and in
the _Summa de Catharis et Leonistis_ of the Dominican
inquisitor Rainerius Sacchoni, of 1250. We have ampler
accounts, however, from their German mission-field, which
had already extended so far as to stretch from the Rhine
provinces into Austria. From the time of the unsuccessful
endeavours at Bergamo to effect a union between the two
principal groups, there was, so far as we are aware, no
further intercourse between the two. On the other hand,
the German Waldensians during the 13th and 14th centuries
maintained a pretty regular communication with their
Italian brethren.--In general, too, the Lombards continued,
along with their German offspring, to hold firmly by the
fundamental tenets of the primitive Waldensian faith. Their
preaching brothers and sisters were also called in Germany
_Meister_ (_magistri_) and _Meïsterinnen_, the men also
_Apostles_ and _Twelve-Apostles_, or, since also there,
next to preaching, they had as their most essential and
important spiritual function the administration of the
sacrament of penance, _Beichtiger_ (_bihter_), confessors.
The view that had been already so vigorously maintained
at Bergamo, that a priest guilty of mortal sin, and
such in their eyes were all Catholic priests, could not
efficaciously administer any sacrament, led them naturally
to assume a much freer attitude toward the Catholic church,
which summed itself up in the radical principle, that
everything connected with that church which cannot be shown
from the New Testament to have been expressly taught and
enjoined by Christ or His apostles, is to be set aside as
an unevangelical human addition. This position however was
insisted upon by them less in criticism and confutation of
the church doctrine than in opposition to the practices of
the church as a whole. In consequence of this criticism,
they, transcending far the mere negations of the French,
rejected not only all church festivals, beyond the simple
Sunday festival, not only all processions and pilgrimages,
all ceremonies, candles, incense, holy water, images,
liturgical dress and cloths, all consecrations and blessing
of churches, bells, burying grounds, candles, ashes, palms,
robes, salt, water, etc., but also the centre and climax
of all Catholic worship, the mass; not only of purgatory
and everything in church practice that had sprung from it,
not only ban and interdict, but also invocation of saints,
image and relic worship, etc. Yet all the masters did
not go equally far in this negative direction. Especially
during the second half of the 13th century a remarkable
reaction set in against the severity and exclusiveness
of that negation, because increasing persecution obliged
them to withdraw into secrecy as much as possible with
their confession and their specifically Waldensian forms
of worship, or to suspend their services altogether, and
indeed, to save themselves from the suspicion of heresy,
to allow to themselves and their lay adherents liberty
to engage in the services of the Catholic church, and to
submit to the indispensable demands of the church, such
as the attendance at mass, making confession, and taking
the communion at Easter. They held indeed firmly by the
principle, _Quod sacerdos in mortali peccato sacramentum
non possit conficere_, but they comforted themselves by
the assurance already expressed at Bergamo, that the Lord
Himself directly gives to the worthy communicant who, in
case of need, receives the sacrament from the hand of an
unworthy priest, what by him cannot be communicated, for
the transubstantiation is effected not _in manu indigne
conficientis_, but _in ore digne sumentis_. Thus during
the times of oppression they kept their own observance of
the supper quite in abeyance, the dispensation of which
was not among them, as among the French, restricted to
the masters; but on this account they laid all the greater
weight on the necessity of confession to their own clergy as
those who could alone give absolution. Also the prohibition
of all oaths as well as bloodshedding, therefore also of
military service, and the acceptance of magisterial and
judicial offices, was strictly adhered to.--A peculiar
adaptation of the Roman Catholic tradition of the baptism
and donation of Constantine, which seems to have found
no acceptance among the French, became a favourite legend
among all the Lombard and German Waldensians. According
to it the ancient church had existed for three hundred
years in apostolic humility, simplicity, and poverty.
But when the Roman bishop Sylvester was endowed by the
emperor Constantine the Great with such superabundance of
worldly might, riches, and honour, the period of general
decline from the apostolic pattern set in. Only one of
his fellow clergy protested, and was, when all enticements
and threatenings proved of no avail, driven away along
with his adherents. The latter increased and spread
by-and-by over the earth. After a violent persecution,
which had almost cut off all of them, Peter Waldus made
his appearance with his companion, John of Lyons, as
the restorer of the apostolic life and calling, etc. To
this there was subsequently attached another legend. The
brethren had previously based their right to discharge
all priestly functions with the greatest confidence simply
on their apostolic life, and so they could not conceal
from themselves at a later period the fact that the want
of continued apostolic succession, on which the Catholic
church rested the claims of their priests, would place the
Waldensian masters very much in the shade as compared with
the Catholics. They began, therefore, not only to claim that
their founder Waldus had been previously a Roman presbyter,
but also to devise the fable of a bishop or even a cardinal
of the Romish church, through whose favour that defect had
been overcome.--Continuation, § 119, 9.

