146

VOICES OF THE LAITY AGAINST THE CLERGY.

with him familiarly, exhorting him, as a father, never again to disturb the peace of the church, and thus this schism was ended.

Twice was Bernard called to Italy. Here also he exerted a great and powerful influence on the minds of the nations: a great deal was said of his miracles. He reduced under the pope the restless Lombard cities, and helped on the triumph of Innocent, at a synod in Pisa, in 1134. In the year 1136, the latter was enabled to march triumphantly to Rome with the emperor Lothaire the Second. Bernard also came there, and sought to destroy the remains of the schism, of which king Roger, in particular, still continued to be the support; but he did not as yet succeed. After Anaclete's death, in the year 1138, his party chose, it is true, a successor; but yet it was not with any view of defending longer his claims to the papal throne, but only in order to secure a treaty on more advantageous terms with the other party; and, in the year 1139, Innocent was at liberty to hold a Lateran council for the purpose of sealing the peace of the church.

Yet precisely at this time a furious storm broke out, by which the last years of the rule of Innocent, and the reigns of the next succeeding popes, were disquieted; events which were important on account of their immediate consequences, and as symptoms of a more deepgrounded reaction against the dominant church-system, for which the way was now preparing.

In order to find the origin of these commotions, we must glance back and trace the consequences of earlier events. We saw how the popes, ever since the time of Leo the Ninth, had placed themselves at the head of a movement of reform, in opposition to the corruption of the clergy; how, by this movement, individual ecclesiastics and monks of more serious minds had been incited to stand forth as castigatory preachers against the secularized clergy. Not only such preachers, but the popes themselves, as for example pope Gregory the Seventh, had also stirred up the people against the corrupt clergy. Thus there rose up from amongst the laity severe censors of the corrupt clergy. Doubtless many, who had ever contemplated the lives of these men with indignation and abhorrence, rejoiced at now having it in their power, under the papal authority, of giving vent to their long-repressed anger; and even those, who themselves led an immoral life, made a merit of standing forth against the unchaste ecclesiastics, and driving them off from their benefices.3 From this insurrection of the laity

Of such, Gerhoh of Reichersberg, in his book: De corrupto ecclesiae statu, in Baluz. Miscellan. t. v, p. 205, where he places the conflicts which these men had to sustain on a parallel with the earlier ones of the martyrs with pagan tyrants, remarks: Novissime diebus istis viri religiosi contra simoniacos, conducticios (the itinerant clergy hired to perform mechanically the priestly functions, who were ready to strike a bargain with any body) incestuosos, dissolutos aut, quod pejus est, irregulariter congregatos clericos proelium grande tempore Gregorii Septi, habuerunt et adhuc habent.

PRINCIPLES AT THE TIME OF ARNOLD OF BRESCIA.

147

against the secularized clergy proceeded also separatist movements, which did not restrict themselves to the limits set up by the popes." In addition to this, came now the important and lasting controversies concerning the investiture, by means of which more liberal investigations had been called forth respecting the boundaries between church and state, and their respective rights. Pope Paschalis the Second had in fact himself publicly avowed, that the regalia were to the church a foreign possession, whereby its officers were drawn aside from their appropriate spiritual duties, and betrayed into a dependence on the secular power. And there existed, as we have already remarked, an entire party who held this opinion; who demanded that the bishops and abbots, in order to be excused from taking the oath of allegiance to the princes, should surrender back to them the regalia, restoring to Cesar the things that are Cesar's; in accordance with that precept of the apostle Paul, which required the clergy not to meddle with secular business. In opposition to the practice of mixing up together things spiritual and secular, and in justification of the oath of allegiance sworn by the bishops to the emperors, propositions like the following were already advanced: If the clergy would be entirely independent of the secular power, let them, like the clergy of the primitive church, be content with the tythes and the free gifts of the communities.1

It was a young clergyman of Brescia, by the name of Arnold, who gave the first impulse to this new reaction against the secularization of the church, and against the power of the pope in temporal things. From what we have said concerning the conflict of spiritual tendencies in this age, and particularly concerning the causes and consequences of the controversies about investiture, it is easy to explain how a young man of a serious and ardent temperament, brought up in the midst of such events and circumstances, might be carried away by this tendency; nor should we need to trace the matter to any other origin. But the account of a contemporary, which lets us into the knowledge of another circumstance that had an important influence on the development of Arnold's mind, is by no means improbable.2 When the great teacher Abelard assembled around him, in a lonely region near Troyes, the youth that poured in upon him from all quarters, and by his lectures fired them with his own enthusiasm, Arnold,

manner of lust: Tanta in clerum super praefato canone (the law concerning celibacy) bachabatur instantia, ac si eum singularis ad detestationem talium pulsaret pudicitia.

