These extraordinary measures called forth indignant denunciations

on the part of ecclesiastics, for these letters were circulars sent

to all the princes on whom he could depend, and he insured their

publicity by causing similar orders to be published in the churches

themselves. Thus Theodoric, Bishop of Verdun, who had inclined to

the side of Gregory and had secretly left the Assembly of Utrecht in

1076 to avoid countenancing by his presence the excommunication then

pronounced against the pope, in a letter to Gregory bitterly reproaches

his own folly in promulgating the decretal and in not foreseeing its

effect as destructive to the peace of the church, to the safety of the

clerical order, and as creating a disturbance which threatened even the

Christian faith.[547] So Henry, Bishop of Speyer, indignantly denounced

him as having destroyed the authority of the bishops and subjected the

church to the madness of the people;[548] and when the bishops, at the

Diet of Worms, threw off their allegiance to him, one of the reasons

alleged, in Henry’s letter to him, is the surrender which he had made

of the church to the laity.[549] Yet Gregory was not to be diverted

from his course, and he was at least successful in rousing the Teutonic

church from the attitude of passive resistance which threatened to

render his efforts futile. The princes of Germany, who were already

intriguing with Gregory for support in their perennial revolts against

their sovereign, were delighted to seize the opportunity of at once

obliging the pope, creating disturbance at home, and profiting by the

church property which they could manage to get into their hands by

ejecting the unfortunate married priests. They accordingly proceeded to

exercise, without delay and to the fullest extent, the unlimited power

so suddenly granted them over a class which had hitherto successfully

defied their jurisdiction; nor was it difficult to excite the people

to join in the persecution of those who had always held themselves as

superior beings, and who were now pronounced by the highest authority

in the church to be sinners of the worst description. The ignorant

populace were naturally captivated by the idea of the vicarious

mortification with which their own errors were to be redeemed by the

abstinence imposed upon their pastors, and they were not unreasonably

led to believe that they were themselves deeply wronged by the want

of purity in their ecclesiastics. Add to this the attraction which

persecution always possesses for the persecutor, and the license

of plunder so dear to a turbulent and barbarous age, and it is not

difficult to comprehend the motive power of the storm which burst over

the heads of the secular clergy, and which must have satisfied by its

severity the stern soul of Gregory himself.

A contemporary writer, whose name has been lost, but who is supposed

by Dom Martène to have been a priest of Trèves, gives us a very lively

picture of the horrors which ensued, and as he shows himself friendly

in principle to the reform attempted, his account may be received as

trustworthy. He describes what amounted almost to a dissolution of

society, slave betraying master and master slave; friend informing

against friend; snares and pitfalls spread before the feet of all;

faith and truth unknown. The peccant priests suffered terribly. Some,

reduced to utter poverty, and unable to bear the scorn and contempt

of those from whom they had been wont to receive honor and respect,

wandered off as homeless exiles; others, mutilated by the indecent

zeal of ardent puritans, were carried around to exhibit their shame

and misery; others, tortured in lingering death, bore to the tribunal

on high the testimony of blood-guiltiness against their persecutors;

while others, again, in spite of danger, secretly continued the

connections which exposed them to all these cruelties. In the midst

of these troubles, as might be expected, the offices of religion were

wholly neglected; the new-born babe received no holy baptism; the dying

penitent expired without the saving viaticum; the sinner could cleanse

his soul by no confession and absolution; and the devotee could no

longer be strengthened by the daily sacrifice of the mass.[550] Another

writer, of nearly the same date, relates with holy horror how the laity

shook off all the obedience which they owed to their pastors, and,

despising the sacraments prepared by them, trod the Eucharist under

foot and cast out the sacred wine, administered baptism with unlicensed

hands, and substituted for the holy chrism the filthy wax collected

from their own ears.[551]