§ 108.16.

6. =Relations between the Waldensians and Older and
Contemporary Sects.=--Owing to the extraordinarily lively
and zealous propagandist activity of the sects at the
time of the origin and early development of the Waldensian
movement, there can scarcely be a doubt that the latter,
after it had freed itself from all obligation of obedience
to the pope and bishops, and had been driven out by them,
must at various points have come into close relations with
the other sects which, like it, had risen in rebellion
against the papacy and the hierarchy, and like it had been
persecuted by these. The numerous sect of the Cathari holds
a conspicuous position in this connection. That Waldus and
his companions must have decidedly repudiated the dualistic
principles which all these otherwise greatly diverging
Catharist sects had in common is indeed quite self-evident;
but this by no means prevented them from recognising
and appropriating such particular institutions, forms
of organization or modes of worship, peculiar moral
requirements, etc., practised by them as might seem fitted
to further their own ends. And that this actually was done,
many noticeable points of agreement between the two plainly
indicate. Thus on both sides we find a similar division of
members, the _Perfecti_ and _Credentes_ corresponding to
the _Fratres_ and _Amici_, and the kind of spiritual care
which the former took of the latter, the grace at table
said by the itinerant preachers, the importance attached to
the possession and use of bread that had been blessed by the
brethren, the frequent use by both of the Lord’s Prayer, the
rejection of purgatory and everything connected therewith,
also the prohibition of swearing and of military service,
the refusal of the magisterial _jus gladii_, etc. On the
other hand, however, it is more than probable that at last
the remnants of the Cathari which escaped the Inquisition
in great part had found refuge among the Waldensians in the
valleys of the Cottian Alps, and there became assimilated
and amalgamated with them (§ 119, 9A).--Further, the
assumption that the Lombard Waldensians had first reached
the principle by which they are distinguished from their
French brethren, about the incapacity of unworthy priests
for dispensing the sacraments, from outside influences,
perhaps from the Arnoldists, is raised almost to a certainty
by the statement made by their deputies at Bergamo in
A.D. 1218, that they had even themselves in earlier times
held the opposite view.--Even the pantheistic tendency of
an Amalrich and the Brethren of the New Spirit may have
found entrance among the German Waldensians, and have there
given origin to the sect of the Ortlibarians.

§ 109. THE CHURCH AGAINST THE PROTESTERS.

The church was by no means indifferent to the spread of those heresies of the 11th and 12th centuries, which called in question its own very existence. Even in the 11th century she called in the aid of the stake as a type of the fire of hell that would consume the heretics, and against this only one voice, that of Bishop Wazo of Liège († A.D. 1048), was raised. In the 12th century protesting voices were more numerous: Peter the Venerable (§ 98, 1), Rupert of Deutz, St. Hildegard, St. Bernard, declared sword and fire no fit weapons for conversion. St. Bernard showed by his own example how by loving entreaty and friendly instruction more might be done than by awakening a fanatical enthusiasm for martyrdom. But hangmen and stakes were more easily produced than St. Bernards, of whom the 12th and 13th centuries had by no means a superabundance. By-and-by Dominic sent out his disciples to teach and convert heretics by preaching and disputation; as long as they confined themselves to these methods they were not without success. But even they soon found it more congenial or more effective to fight the heretics with tortures and the stake rather than with discussion and discourse. The Albigensian crusade and the tribunal of the Inquisition erected in connection therewith at last overpowered the protesters and drove the remnants of their sects into hiding. In the administration of punishment the church made no distinction between the various sects; all were alike who were at war with the church.

§ 109.1. =The Albigensian Crusade, A.D. 1209-1229.=--Toward the
end of the 12th century sects abounded in the south of France.
Innocent III. regarded them as worse than the Saracens, and in
A.D. 1203 sent a legate, Peter of Castelnau, with full powers to
secure their extermination. But Peter was murdered in A.D. 1208,
and suspicion fell on Raymond IV., Count of Toulouse. A crusade
under Simon de Montfort was now summoned against the sectaries,
who as mainly inhabiting the district of Albigeois were now
called =Albigensians=. A twenty years’ war was carried on with
mad fanaticism and cruelty on both sides, in which guilty and
innocent, men, women, and children were ruthlessly slain. At
the sack of Beziers with 20,000 inhabitants the papal legate
cried, “Slay all, the Lord will know how to seek out and save
His own.”[321]

§ 109.2. =The Inquisition.=--Every one screening a heretic
forfeited lands, goods, and office; a house in which such a
one was discovered was levelled to the ground; all citizens
had to communicate thrice a year, and every second year to
renew their oath of attachment to the church, and to refuse
all help in sickness to those suspected of heresy, etc. The
bishops not showing themselves zealous enough in enforcing
these laws, Gregory IX. in A.D. 1232 founded the Tribunal of
the Inquisition, and placed it in the hands of the Dominicans.
These as _Domini canes_ subjected to the most cruel tortures all
on whom the suspicion of heresy fell, and all the resolute were
handed over to the civil authorities, who readily undertook their
execution.[322]--Continuation § 117, 2.

