페이지 이미지

for other Churches, but delegated the executive powers of the Metropolitans and Bishops. Thus S. Leo the Great spoke of an “everliving power,” and of a “superabounding authority,” residing in the See of S. Peter. Thus Pope Hilarius decides that in obedience to the “ Ordinances of the Fathers” all Churches ought to submit to the Roman rule, “in order that, as there is but one Faith, so there may be but one order and discipline in the Churches.” Thus Pope Felix II. condemned Acacius by virtue of his own prerogative. Thus Pope Gelasius supports the Decretals, “ for it is by virtue of these very Canons, that an appeal to the Chair of Peter is given to the whole Catholic Body.” Thus Pope Symmachus embodied in his Canon-law the doctrine of the Papal Impeccability. Each succeeding Pontiff felt more strongly than his predecessor, that bis executive and administrative power all centred round the Decretal system. It was the very strong-hold of his authority. Although from the death of Hormisda to the accession of S. Gregory the Great, a period of nearly seventy years, "the torpor of the Gothic and Byzantine period” prevented any great extension of the decretal system, still the missionary fields, which were first opened by S. Gregory, afforded a new sphere for its exercise, and S. Wilfrid did for the Anglo-Saxon Church, under Pope Vitalian, a work similar in kind to that performed by S. Boniface in Germany. Let us make out the most we can of the lapse of Pope Honorius I. : most certain it is that the decretal prerogative was strenuously supported under Pope Gregory III., who affirmed that “ the Pon. tiff of Rome is the only arbiter and judge of the Christian commonwealth, both in the East and in the West.” The Caroline Books and the Council of Frankfort may have sided with Leo the Isaurian against image worship, but the Latin Church had more than gained the day already in the Nicæan Council of A.D. 787.

It is with the conquests of Charlemagne, and his dealings with the Roman Pontiff, that Mr. Greenwood recommences his history. He is candid enough to admit that his original materials are very slight; the apnals of Einhard, and the writings contained in Pertz's Monumenta Germanica being the most important. The Papal bistory is unfortunately, for the most part, a secular history during the time that it is bound up with the affairs of France. Now Mr. Greenwood's plan is to make it appear that the Roman Pontiffs received all, and gave nothing in return; their services are both undervalued and distorted, while the favours which they have received are often magnified. History contains its own moral. If the Bishops of Rome had not been for a long series of years almost indispensable for the consolidation of the Frankish empire, they would not have played the part which they did play in the formation of that kingdom. We assert, that the services of the Popes were real services ; and, as being such, the Holy See reaped a real reward.

The commencement of the reign of Charlemagne, and nearly

[ocr errors]

nough to adard, and the importantiar history of Mr.

nica beinhe most partfairs of Franceni Pontiffs fer

thirty years of it beside, were devoted to the conquest and conversion of the Saxons, and especially of the hordes dwelling in the land between the Elbe and Weser. It is curious the light in which Mr. Greenwood looks at the conversion of large bodies of pagans to the Christian faith, “It will,” he says, “appear, that the advances of Latin Christianity were scarcely less indebted to the arms and policy of that great prince, [Charlemagne,] than the progress of the Mohammedan faith to those of the Arab Prophet and his successors." The Saxon missionaries, who, by the conquests of the Merovingian princes, had been enabled to spread themselves over the adjoining Saxon cantons, find but a slender reward for all their heroic self-sacrifice, devotion, and toil, dealt out to them in the pages of the Cathedra Petri, the author of which is but too anxious to insinuate, that the Christian Baptism of the Frank was but another name for subjection to a foreign yoke. The result of Charlemagne's expedition is thus graphically told: “The remnant of thirty campaigns of undistinguishing slaughter and wholesale expatriation, accepted baptism, and be. came permanently incorporated with the empire of the Franks and Christianity." The episcopal administration of S. Willibad is treated with no better grace, and the acceptation of tithes by the Saxons is, without a shadow of proof, attributed to “nothing but the bopelessness of their condition.” As to Charlemagne himself, the war was one altogether of sordid aggrandisement. The Clergy were no purer in their labours, for they came from “the great seminary of Maintz," and the missionary spirit of Boniface and Sturmius animated their body. The conversion of these Saxon idolaters is spoken of, as tending to the “ supposed glory of God;" and Mr. Greenwood's opinion of the whole matter is, that “from the beginning to the end of this nefarious enterprise, there was an implied covenant between Charlemagne and the Clergy to share the proceeds of their combined extensive dominion and wealth.”3 Surely such a reckless imputer of motives as this, loses all right to be treated as an historian of calm judgment and impartial decision; and it is quite time, for Mr. Greenwood's sake, that the curtain be dropped upon the successes of Charlemagne in Germany, upon the labours of its first missionaries, and upon the episcopate of S. Willibad the first Bishop of Bremen.

