times rather than of the men, and even served, in some degree, to palliate the crimes. The barbarism of preceding ages and the ignorance actually existing, had engendered and nourished a swarm of obscure notions and active prejudices, which infatuated the vulgar, and partially blinded even the best and the wisest. The records of past events were little studied; indeed they were seen only by those discontinuous glimpses, which perplex and deceive far more than they enlighten; and reason had lost her native force, and health, and penetration, through neglect and abuseso that claims the most absurd were established by arguments the most senseless; and men could not rightly discern the real nature of their adversaries' pretensions, nor even the strength of their own, so as effectually to controvert the one, or rationally to maintain the other. Thus were their contests carried on in a sort of moral obscurity, which took off nothing from their positiveness and obstinacy, and permitted even additional licence to their malignity.

In the following year a very numerous* assembly was held at Rome,

The First Lateran Council.

which is commonly acknowledged in that Church as the ninth General, and the First Lateran council. Of the two-and-twenty canons which resulted from its labours, the greater part were in confirmation of the acts of preceding Popes; and we observe that the object of several of the original enactments was to protect the property of the Church from alienation, and lay usurpations. There was one which promoted the Crusading zeal, both by spiritual promises and menaces. And among the most important we may consider that (the 17th) which prohibited abbots and monks from the performance of public masses, the administration of the holy chrism, and other religious services, and confided those solemn offices entirely to the secular clergy. This was an early and very public manifestation of that jealousy between the two orders of the Romish hierarchy, which in a later age displayed itself so generally as to become an efficient instrument in working its overthrow.

Popular tumults at Rome.

Calixtus died in 1124, and during the thirty years which followed, the pontifical city enjoyed scarcely any intermission from discord and convulsion. The names of Honorius and Innocent †, and Anaclete and Eugenius, with some others, pass by in rapid and tumultuous procession. The chair, which was generally contested, was never maintained to any good purpose; and one of its possessors, Lucius II., was actually murdered by the populace in an attempt to restore tranquillity.

But we must here observe, that the popular commotions of this period were not of the same description with those which we have already found occasion to notice; the question of papal election had ceased to be their sole, or even their principal, cause; the turbulence which had been occasioned by the abuse of that right, and prolonged by the endeavour to reclaim it, was now founded in a deeper and much more powerful motive. A party had lately grown up in the Roman city of patriots ambitious to restore the name, and, as some might fondly deem, the glory of the ancient republic.

* About a thousand prelates were present, of whom above three hundred were bishops, and above six hundred abbots. Many pontifical Councils had been previously held at the Lateran, but this was the first which obtained a place among the General Councils. + The Pontificate of Innocent II., though interrupted by frequent dissension, was the longest and the most important; and during it, in the year 1139, the tenth General Council, or second Lateran, was assembled.

And the first and necessary step towards the accomplishment of this scheme was the subversion, or, at least, the entire reconstruction of the ecclesiastical system. To diminish the privileges, to reduce the revenues of the church, to deprive the Pontiff of temporal power and all civil jurisdiction, and to degrade (should we not rather say, to exalt?) his stately splendour to the homeliness of his primitive predecessors-these were the projects preparatory to the political regeneration of

Rome. About the year 1135, Arnold, a native of Arnold of Brescia. Brescia, a disciple of the celebrated Abelard, returned

to Italy from the schools of Paris, and having assumed the monastic habit, began publicly to preach and declaim against the vices of the clergy. It is admitted by a Catholic writer, that the pomp of the prelates, and the soft licentious life both of clerks and monks, furnished abundant materials for his denunciations; but it is complained that he exceeded the limits of truth and moderation; and it is besides asserted, that his orthodoxy was liable to suspicion, and that he held some unsound opinions respecting the Eucharist and infant baptism. In consequence of these various charges, he was condemned by a Lateran Council, in 1139: he immediately retired from Italy, and transferred his popular declamation to Zurich, in Switzerland.