§ 109.3. =Conrad of Marburg and the Stedingers.=--The first
Inquisitor of Germany, the Dominican =Conrad of Marburg=, also
known as the severe confessor of St. Elizabeth (§ 105, 3), after
a three years’ career of cruelty was put to death by certain
of the nobles in A.D. 1233. _Et sic_, say the Annals of Worms,
_divino auxilio liberata est Teutonia ab isto judicio enormi
et inaudito_. He was enrolled by Gregory IX. among the martyrs.
Perhaps wrongly he has been blamed for Gregory’s crusade of
A.D. 1234 against the =Stedingers=. These were Frisians of
Oldenburg who revolted against the oppression of nobles and
priests, refused socage and tithes, and screened Albigensian
heretics. The first crusade failed; the second succeeded and
plundered, murdered, and burned on every hand. Thousands of the
unhappy peasants were slain, neither women nor children were
spared, and all prisoners were sent to the stake as heretics.

_THIRD SECTION._

HISTORY OF THE GERMANO-ROMANIC CHURCH IN THE
14TH AND 15TH CENTURIES (A.D. 1294-1517).

I. The Hierarchy, Clergy, and Monks.

§ 110. THE PAPACY.[323]

From the time of Gelasius II. (§ 96, 11) it had been the custom of the popes whenever Italy became too hot for them to fly to France, and from France they had obtained help to deliver Italy from the tyranny of the latest representatives of the Hohenstaufens. But when Boniface VIII. dared boldly to assert the universal sovereignty of the papacy even over France itself, this presumption wrought its own overthrow. The consequence was a seventy years’ exile of the papal chair to the banks of the Rhone, with complete subjugation under French authority. Under the protection of the French court, however, the popes found Avignon a safe asylum, and from thence they issued the most extravagant hierarchical claims, especially upon Germany. The return of the papal court to Rome was the occasion of a forty years’ schism, during which two popes, for a time even three, are seen hurling anathemas at one another. The reforming Councils of Pisa, Constance, and Basel sought to put an end to this scandal and bring about a reformation in the head and the members. The fathers in these councils, however, in accordance with the prevalent views of the age, maintained the need of one visible head for the government of the church, such as was afforded by the papacy. But the corruptions of the papal chair led them to adopt the old theory that the highest ecclesiastical authority is not the pope but the voice of the universal church expressed in the œcumenical councils, which had jurisdiction over even the popes. The successful carrying out of this view was possible only if the several national churches which had come now more decidedly than ever to regard themselves as independent branches of the great ecclesiastical organism, should heartily combine against the corrupt papacy. But this they did not do. They were contented with making separate attacks, in accordance with their several selfish interests. Hence papal craft found little difficulty in rendering the strong remonstrances of these councils fruitless and without result. The papacy came forth triumphant, and during the 15th century, the age of the Renaissance, reached a degree of corruption and moral turpitude which it had not approached since the 10th century. The vicars of God now used their spiritual rank only to further their ambitious worldly schemes, and by the most scandalous nepotism (the so-called nephews being often bastards of the popes, who were put into the highest and most lucrative offices) as well as by their own voluptuousness, luxury, revelry, and love of war, brought ruin upon the church and the States of the Church.