We are next favoured with the "scheme of Charlemagne for a pragmatic union of Church and State," and with the author's opinion that the harmonious working of the two is reserved for an ultimate or penultimate age of the world; and then follows a very interesting and well-written section upon Feudalism and its four elements, the Leudes, the Antrustions, the Freemen, and the Serfs, or predial slaves. The position and privileges of each are discussed in detail, and when the action of the Church upon this lay condition is 1 P. 53. 2 P. 56.

[ocr errors]

3 P. 58. 2 F


[ocr errors]

passed under review, we are gravely informed, that “the Churches were, perhaps, the greatest of all kidnappers and man-stealers ;"| and yet that notwithstanding the state-patronage “the sympathies of the masses go with the Church.” The men of those days must have been very different from men either before or since their time, to love and sympathise with a "kidnapping statepatronaged institution.” We must receive of course Mr. Greenwood's facts, an explanation of which he does not deign to .give. The chapter concludes with an exposition of Charlemagne's Church-andState theory, and some very curious reasons indeed, (of course in disparagement of the Church,) why this union could not be more strictly carried out.

Thé extant epistles of Pope Hadrian I., as well as the copious biography of Charlemagne by Einhard, enable us readily to trace the various offices of friendship and good-will that existed between the Frankish King and the Roman Patriarch. Had not Pope Hadrian I. good cause to suspect the vassal dukes of Beneventum and Spoleturn of collusion with the royal commissioners ? And when Charlemagne visited Italy for the second time, was it unreasonable that the Pope should ask for a confirmation of those privi. leges which most certainly had been granted to his see by King Pippin, and which was but an instalment of that dominion which Constantine the Great had granted to the Church in her palmy days of his patronage. As to calling the Donation of Constantine an “impudent forgery,"2 because there was no copy of it in the Dionysian Code, such language is, to say the least, unfounded, when, for aught that we can prove to the contrary, that very document was included among the “ plures donationes in sacro Scrinio Lateranensi reconditæ" mentioned by Pope Hadrian in his letter to the King, of 776. A third time did the King visit Italy, and then his sons were not only baptized, but were crowned by the Pope; Pippin as." King of the Lombards,” and Louis as “King of Aquitaine." Why did Charlemagne admit the Pope to have a power, which Mr. Greenwood says was “ that of a principal rather than of an auxiliary in all the successes of the state ? Was it because the Pope was ever crying for more ? ever saying, Give, grant, endow? Our author admits that they respected each other greatly. May it not have been that each also respected conscientiously the other's office ? He says that

“ Both the Pope and his royal friend were frankly engaged in the pursuits of secular ambition, and each found himself in the presence of the other, under the only restraints to which proud and lofty spirits submit with pleasure. Both knew how useful, and both might secretly feel how obstructive they might be to each other ; but in neither did these feelings lead to those vicissitudes of trust and jealousy which they 1 P. 72.

2 P. 83.

generally engender in characters of a feebler and less self-reliant cast. Both of them experimentally knew how far they could rely upon each other, and thus their differences never assumed an acrimonious or quarrelsome character.”'l

Whatever the private friendship might have been, the political alliance was certainly not a personal one. Charlemagne restored Pope Leo III., who was Hadrian's successor to his throne, from which he had been expelled by rebellion ; was crowned by the same Pope, the people shouting out, “Long life to Charles Augustus, the great and peace-giving Emperor of the Romans, whom the hand of God hath crowned.” Of course this act of coronation has been imputed to the most corrupt motives by Mr. Greenwood; for either the Pope did it for the better protection of his own domestic position, or for the overt exaltation of the Holy See. In the main, both the Moissac Chronicle and Einhard's life of the King agree with Anastasius' life of Pope Leo III., to which authority, rather than to Mr. Greenwood's book, we will refer our readers.