Not many years afterwards, encouraged by the independent spirit which was rising at Rome, he boldly selected that metropolis for

the scene of his two-fold exertions against papacy and des- Adrian IV. potism. In the mean time (in the year 1154) a man of decided firmness and energy had obtained possession of the Chair. Adrian IV., the only Englishman who ever attained that dignity, had raised himself from the very lowest office in society † to the throne of St. Peter; and though the arrogance which he then exhibited might entirely belong to his latest fortunes, an intrepid resolution, tempered by the most refined address, must have characterised every stage of his progress; since these are qualities which offices and dignities may exercise, but can never bestow. In the year following his elevation, one of his cardinals was dangerously wounded in some tumult excited by the associates of Arnold. Adrian instantly placed the city of Rome under an interdict; the churches were closed, and the divine offices for some time suspended, in the very heart of the Catholic church. The priests and the people wearied the pontifical chair with supplications for a recall of the edict, but Adrian did not relent until Arnold and his associates were expelled from the city. All the people (says Fleury) blessed God for this mercy on the following day (Holy Thursday), they rushed from every quarter to receive the customary absolution, and a vast multitude of pilgrims was also present. Then the Pope, attended by bishops and car

*Fleury, H. E., lib. lxviii., sect. 55. Arnold maintained that there was no hope of salvation for prelates who held baronies, or for any clerks or monks who possessed any fixed property; that those possessions belonged to the prince, and that he alone could bestow them, and on laymen only; that the clergy ought to live on the tithes and the voluntary oblations of the people, content with a moderate and frugal sufficiency. Pagi, Vit. Innocent II., sect. lxix., refers to Otho Frisingensis. The ravings (deliramenta) of Peter de Bruis were condemned on the same occasion. That Heresiarch objected to the reverence paid to the cross, denied the daily sacrifice of the body and blood of Christ, and the efficacy of prayers or alms for the dead, besides other unpardonable errors.

His name was Nicholas Breakspeare: going to Arles, in Provence, he was admitted in the quality of servant to the Canons of St. Rufus, where he became monk, and in the sequel Abbot and General of the Order.

times rather than of the men, and even served, in some degree, to palliate the crimes. The barbarism of preceding ages and the ignorance actually existing, had engendered and nourished a swarm of obscure notions and active prejudices, which infatuated the vulgar, and partially blinded even the best and the wisest. The records of past events were little studied; indeed they were seen only by those discontinuous glimpses, which perplex and deceive far more than they enlighten; and reason had lost her native force, and health, and penetration, through neglect and abuse— so that claims the most absurd were established by arguments the most senseless; and men could not rightly discern the real nature of their adversaries' pretensions, nor even the strength of their own, so as effectually to controvert the one, or rationally to maintain the other. Thus were their contests carried on in a sort of moral obscurity, which took off nothing from their positiveness and obstinacy, and permitted even additional licence to their malignity.

The First Lateran Council.

In the following year a very numerous assembly was held at Rome, which is commonly acknowledged in that Church as the ninth General, and the First Lateran council. Of the two-and-twenty canons which resulted from its labours, the greater part were in confirmation of the acts of preceding Popes; and we observe that the object of several of the original enactments was to protect the property of the Church from alienation, and lay usurpations. There was one which promoted the Crusading zeal, both by spiritual promises and menaces. And among the most important we may consider that (the 17th) which prohibited abbots and monks from the performance of public masses, the administration of the holy chrism, and other religious services, and confided those solemn offices entirely to the secular clergy. This was an early and very public manifestation of that jealousy between the two orders of the Romish hierarchy, which in a later age displayed itself so generally as to become an efficient instrument in working its overthrow. Calixtus died in 1124, and during the thirty years which followed, the pontifical city enjoyed scarcely any intermission from discord and convulsion. The names of Honorius and Innocent †, and Anaclete and Eugenius, with some others, pass by in rapid and tumultuous procession. The chair, which was generally contested, was never maintained to any good purpose; and one of its possessors, Lucius II., was actually murdered by the populace in an attempt to restore tranquillity.