When such was the fate of the pastors, it is easy to imagine the

misery inflicted on their unfortunate wives. A zealous admirer of

Gregory relates with pious gratulation, as indubitable evidence of

divine vengeance, how, maddened by their wrongs, some of them openly

committed suicide, while others were found dead in the beds which they

had sought in perfect health; and this being proof of their possession

by the devil, they were denied Christian sepulture. The case of Count

Manigold of Veringen affords a not uninstructive instance of the

frightful passions aroused by the relentless cruelty which thus branded

them as infamous, tore them from their families, and cast them adrift

upon a mocking world. The count had put in force the orders of Gregory

with strict severity throughout his estates in the Swabian Alps. One

miserable creature thus driven from her husband swore that the count

should undergo the same fate, and, in the blindness of her rage, she

poisoned the Countess of Veringen, whose widowed husband, overwhelmed

with grief, sought no second mate.[552]

Nor was the customary machinery of miracles wanting to stimulate the

zeal of the faithful in this pious work, and to convince the doubters

whose worldly wisdom or humanity might shrink from the task assigned

them. Unchaste priests at Mass would find sudden blasts of wind

overturn the cup, and scatter the sacred wine upon the ground, or

the holy wafer would be miraculously snatched out of their polluted

hands. The saintly virgin Herluca saw in a vision the Saviour, with his

wounds profusely bleeding, and was told that if she desired to escape a

repetition of the horrifying spectacle, she must no longer be present

at the ministrations of Father Richard, the officiating priest of her

convent—a revelation which she employed effectually upon him and his

parishioners. The same holy maiden being observed staring intently out

of the window, declared, upon being questioned, that she had seen the

soul of the priest of Rota carried off by demons to eternal punishment;

and, on sending to his habitation, it was found that he had expired at

the very moment.[553] Puerile as these tales may seem to us, they were

stern realities to those against whose weaknesses they were directed,

and whose sufferings were thus enhanced by every art which bigotry

could bring to bear upon the credulous passions of a barbarous populace.

It cannot be a matter of surprise if men, who were thus threatened

with almost every worldly evil, should seek to defend themselves by

means as violent as those employed by their persecutors. Their cruel

intensity of fear is aptly illustrated by what occurred at Cambrai in

1077, where a man was actually burned at the stake as a heretic for

declaring his adhesion to the Hildebrandine doctrine that the masses

of simoniacal and concubinary priests were not to be listened to by

the faithful.[554] So, in the same year, when the pseudo-emperor

Rodolf of Swabia was elected by the papalists at the Diet of Forcheim

as a competitor to Henry IV., he manifested his zeal to suppress

the heresies of avarice and lust by refusing the ministration of a

simoniacal deacon in the coronation solemnities at Mainz. The clergy

of that city, who had so successfully resisted, for two years, the

efforts of their archbishop Siegfrid to reduce them to subjection to

the canons, were dismayed at the prospect of coming under the control

of so pious a prince, who would indubitably degrade them or compel

them to give up their wives and simoniacally acquired churches. They

therefore stirred up a tumult among the citizens, who were ready to

espouse their cause; and when Rodolf left his palace for vespers, he

was attacked by the people. The conflict was renewed on his return,

causing heavy slaughter on both sides, and though the townsmen were

driven back, Rodolf was forced to leave the city.[555]