Gerhoh, in his book, De statu ecclesiae, published by Gretzer, (see above p. 134) says expressly: Qui pro parte regis erant sufficere ajebant ecclesiasticis debere decimas et oblationes liberas id est nullo regali vel imperiali servitio obnoxias. Satis, inquit, apparet, sacerdotes regibus se per hominia obligantes Deo pro sui officii gradu sufficienter placere non posse. Unde, ut ei placeant, cui se probaverunt, militiam et

caetera, pro quibus hominia regibus debentur, regno libera relinquant et ipsi vacent orationibus ovibusque Christi pascendis invigilent, ad quid instituti sunt. Gretser, opp. t, vi, f. 258. Here we have the prin ciples set forth by Arnold, as they naturally shaped themselves out of the reaction, partly of the state interest, partly of the purer Christian spirit, against the secularization of the clergy, and not as they were first excogitated by Arnold.

Otto of Freisingen, in the 2d book of his History of Frederic the First, c. xx: Petrum Abaelardum olim praeceptorem habuerat.

148

ARNOLD'S LEADING IDEA.

who in his early youth had been a reader in the church at Brescia, was one of the many that did not shrink from the meagre fare and various deprivations necessary to be undergone in order to enjoy the privilege of listening to the voice of that great master. The speculative vein in Abelard's style and teachings did not, it is true, fall in with the peculiar bent of Arnold's mind; and perhaps even an Abelard would have found it impossible to produce any essential change in a native tendency which, as in the case of Arnold, was so much more practical than speculative. But Abelard possessed a versatility of intellect, which enabled him to arouse minds of very different structure on different sides. From such of his writings as have been preserved to us, we may gather that, among other qualities, an important practical element entered also into his discourses; that he spoke sharply against the worldly temper in ecclesiastics and monks, and contrasted their condition as it actually was with what it ought to be. It was the religious, ethical element in Abelard's discourses which left the deepest impression on the warm and earnest heart of the young man,2 and, inflamed with a holy ardor, he returned home to his native city.

It was observed that he had undergone a change, a thing not uncommon among the young secular clergy, who, awakened by some remarkable providence to a more serious religious turn of mind, altered their dress, and their entire mode of life, appeared as regular canonicals, or monks, and now stood forth the bold and open chastisers of worldly ecclesiastics.3 The inspiring idea of his movements

'In harmony with this is what Günther Ligurinus, in his poem on the deeds of Frederic the First, says concerning Arnold: Tenui nutrivit Gallia sumptu edocuitque diu. These words, it is true, might, in consequence of the relation of this historian to Otto of Freisingen, appear to be a mere repetition of the report given by the latter; but the phrase, "tenui nutrivit sumptu," may doubtless point to some other source; they agree very well with the time of his connection with Abelard.

2 This connection between Abelard and Arnold has been doubted in these modern times. We allow, an authority so important as that of the abbot Bernard of Clairvaux, seems to be against the correctness of this account; for this abbot expresses himself as if he had first made his appearance in a way altogether independent of Abelard; and had not till later, when banished from Italy he came to France, espoused the cause of that persecuted man. See Bernard, in his 189th letter to pope Innocent, § 3: Sibilavit apis, quae erat in Francia, api de Italia et venerunt in unum adversus Dominum; and ep. 195: Exsecratus a Petro apostolo adhaeserat Petro Abaelardo. We must suppose, then, that Otto of Freisingen had been led, by what he had heard concerning the later connection between Arnold and Abelard, into the mis

take of representing the former as a pupil of the latter. Upon this hypothesis, we must suppose that Arnold had been led, only at some later period, by the common interest of opposition to the dominant church-system, to take sides with Abelard. The testimony, however, of Otto of Freisingen, who had himself pursued his studies in France, is of importance; and we are by no means warranted to accuse him of an anachronism, in his account of a fact not in itself improbable. The less inward relationship there appears at first glance to have been between the teachings of Abelard and those of Arnold, the less reason have we to call in doubt an account which represents Arnold as having been a pupil of Abelard. The narrative of Günther, mentioned in the previous note, which enters into particulars, agrees with the above. How easily might it have escaped the notice of Bernard, however, who would have taken but little interest in the earlier life of Arnold, that, of the great crowd of young men who flocked to hear Abelard, Arnold was one?

3 The provost Gerhoh of Reichersberg, would be inclined, with the views he entertained, to judge more mildly concerning the man who agreed with him in his attacks on the secularized clergy, but did not restrain himself within the same limits. He says of his teaching: Quae etsi zelo forte

ARNOLD'S ATTACKS ON THE CLERGY.