§ 110.1. =Boniface VIII. and Benedict XI.,
A.D. 1294-1304.=--=Boniface VIII.=, A.D. 1294-1303 (§ 96, 22),
was not inferior to his great predecessor in political talents
and strength of will, but was destitute of all spiritual
qualities and without any appreciation of the spiritual
functions of the papal chair, while passionately maintaining
the most extravagant claims of the hierarchy. The opposition
to the pope was headed by two cardinals of the powerful Colonna
family, who maintained that the abdication of Cœlestine V.
was invalid. In A.D. 1297 Boniface stripped them of all their
dignities, and then they appealed to an œcumenical council as
a court of higher jurisdiction. The pope now threatened them
and their supporters with the ban, fitted out a crusade against
them, and destroyed their castles. At last after a sore struggle
Palæstrina, the old residence of their family, capitulated. Also
the Colonnas themselves submitted. Nevertheless in A.D. 1299 he
had the famous old city and all its churches and palaces levelled
to the ground, and refused to restore to the outlawed family
its confiscated estates. Then again the Colonnas took up arms,
but were defeated and obliged to fly the country, while the
pope forbade under threat of the ban any city or realm to give
refuge or shelter to the fugitives. But neither his anathema
nor his army was able to keep the rebellious Sicilians under
papal dominion. Even in his first contest with the French king,
=Philip IV. the Fair=, A.D. 1285-1314, he had the worst of
it. The pope had vainly sought to mediate between Philip and
Edward I. of England, when both were using church property in
carrying on war with one another, and in A.D. 1295 he issued
the bull _Clericis laicos_, releasing subjects from their
allegiance and anathematizing all laymen who should appropriate
ecclesiastical revenues and all priests who should put them to
uses not sanctioned by the pope. Philip then forbade all payment
of church dues, and the pope finding his revenues from France
withheld, made important concessions in A.D. 1297 and canonized
Philip’s grandfather, Louis IX. His hierarchical assumptions
in Germany gave promise of greater success. After the first
Hapsburger’s death in A.D. 1291, his son Albert was set aside,
and Adolf, Count of Nassau, elected king; but he again was
overthrown and Albert I. crowned in A.D. 1298. Boniface summoned
Albert to his tribunal as a traitor and murderer of the king,
and released the German princes from their oaths of allegiance
to him. Meanwhile, during A.D. 1301, Boniface and Philip were
quarrelling over vacant benefices in France. The king haughtily
repudiated the pretensions of the papal legate and imprisoned
him as a traitor. Boniface demanded his immediate liberation,
summoned the French bishops to a council at Rome, and in the
bull _Ausculta fili_ showed the king how foolish, sinful, and
heretical it was for him not to be subject to the pope. The
bull torn from the messenger’s hands was publicly burnt, and
a version of it probably falsified published throughout the
kingdom along with the king’s reply. All France rose in revolt
against the papal pretensions, and a parliament at Notre Dame in
Paris A.D. 1302, at which the king assembled the three estates of
the empire, the nobles, the clergy, and (for the first time) the
citizens, it was unanimously resolved to support Philip and to
write in that spirit to Rome, the bishops undertaking to pacify
the pope, the nobles and citizens making their complaint to the
cardinals. The king expressly forbade his clergy taking any part
in the council that had been summoned, which, however, met in the
Lateran, in Nov., 1302. From it Boniface issued the famous bull
_Unam Sanctam_, in which, after the example of Innocent III.
and Gregory IX., he set forth the doctrine of the two swords,
the spiritual wielded _by_ the church and the temporal _for_
the church, by kings and warriors indeed, but only according
to the will and by the permission of the spiritual ruler. That
the temporal power is independent was pronounced a Manichæan
heresy; and finally it was declared that no human being could
be saved unless he were subject to the Roman pontiff. King and
parliament now accused the pope of heresy, simony, blasphemy,
sorcery, tyranny, immorality, etc., and insisted that he should
answer these charges before an œcumenical council. Meanwhile, in
A.D. 1303, Boniface was negotiating with king Albert, and got him
not only to break his league with Philip, but also to acknowledge
himself a vassal of the papal see. The pope had all his plans
laid for launching his anathema against Philip, but their
execution was anticipated by the king’s assassins. His chancellor
Nogaret and Sciarra, one of the exiled Colonnas, who, with the
help of French gold, had hatched a conspiracy among the barons,
attacked the papal palace and took the pope prisoner while he
sat in full state upon his throne. The people indeed rescued
him, but he died some weeks after in a raging fever in his
80th year. Dante assigns him a place in hell. In the mouth of
his predecessor Cœlestine V. have been put the prophetic words,
_Ascendisti ut vulpes, regnatis ut leo, morieris ut canis_.[324]
His successor =Benedict XI.=, A.D. 1303, 1304, would have
willingly avenged the wrongs of Boniface, but weak and
unsupported as he was he soon found himself obliged, not
only to withdraw all imputations against Philip, who always
maintained his innocence, but also to absolve those of the
Colonnas who were less seriously implicated.