* * * * *

This incident affords us a glimpse into the political aspects of

the reform. In the tremendous struggle between the empire and

papacy, Gregory allied himself with all the disaffected princes of

Germany, and they were careful to justify their rebellions under the

specious pretext of zeal for the apostolic church. They of course,

therefore, entered heartily into his measures for the restoration of

ecclesiastical discipline, and professed the sternest indignation

towards those whom he placed under the ban. Thus, after Henry, in 1076,

had caused his bishops to declare the degradation of Gregory, when the

revolted princes held their assembly at Tribur, and in turn decreed

the deposition of Henry, they used the utmost caution to exclude all

who had communicated with Henry since his excommunication, together

with those who had obtained preferment by simony, or who had joined in

communion with married priests.[556] The connection, indeed, became so

marked that the papalists throughout Germany were stigmatized by the

name of Patarini—a term which had acquired so sinister a significance

in the troubles of Milan.[557] In this state of affairs it was natural

that common enmities and common dangers should unite the persecuted

clergy and the hunted sovereign. Yet it is a curious illustration

of the influence which the denunciations of sacerdotal marriage had

exercised over the public mind, that although Henry tacitly protected

the simoniacal and married ecclesiastics, and although they rallied

around him and afforded him unquestionable and invaluable aid, still

he never ventured openly to defend them. Writers both then and since

have attributed the measure of success with which he sustained the

fluctuating contest, and the consequent sufferings of the unbending

pope, to the efforts of the recalcitrant clergy who resisted the yoke

imposed on them by Rome.[558] Yet Henry had formally and absolutely

pledged his assistance when Gregory commenced his efforts, and had

repeated the promise in 1075;[559] and from this position he never

definitely withdrew. Even when the schismatic bishops of his party,

at the synod of Brixen, in 1080, pronounced sentence of deposition on

Gregory, and filled the assumed vacancy with an anti-pope, the man

whom they elected never ventured to dispute the principle of Gregory’s

reforms, although the Lombard prelates, at that very time, were warmly

defending their married and simoniacal clergy.[560] Indeed, Guiberto

of Ravenna, or Clement III., took occasion to express his detestation

of concubinage in language nearly as strong as that of his rival,

although he threatened with excommunication the presumptuous laymen

who should refuse to receive the sacraments of priests that had not

been regularly tried and condemned at his own papal tribunal.[561] In

thus endeavoring to place himself as a shield between the suffering

priesthood and the persecuting populace, he was virtually striving

to annul the reforms of Gregory, since in no other way could they be

carried into effect; but he was forced to coincide with Gregory as to

the principle which dictated those reforms. Notwithstanding all these

precautions, however, the papalists were not disposed to allow their

opponents to escape the responsibility of the alliance which brought

them so much strength by dividing the church, and no opportunity was

lost of stigmatizing them for the license which they protected. When

Guiberto and his cardinals were driven out of Rome in 1084 by Robert

Guiscard and his Normans, the flying prelates were ridiculed, not

for their cowardice, but for their shaven chins, and the wives and

concubines whom they publicly carried about with them.[562]

At length Henry and his partisans appear to have felt it necessary to

make some public declaration to relieve themselves from the odium of

supporting and favoring a practice which was popularly regarded as a

heresy and a scandal. When the papalists, under their King Hermann,

at the Easter of 1085 (April 20th), convened a general assembly of

their faction at Quedlinburg and again forbade all commerce with women

to those in orders,[563] the imperialists lost no time in putting

themselves on the same record with their rivals. Three weeks later

Henry gathered around him, at Mainz, all the princes and prelates who

professed allegiance to him, for the purpose of securing the succession

to his eldest son, Conrad, as King of Germany, and there, in that

solemn diet, marriage was formally prohibited to the priesthood.[564]

Gregory was then lying on his dying bed in the far off castle of

Salerno, and ere the news could reach him he was past the vanities of

earthly triumph. Could he have known, however, that the cause for which

he had risked the integrity and independence of the church had thus

received the support of its bitterest enemies, and that his unwavering

purpose had thus achieved the moral victory of forcing his adversaries

to range themselves under his banner, his spirit would have rejoiced,

and his confidence in the ultimate success of the great theocratic

system, for the maintenance of which he was thus expiring in exile,

would have softened the sorrows of a life which closed in the darkness

and doubt of defeat.

XV.

CENTRAL EUROPE.

Hildebrand had passed away, leaving to his successors the legacy of

inextinguishable hate and unattained ambition. Nor was the reform for

which he had labored as yet by any means secured in practice, even

though his opponents had been reduced to silence or had been forced

to render a formal adhesion to the canons which he had proclaimed so

boldly.