149

was that of a holy and pure church, a renovation of the spiritual order, after the pattern of the apostolic church. His life corresponded with his doctrine. Zealously opposing the corruption of the worldlyminded clergy and monks, and requiring that clergymen and monks should follow the steps of the apostles in evangelical poverty and chastity, he set the example himself, by his dress, his entire mode of living, and the ascetical severity with which he treated his own person, a fact which even his most violent adversaries could not but acknowledge.1 He required that the bishops and abbots, in conformity with the teachings of Holy Scripture, should wholly renounce their worldly possessions and privileges, as well as all secular business, and give all these things back to the princes. The clergy should be content with whatever the love of the communities might bestow on them for their support, the oblations, the firstlings, and tythes. The incontinent clergy, living in luxury and debauchery, were no longer, he declared, true ecclesiastics, they were unfit to discharge the priestly functions; in maintaining which position, he might perhaps expect to attach to his side the Hildebrandian zealots. The corrupt bishops and priests were no longer bishops and priests, the secularized church was no longer the house of God. It does not appear, that his opposition to the corrupt church had ever led him to advance any such remarks as could be interpreted into heresy; for, had he done so, men would, from the first, have proceeded against him more sharply, and his op ponents, who spared no pains in hunting up everything which could serve to place him in an unfavorable light, would certainly never have allowed such heretical statements of Arnold to pass unnoticed.3 But we must allow that the way in which Arnold stood forth against the corruptions of the church, and especially his inclination to make the objective in the instituted order, and in the transactions of the church, depend on the subjective character of the men, might easily lead to still greater aberrations.

Arnold's discourses were directly calculated by their tendency to find ready entrance into the minds of the laity, before whose eyes the worldly lives of the ecclesiastics and monks were constantly present,* and to create a faction in deadly hostility to the clergy. Superadded to this was the inflammable matter already prepared by the collision of the spirit of political freedom with the power of the higher clergy.

bono, sed minori scientia prolata est. Which words Gretser cites, in a fragment from the first book of the work written by Gerhoh: De investigatione Antichristi, in the prolegomena to his edition of the Scriptores contra sectam Waldensium, in his opp. t. xii, f. 12.

1 Bernard says of him, ep. 195, Homo est neque manducans neque bibens, qui utinam tam sanae esset doctrinae, quam districtae est vitae.

2 Gerhoh of Reichersberg cites from him, in the work mentioned in the preceding note, an assertion like the following: Ut domus Dei taliter ordinata domus Dei non

EXTENT OF HIS INFLUENCE.

Thus Arnold's addresses produced in the minds of the Italian people, quite susceptible to such excitements, a prodigious effect, which threatened to spread more widely; and pope Innocent felt himself called upon to take preventive measures against it. At the already mentioned Lateran council in the year 1139, he declared against Arnold's proceedings, and commanded him to quit Italy - the scene of the disturbances thus far-altogether; and not to return again without express permission from the pope. Arnold, moreover, is said to have bound himself by an oath to obey this injunction; which probably was expressed in such terms as to leave him free to interpret it as referring exclusively to the person of pope Innocent. If the oath was not so expressed, he might afterwards have been accused of violating that oath. It is to be regretted that the form in which the sentence was pronounced against Arnold has not come down to us; but from its very character it is evident that he could not have been convicted of any false doctrine; since otherwise the pope would certainly not have treated him so mildly, - would not have been contented with merely banishing him from Italy, since teachers of false doctrine would be dangerous to the church everywhere. Bernard, moreover, in his letter directed against Arnold, states that he was accused before the pope of being the author of a very bad schism. Arnold now betook himself to France; and here he became entangled in the quarrels with his old teacher Abelard, to whom he was indebted for the first impulse of his mind towards this more serious and free bent of the religious spirit. Expelled from France, he directed his steps to Switzerland, and sojourned in Zurich. The abbot Bernard thought it necessary to caution the bishop of Constance against him. But the man who had been condemned by the pope found protection there from the papal legate, cardinal Guido; who, indeed, made him a member of his household and companion of his table. The abbot Bernard severely censured that prelate, on the ground that Arnold's connection with him would contribute, without fail, to give importance and influence to that dangerous man. This deserves to be noticed on two accounts; for it makes it evident what power he could exercise over men's minds, and that no false doctrines could be charged to his

account.

But independent of Arnold's personal presence, the impulse which he had given continued to operate in Italy; and the effects of it extended even to Rome. By the papal condemnation, public attention was only more strongly drawn to the subject. The Romans certainly felt no great sympathy for the religious element in that serious spirit of reform which animated Arnold. But the political movements, which had sprung out of his reforming tendency, found a point of attachment in their love of liberty, and their dreams of the ancient dominion of Rome over the world. The idea of emancipating themselves from the yoke of the pope, and of reëstablishing the old republic, flattered their

'Bernard's words, ep. 195: Accusatus apud Dominum Papam schismate pessimo, natali solo pulsus est, etiam et abjurare

compulsus reversionem, nisi ad ipsius apostolici permissionem.