A new king, Louis the Pious, was crowned by a new Pope, Stephen IV.: Theganus' narrative of both the meeting and the subsequent coronation is very interesting indeed. It is certain that the Papal power lost nothing by the change of kings ; for Louis the Pious, in his settlement of the crown in 817, staunchly maintained the integrity of his empire, “ lest detriment should thereby arise to the Holy Church, and he should incur the anger of Him by Whom kings reign." Taken altogether, the reign of Louis the Pious surely was no pillow of roses; what with the rebellion of Bernard, King of Italy, and the remorse which his punishment occasioned Louis; his public penance; his association of his son Lothar in the empire (who, by the by, was crowned by Pope Pascal); his unpopularity at home; his captivity by his son Pippin of Aquitaine; his impolitic clemency on his restoration; the final rebellion and forfeiture of Pippin; the second insurrection against him; the affair of the “Field of Lies ;” and his deposition by the “rebel Pope” and princes. It was while a furious contest was being carried on for the throne of Aquitaine by Charles the Bald, the son of his second wife Juta, “ the pious and forgiving son of Charlemagne, a man of infinite passive courage and admirable private virtues, passed from the scene."2 He died A.D. 840. The interposition of Pope Gregory IV. between Louis the Pious and his sons, the brothers Lothar and Louis of Germany, affords infinite satisfaction to Mr. Greenwood. He thus triumphantly sums up the matter: “A single opinion has been formed by posterity upon the conduct of the pontifical and royal conspirators. The Field of Lies' properly expresses the judgment of that and every subseI P. 98.

· P. 148.

quent age upon this detestable transaction." But he is compelled to admit that the Pope “was himself plunged in deep perplexity at the difficulties of the task imposed upon him; and in fact the whole burden of the arbitration lay with the Abbot Wala “and his satellite Paschasius Radbertus," who, for a reason hereafter to be mentioned, is treated by Mr. Greenwood with especial bitterness. As to the Pope, we are gravely informed that, being of no further use to the exulting conspirators, he retired to Rome in great depression of spirit. Injudiciously as Pope Gregory behaved, we are glad to learn that this depression of spirit was not of very long continuance; for the publication of the Isidurian decretals largely administered both “lively support and comfort to the vexed mind of Gregory IV.”

What were these Isidorian decretals that came so opportunely to the comfort of the troubled Pontiff? The answer to this question forms the subject of the sixth, seventh, and eighth chapters of the sixth book of the Cathedra Petri ; and is indeed by far the most useful portion of the present volume. These chapters are occupied with an account of the origin and growth of the Canon law, with the analysis of the decretals, concluding with a digest of ecclesiastical law in general. To our remarks on them in detail we now proceed.

We have stated that the decretal system has all along formed the centre of the Papal power; a system which was favoured in a most remarkable manner by the discordance between general and particular Church laws ; so that by no violent or abrupt innovation, but by a general appeal to the “ Canons” or the “universal tradi. tions of the Fathers ” the judgment of Rome could claim the authority of antiquity. If the individual churches bad compared the books of their law, their discrepancies were at once manifest; and the uncertainty caused by such investigations afforded a powerful motive to Metropolitans even to throw themselves upon the pure and tradition fount of Canon Law, that from time immemorial had sprung up around the Holy See. Mr. Greenwood opens his account of the Canon Law with the curious assertion that there was but a single Canon in the primitive Church, and that was not of government at all, but of faith and doctrine. The style of many of the sentences in the Ignatian Epistles leads us to imagine that the martyr's commands were but reiterations of portions of the Canon Law of the Church of his day. That S. Irenæus speaks of the xarwy ons aandelas, 2 and that S. Člement of Alexandria uses the expression κανων εκκλησιαστικός,3 or that Tertullian appeals to a “ Regula Fidei,”4 no one who has read these Fathers can deny. But what has a Baptismal Creed, or the harmony of the Old and New Testaments, to do with the laws affecting the organic govern

1 P. 146.

2 Lib. i. 9.

3 Strom. vi. 13.

4 Presc. 14.

« 이전계속 »