The cause of asceticism, it is true, had gained many adherents among

the laity. Throughout Germany, husbands and wives separated from each

other in vast numbers, and devoted themselves to the service of the

church, without taking vows or assuming ecclesiastical garments; while

those who were unmarried renounced the pleasures of the world, and,

placing themselves under the direction of spiritual guides, abandoned

themselves entirely to religious duties. To such an extent did this

prevail, that the pope was applied to for his sanction, which he

eagerly granted, and the movement doubtless added strength to the party

of reform.[565] Yet but little had thus far been really gained in

purifying the church itself, notwithstanding the fearful ordeal through

which its ministers had passed.

As for Germany, the indomitable energy of Henry IV., unrepressed by

defeat and unchilled by misfortune, had at length achieved a virtual

triumph over his banded enemies. But four bishops of the Empire—those

of Wurzburg, Passau, Worms, and Constance—owed allegiance to Urban

II. All the other dioceses were filled by schismatics, who rendered

obedience to the anti-pope Clement. In 1089 the Catholic or papalist

princes offered to lay down their arms and do homage to Henry if he

would acknowledge Urban and make his peace with the true church. The

emperor, however, had a pope who suited him, and he entertained too

lively a recollection of the trials from which he was escaping to open

the door to a renewal of the papal pretensions, which he had at length

successfully defied, nor would he consent to stigmatize his faithful

prelates as schismatics.[566] He therefore pursued his own course, and

Guiberto of Ravenna enjoyed the honors of the popedom, checkered by

alternate vicissitudes of good and evil fortune, until removed by death

in the year 1100,[567] his sanctity attested by the numerous miracles

wrought at his tomb, which only needed the final success of the

imperialist cause to enrich the calendar with a St. Clement in place of

a St. Gregory and a St. Urban.[568]

Under such auspices, no very zealous maintenance of ecclesiastical

discipline was to be expected. If Clement’s sensibilities were humored

by a nominal reprobation of sacerdotal marriage, he could scarcely

ask for more or insist that Henry should rekindle the embers of

disaffection by enforcing the odious rules which had proved so powerful

a cause of trouble to their authors and his enemies. Accordingly,

it cannot surprise us to observe that Urban II., in following out

the views of his predecessors, felt it necessary to adopt measures

even more violent than those which in Gregory’s hands had caused so

much excitement and confusion, but whose inefficiency was confessed

by the very effort to supplement them. In 1089, the year after his

consecration, Urban published at the council of Amalfi a decree by

which, as usual, married ecclesiastics were sentenced to deposition,

and bishops who permitted such irregularities were suspended; but where

Gregory had been content with ejecting husbands and wives, and with

empowering secular rulers to enforce the edict on recalcitrants, Urban,

with a refinement of cruelty, reduced the unfortunate women to slavery,

and offered their servitude as a bribe to the nobles who should aid in

thus purifying the church.[569] If this infamous canon did not work

misery so wide-spread as the comparatively milder decretals of Gregory,

it was because the power of Urban was circumscribed by the schism,

while he was apparently himself ashamed or afraid to promulgate it in

regions where obedience was doubtful. When Pibo, Bishop of Toul, in the

same year, 1089, sent an envoy to ask his decision on various points

of discipline, including sacerdotal marriage (the necessity of such

inquiry showing the futility of previous efforts), Urban transmitted

the canons of Amalfi in response, but omitted this provision, which

well might startle the honest German mind.[570] Perhaps, on reflection,

Urban may himself have wished to disavow the atrocity, for in a

subsequent council, when again attacking the ineradicable sin, he

contented himself with simply forbidding all such marriages, and

ordering all persons who were bound by orders or vows to be separated

from their wives or concubines, and to be subjected to due penance.[571]