§ 110.2. =The Papacy during the Babylonian Exile,
A.D. 1305-1377.=--After a year’s vacancy the papal chair
was filled by Bertrand de Got, Archbishop of Bordeaux,
a determined supporter of Boniface, who took the name of
=Clement V.=, A.D. 1305-1314. He refused to go to be enthroned
at Rome, and forced the cardinals to come to Lyons, and finally,
in A.D. 1309, formally removed the papal court to Avignon, which
then belonged to the king of Naples as Count of Provence. At
this time, too, Clement so far yielded to Philip’s wish to have
Boniface condemned and struck out of the list of popes, as to
appoint two commissions to consider charges against Boniface,
one in France and the other in Italy. Most credible witnesses
accused the deceased pope of heresies, crimes, and immoralities
committed in word and deed mostly in their presence, while the
rebutting evidence was singularly weak. A compromise was effected
by Clement surrendering the Templars to the greedy and revengeful
king. In the bull _Rex gloriæ_ of A.D. 1311 he expressly declares
that Philip’s proceeding against Boniface was _bona fide_,
occasioned by zeal for church and country, cancels all Boniface’s
decrees and censures upon the French king and his servants, and
orders them to be erased from the archives. =The 15th œcumenical
Council of Vienne in A.D. 1311= was mainly occupied with the
affairs of the Templars, and also with the consideration of the
controversies in the Franciscan order (§ 112, 2).--=Henry VII.=
of Luxemburg was raised to the German throne on Albert’s death
in A.D. 1208 in opposition to Philip’s brother Charles. Clement
supported him and crowned him emperor, hoping to be protected by
him from Philip’s tyranny. At Milan in A.D. 1311 Henry received
the iron crown of Lombardy; but at Rome the imperial coronation
was effected in A.D. 1312, not in St. Peter’s, the inner city
being held by Robert of Naples, papal vassal and governor of
Italy, but only in the Lateran at the hands of the cardinals
commissioned to do so. The emperor now, in spite of all papal
threats, pronounced the ban of the empire against Robert,
and in concert with Frederick of Sicily entered on a campaign
against Naples, but his sudden death in A.D. 1313 (according
to an unsupported legend caused by a poisoned host) put an end
to the expedition. Clement also died in the following year; and
to him likewise has Dante assigned a place in hell.

§ 110.3. After two years’ murderous strife between the Italian
and French cardinals, the French were again victorious, and
elected at Lyons =John XXII.=, A.D. 1316-1334, son of a shoemaker
of Cahors in Gascony, who was already seventy-two years old.
He is said to have sworn to the Italians never to use a horse
or mule but to ride to Rome, and then to have taken ship
on the Rhone for Avignon, where during his eighteen years’
pontificate he never went out of his palace except to go into
the neighbouring cathedral. Working far into the night, this
seemingly weak old man was wont to devote all his time to his
studies and his business. The weight of his official duties
will be seen from the fact that 60,000 minutes, filling 59 vols.
in the papal archives, belong to his reign.--In Germany, after
the death of Henry VII. there were two rivals for the throne,
=Louis IV. the Bavarian=, A.D. 1314-1347, and Frederick III.
of Austria. The pope, maintaining the closest relations with
Robert of Anjou, his feudatory as king of Naples and his
protector as Count of Provence, and esteeming his wish as
a command, refused to acknowledge either, declared the German
throne still vacant, and assumed to himself the administration
of the realm during the vacancy. At Mühldorf in A.D. 1322
Louis conquered his opponent and took him prisoner. He sent
a detachment of Ghibellines over the Alps, while he made himself
master of Milan and put an end to the papal administration
in Northern Italy. The pope in A.D. 1323 ordered him within
three months to cease discharging all functions of government
till his election as German king should be acknowledged and
confirmed by the papal chair. Louis first endeavoured to come to
an understanding with the pope, but soon employed the sharp pens
of the Minorites, who in May, 1324, drew up a solemn protest
in which the king, basing his claims to royalty solely on the
election of the princes and treating the pope as one who had
forfeited his chair in consequence of his heresies (§ 112, 2),
appealed from this false pope to an œcumenical council and a
future legitimate pope. John now thundered an anathema against
him, declared that he was deprived of all his dignities, freed
his subjects from their allegiance, forbade them, under pain
of anathema, to obey him, and summoned all European potentates
to war against the excommunicated monarch. Louis now sought
Frederick’s favour, and in A.D. 1325 shared with him the royal
dignity. In Milan in A.D. 1327 he was crowned king of Lombardy,
and in A.D. 1328 in Rome he received the imperial crown from
the Roman democracy. Two bishops of the Ghibelline party gave
him consecration, and the crown was laid on his head by Sciarra
Colonna in the name of the Roman people. In vain did the pope
pronounce all these proceedings null and void. The king began a
process against the pope, deposed him as a heretic and antichrist,
and finally condemned him to death as guilty of high treason,
while the mob carried out this sentence by burning the pope
in effigy upon the streets. The people and clergy of Rome, in
accordance with an old canon, elected a new pope in the person
of a pious Minorite of the sect of the Spirituales (§ 112, 2),
who took the name of Nicholas V. Louis with his own hand placed
the tiara on his head, and was then himself crowned by him. All
this glory, however, was but short lived. An unsuccessful and
inglorious war against Robert of Naples and a consequent revolt
in Rome caused the emperor in A.D. 1328, with his army and his
pope, amid the stonethrowing of the mob, to quit the eternal city,
which immediately became subject to the curia. He did not fare
much better in Tuscany or Lombardy; and thus the Roman expedition
ended in failure. Returning to Munich, Louis endeavoured in vain
amid many humiliations to move the determined old man at Avignon.
But Nicholas V., the most wretched of all the anti-popes, went
to Avignon with a rope about his neck in A.D. 1328, cast himself
at the pope’s feet, was absolved, and died a prisoner in the
papal palace in A.D. 1333. Next year John died. Notwithstanding
the expensive Italian wars 25,000,000 gold guldens was found in
the papal treasury at his death.--Roused by his opposition to
the stricter party among the Franciscans (§ 112, 2), its leaders
lent all their influence to the Bavarian and supported the charge
of heresy against the pope. Against John’s favourite doctrine
that the souls of departed saints attain to the vision of God
only after the last judgment, these zealots cited the opinions
of the learned world (§ 113, 3), with the University of Paris
at its head. Philip VI. of France was also in the controversy
one of his bitterest opponents, and even threatened him with
the stake. Pressed on all sides the pope at last in A.D. 1333
convened a commission of scholars to decide the question, but
died before its judgment was given. His successor hasted to
still the tumult by issuing the story of a deathbed recantation,
and gave ecclesiastical sanction to the opposing view.