Yet even in those regions of Germany which persevered in resisting

Henry and in recognizing Urban as pope, the persecution of twenty

years was still unsuccessful, and the people had apparently relapsed

into condoning the wickedness of their pastors. In an assembly held

at Constance in 1094, it was deemed necessary to impose a fine on all

who should be present at the services performed by priests who had

transgressed the canons.[572] When this was the case in the Catholic

provinces, it is easy to imagine that in the imperialist territories

the thunders of Gregory and Urban had long since been forgotten, and

that marrying and giving in marriage were practised with as little

scruple as ever. A fair illustration, indeed, of the amount of respect

paid to the rules of discipline is afforded by a discussion on the

choice of a successor to Cosmo Bishop of Prague, who died in 1098.

Duke Brecislas, in filling the vacancy with his chaplain Hermann,

endeavored to rebut the arguments of those who objected to the foreign

birth of the appointee by urging that fact as a recommendation, since,

as a stranger, he would not be pressed upon by a crowd of kindred nor

be burdened with the care of children, thus showing that the native

priesthood, as a general rule, were heads of families.[573] For this,

moreover, they could not plead ignorance, for a Bohemian penitential

of the period expressly prohibits priests from having companions whose

society could give rise to suspicion of any kind.[574]

* * * * *

At length the duel which, for more than thirty years, Henry had so

gallantly fought with the successors of St. Peter drew to a close. Ten

years of supremacy he had enjoyed in Germany, and he looked forward

to the peaceful decline of his unquiet life, when the treacherous

calm was suddenly disturbed. Papal intrigues in 1093 had caused the

parricidal revolt of his eldest born, the weak and vacillating Conrad,

whose early death had then extinguished the memory of his crime. That

unnatural rebellion had gained for Rome the North of Italy; and as

the emperor’s second son, Henry, grew to manhood, he, too, was marked

as a fit instrument to pierce his father’s heart, and to extend the

domination of the church by the foulest wrongs that man can perpetrate.

The startling revolution which in 1105 precipitated Henry from a throne

to a prison, from an absolute monarch to a captive embracing the knees

of his son and pleading for his wretched life, established forever the

supremacy of the papacy over Germany. The consequent enforcement of the

law of celibacy became only a question of time.

As the excuse for the rebellion was the necessity of restoring the

empire to the communion of Rome, one of the first measures of the

conspirators was the convocation of a council to be held at Nordhausen,

May 29, 1105, and one of the objects specified for its action was the

expulsion of all married priests.[575] The council was duly held,

and duly performed its work of condemning the heresy which permitted

benefices to be occupied and sacred functions exercised by those who

were involved in the ties of matrimony.[576] Pope Paschal II. was not

remiss in his share of the ceremony, by which he was to receive the

fruits of his treacherous intrigues. The following year a great council

was held at Guastalla, where, after interminable discussions as to the

propriety of receiving without re-ordination those who had compromised

themselves or who had been ordained by schismatics, he admitted into

the fold all the repentant ecclesiastics of the party of Henry IV.[577]

The text of the canon granting this boon to the imperialist clergy

bears striking testimony to the completeness of the separation which

had existed between the Teutonic and the Roman churches in stating that

throughout the empire scarce any Catholic ecclesiastics were to be

found.[578] It scarcely needed the declaration which Paschal made in

1107 at the synod of Troyes, condemning married priests to degradation

and deprivation,[579] to show that the doctrines of Damiani and

Hildebrand were thenceforth to be the law of the empire.

The question thus was definitely settled in prohibiting the priests

of Germany from marrying or from retaining the wives whom they had

taken previous to ordination. It was settled, indeed, in the rolls

of parchment which recorded the decrees of councils and the trading

bargains of pope and kaiser, yet the perennial struggle continued, and

the parchment roll for yet awhile was powerless before the passions of

man, who did not cease to be man because his crown was shaven and his

shoulders wore cope and stole.

An Historical Sketch of Sacerdotal Celibacy in the Christian Church · 第 19 / 77 段