§ 110.4. =Benedict XII.=, A.D. 1334-1342, would probably have
yielded to the urgent entreaties of the Romans to return to Rome
had not his cardinals been so keenly opposed. He then built a
palace at Avignon of imposing magnitude, as though the papacy
were to have an eternal residence there. Louis the Bavarian
retracted his heretical sentiments in order to get the ban
removed and to obtain an orderly coronation. The first diet of
the electoral union was held at Rhense near Mainz, in A.D. 1338,
where it was declared that the election of a German king and
emperor was, by God’s appointment, the sole privilege of the
elector-princes, and needed not the confirmation or approval
of the pope. This encouraged Louis to assert anew his imperial
pretensions. Benedict’s successor =Clement VI.=, A.D. 1342-1352,
added by purchase in A.D. 1348 the city of Avignon to the county
of Venaissin, which Philip III. had gifted to the papal chair in
A.D. 1273. Both continued in the possession of the Roman court
till A.D. 1791 (§ 165, 13). Louis, now at feud with some of the
powerful German nobles, sought to make terms of peace with the
new pope. But Clement was not conciliatory, and made the unheard
of demand that Louis should not only annul all his previous
ordinances, but also should in future issue no enactment in
the empire without permission of the papal see; and on Maunday
Thursday, A.D. 1346, he pronounced him without title or dignity
and called upon the electors to make a new choice, which, if
they failed to do, he would proceed to do himself. As fittest
candidate he recommended Charles of Bohemia, who was actually
chosen by the five electors who answered the summons, under the
title of =Charles IV.=, A.D. 1346-1378, and had his election
confirmed by the pope. The new emperor solemnly promised never
to set foot on the domains of the Roman church without express
papal permission, and to remain in Rome only so long as was
required for his coronation. Louis died before he was able to
engage in war with his rival, and when, six months later, the
next choice of Louis’ party also died, Charles was acknowledged
without a dissentient voice. He was crowned emperor in Rome
by a cardinal appointed by Innocent VI., in A.D. 1355. Without
doing anything to restore the imperial prestige in Italy, Charles
went back like a fugitive to Germany, despised by Guelphs and
Ghibellines. But in the following year, at the Diet of Nuremberg,
he passed a new imperial law in the so called Golden Bull of
A.D. 1356, according to which the election of emperor was to
be made at Frankfort, by three clerical electors (Mainz, Cologne,
and Treves) and four temporal princes (Bohemia, the Palatine of
the Rhine, Saxony, and Brandenburg), and he appeased the pope’s
wrath by various concessions to the curia and the clergy.

§ 110.5. The famous Rienzi was made apostolic notary by
Clement VI. in A.D. 1343, and as tribune of the people headed
the revolt against the barons in A.D. 1347. Losing his popularity
through his own extravagances he was obliged to flee, and being
taken prisoner by Charles at Prague, he was sent to Avignon in
A.D. 1350. Instead of the stake with which Clement had threatened
him, =Innocent VI.=, A.D. 1352-1362, bestowed senatorial rank
upon him, and sent him to Rome, hoping that his demagogical
talent would succeed in furthering the interests of the papacy.
He now once more, amid loud acclamations, entered the eternal
city, but after two months, hated and cursed as a tyrant, he was
murdered in A.D. 1354, while attempting flight.--By A.D. 1367
things had so improved in Rome that, notwithstanding the
opposition of king and court and the objections of luxurious
cardinals unwilling to quit Avignon, =Urban V.=, A.D. 1362-1370,
in October of that year made a triumphal entrance into Rome
amid the jubilations of the Romans. Charles’ Italian expedition
of the following year was inglorious and without result. The
disquiet and party strifes prevailing through the country made
the position of the pope so uncomfortable, that notwithstanding
the earnest entreaty of St. Bridget (§ 112, 8), who threatened
him with the Divine judgment of an early death in France, he
returned in A.D. 1370 to Avignon, where in ten weeks the words
of the northern prophetess were fulfilled. His successor was
=Gregory XI.=, A.D. 1370-1378. Rome and the States of the Church
had now again become the scene of the wildest anarchy, which
Gregory could only hope to quell by his personal presence. The
exhortations of the two prophetesses of the age, St. Bridget and
St. Catherine (§ 112, 4), had a powerful influence upon him, but
what finally determined him was the threat of the exasperated
Romans to elect an anti-pope. And so in spite of the renewed
opposition of the cardinals and the French court, the curia
again returned to Rome in A.D. 1377; but though the rejoicing
at the event throughout the city was great, the results were by
no means what had been expected. Sick and disheartened, the pope
was already beginning to speak of going back to Avignon, when
his death in A.D. 1378 put an end to his cares and sufferings.

§ 110.6. =The Papal Schism and the Council of Pisa.=--Under
pressure from the people the cardinals present in Rome almost
unanimously chose the Neapolitan archbishop of Bari, who took
the name of =Urban VI.=, A.D. 1378-1389. His energies were
mainly directed to the emancipating of the papal chair from
French interference and checking the abuses introduced into
the papal court during the Avignon residence; but the impatience
and bitterness which he showed in dealing with the greed, pomp,
and luxury of the cardinals roused them to choose another pope.
After four months, they met at Fundi, declared that the choice
of Urban had been made under compulsion, and was therefore
invalid. In his place they elected a Frenchman, Robert, cardinal
of Geneva, who was enthroned under the name of Clement VII.,
A.D. 1378-1394. The three Italians present protested against
this proceeding and demanded, but in vain, the decision of a
council. Thus began the greatest and most mischievous =papal
schism=, A.D. 1378-1417. France, Naples, and Savoy at once, and
Spain and Scotland somewhat later, declared in favour of Clement;
while the rest of Western Europe acknowledged Urban. The two
most famous saints of the age, St. Catherine and St. Vincent
Ferrér (§ 115, 2), though both disciples of Dominic, took
different sides, the former as an Italian favouring Urban,
the latter as a Spaniard favouring Clement. Failing to secure
a footing in Italy, Clement took possession of the papal castle
at Avignon in A.D. 1379. The schism lasted for forty years,
during which time =Boniface IX.=, A.D. 1389-1404, =Innocent VII.=,
A.D. 1404-1406, and =Gregory XII.=, A.D. 1406-1415, elected
by the cardinals in Rome, held sway there in succession, while
at Avignon on Clement’s death his place was taken by the Spanish
cardinal Pedro de Luna as Benedict XIII., A.D. 1394-1424. The
Council of Paris of A.D. 1395 recommended the withdrawal of both
popes and a new election, but Benedict insisted upon a decision
by a two-thirds majority in favour of one or other of the two
rivals. An =œcumenical council at Pisa=, in A.D. 1409, dominated
mainly by the influence of Gerson (§ 118, 4), who maintained that
the authority of the councils is superior to that of the pope,
made short work with both contesting popes, whom it pronounced
contumacious and deposed. After the cardinals present had bound
themselves by an oath that whosoever of them might be chosen
should not dissolve the council until a reform of the church
in its head and members should be carried out, they elected
a Greek of Candia in his seventieth year, Cardinal Philangi,
who was consecrated as =Alexander V.=, A.D. 1409-1410, and for
three years the council continued to sit without effecting any
considerable reforms. The consequence was that the world had the
edifying spectacle of three contemporary popes anathematizing
one another.

§ 110.7. =The Council of Constance and Martin V.=--Alexander V.
died after a reign of ten months by poison administered, as
was supposed, by Balthasar Cossa, resident cardinal legate
and absolute military despot, suspected of having been in
youth engaged in piracy. Cossa succeeded, as =John XXIII.=,
A.D. 1410-1415. He was acknowledged by the new Roman king,
=Sigismund=, A.D. 1411-1437, and soon afterwards, in A.D. 1412,
by Ladislas [Ladislaus] of Naples, so that Gregory XII. was thus
deprived of his last support. The University of Paris continued
to demand the holding of a council to effect reforms. Sigismund,
supported by the princes, insisted on its being held in a
German city. Meanwhile Ladislas [Ladislaus] had quarrelled
with the pope, and had overrun the States of the Church and
plundered Rome in A.D. 1413, and John was obliged to submit
to Sigismund’s demands, He now summoned the =16th œcumenical
Council of Constance=, A.D. 1414-1418 (§ 119, 5). It was the
most brilliant and the most numerously attended council ever
held. More than 18,000 priests and vast numbers of princes,
counts, and knights, with an immense following; in all about
100,000 strangers, including thousands of harlots from all
countries, and hordes of merchants, artisans, showmen, and
players of every sort. Gerson and D’Ailly, the one representing
European learning, the other the claims of the Gallican church
(§ 118, 4), were the principal advisers of the council. The
decision to vote not individually but by nations (Italian,
German, French, and English) destroyed the predominance of
the Italian prelates, who as John’s creatures were present
in great numbers. Terrified by an anonymous accusation, which
charged the pope with the most heinous crimes, he declared
himself ready to withdraw if the other two popes would also
resign, but took advantage of the excitement of a tournament
to make his escape disguised as an ostler. Sigismund could with
difficulty keep the now popeless council together. John, however,
was captured, seventy-two serious charges formulated against
him, and on 26th July, A.D. 1415, he was deposed and condemned
to imprisonment for life. He was given up to the Count Palatine
Louis of Baden, who kept him prisoner in Mannheim, and afterwards
in Heidelberg. Meanwhile the leader of an Italian band making use
of the name of Martin V. purchased his release with 3,000 ducats.
He now submitted himself to that pope, and was appointed by him
cardinal-bishop of Tuscoli, and dean of the sacred college, but
soon afterwards died in Florence, in A.D. 1419. Gregory XII. also
submitted in A.D. 1415, and was made cardinal-bishop of Porto.
Benedict, however, retired to Spain and refused to come to
terms, but even the Spanish princes withdrew their allegiance
from him as pope. The cardinals in conclave elected the crafty
Oddo Colonna, who was consecrated as =Martin V.=, A.D. 1417-1431.
There was no more word of reformation. With great pomp the
council was closed, and indulgence granted to its members. As
the whole West now recognised Martin as the true pope the schism
may be said to end with his accession, though Benedict continued
to thunder anathemas from his strong Spanish castle till his
death in A.D. 1424, and three of his four cardinals elected as
his successor Clement VIII. and the fourth another Benedict XIV.
Of the latter no notice was taken, but Clement submitted in
A.D. 1429, and received the bishopric of Majorca.--Martin V.
on entering Rome in A.D. 1420 found everything in confusion
and desolate. By his able administration a change was soon
effected, and the Rome of the Renaissance rose on the ruins
of the mediæval city.[325]

§ 110.8. =Eugenius IV. and the Council of Basel.=--Martin V.
commissioned Cardinal Julian Cesarini to look after the
Hussite controversy in the =Basel Council=, A.D. 1431-1449.
His successor =Eugenius IV.=, A.D. 1431-1447, confirmed this
appointment. After thirteen months he ordered the council to
meet at Bologna, finding the heretical element too strong in
Germany. The members, however, unanimously refused to obey.
Sigismund, too, protested, and the council claimed to be
superior to the pope. The withdrawal of the bull within sixty
days was insisted upon. As a compromise, the pope offered to
call a new council, not at Bologna, but at Basel. This was
declined and the pope threatened with deposition. A rebellion,
too, broke out in the States of the Church; and in A.D. 1433
Eugenius was completely humbled and obliged to acquiesce in the
demands of the council. One danger was thus averted, but he was
still threatened by another. In A.D. 1434 Rome proclaimed itself
a republic and the pope fled to Florence. The success of the
democracy, however, was now again of but short duration. In
five months Rome was once more under the dominion of the pope.
Negotiations for union with the Greeks were begun by the pope
at =Ferrara= A.D. 1438. A small number of Italians under the
presidency of the pope here assumed the offices of an œcumenical
council, those at Basel being ordered to join them, the Basel
Council being suspended, and the continuance of that council
being pronounced schismatical. Julian, now styled “_Julianus
Apostata II._,” with almost all the cardinals, betook himself
to Ferrara. Under the able cardinal Louis d’Aleman (§ 118, 4),
archbishop of Arles, some still continued the proceedings of
the council at Basel, but in consequence of a pestilence they
moved, in A.D. 1439, to =Florence=. A union with the Greeks was
here effected, at least upon paper. The Basel Council banned by
the pope, deposed him, and in A.D. 1439 elected a new pope in
the person of Duke Amadeus of Savoy, who on his wife’s death
had resigned his crown to his son and entered a monkish order.
He called himself Felix V. Princes and people, however, were
tired of rival papacies. Felix got little support, and the
council itself soon lost all its power. Its ablest members one
after another passed over to the party of Eugenius. In A.D. 1449
Felix resigned, and died in the odour of sanctity two years
afterwards.[326]