Popular tumults at Rome.

But we must here observe, that the popular commotions of this period were not of the same description with those which we have already found occasion to notice; the question of papal election had ceased to be their sole, or even their principal, cause; the turbulence which had been occasioned by the abuse of that right, and prolonged by the endeavour to reclaim it, was now founded in a deeper and much more powerful motive. A party had lately grown up in the Roman city of patriots ambitious to restore the name, and, as some might fondly deem, the glory of the ancient republic.

*About a thousand prelates were present, of whom above three hundred were bishops, and above six hundred abbots. Many pontifical Councils had been previously held at the Lateran, but this was the first which obtained a place among the General Councils. + The Pontificate of Innocent II., though interrupted by frequent dissension, was the longest and the most important; and during it, in the year 1139, the tenth General Council, or second Lateran, was assembled.

And the first and necessary step towards the accomplishment of this scheme was the subversion, or, at least, the entire reconstruction of the ecclesiastical system. To diminish the privileges, to reduce the revenues of the church, to deprive the Pontiff of temporal power and all civil jurisdiction, and to degrade (should we not rather say, to exalt?) his stately splendour to the homeliness of his primitive predecessors-these were the projects preparatory to the political regeneration of

Rome. About the year 1135, Arnold, a native of Arnold of Brescia. Brescia, a disciple of the celebrated Abelard, returned

to Italy from the schools of Paris, and having assumed the monastic habit, began publicly to preach and declaim against the vices of the clergy. It is admitted by a Catholic writer*, that the pomp of the prelates, and the soft licentious life both of clerks and monks, furnished abundant materials for his denunciations; but it is complained that he exceeded the limits of truth and moderation; and it is besides asserted, that his orthodoxy was liable to suspicion, and that he held some unsound opinions respecting the Eucharist and infant baptism. In consequence of these various charges, he was condemned by a Lateran Council, in 1139: he immediately retired from Italy, and transferred his popular declamation to Zurich, in Switzerland.

Not many years afterwards, encouraged by the independent spirit which was rising at Rome, he boldly selected that metropolis for

the scene of his two-fold exertions against papacy and des- Adrian IV.` potism. In the mean time (in the year 1154) a man of decided firmness and energy had obtained possession of the Chair. Adrian IV., the only Englishman who ever attained that dignity, had raised himself from the very lowest office in society † to the throne of St. Peter; and though the arrogance which he then exhibited might entirely belong to his latest fortunes, an intrepid resolution, tempered by the most refined address, must have characterised every stage of his progress; since these are qualities which offices and dignities may exercise, but can never bestow. In the year following his elevation, one of his cardinals was dangerously wounded in some tumult excited by the associates of Arnold. Adrian instantly placed the city of Rome under an interdict; the churches were closed, and the divine offices for some time suspended, in the very heart of the Catholic church. The priests and the people wearied the pontifical chair with supplications for a recall of the edict, but Adrian did not relent until Arnold and his associates were expelled from the city. All the people (says Fleury) blessed God for this mercy on the following day (Holy Thursday), they rushed from every quarter to receive the customary absolution, and a vast multitude of pilgrims was also present. Then the Pope, attended by bishops and car

*Fleury, H. E., lib. lxviii., sect. 55. Arnold maintained that there was no hope of salvation for prelates who held baronies, or for any clerks or monks who possessed any fixed property; that those possessions belonged to the prince, and that he alone could bestow them, and on laymen only; that the clergy ought to live on the tithes and the voluntary oblations of the people, content with a moderate and frugal sufficiency. Pagi, Vit. Innocent II., sect. lxix., refers to Otho Frisingensis. The ravings (deliramenta) of Peter de Bruis were condemned on the same occasion. That Heresiarch objected to the reverence paid to the cross, denied the daily sacrifice of the body and blood of Christ, and the efficacy of prayers or alms for the dead, besides other unpardonable errors.

+ His name was Nicholas Breakspeare: going to Arles, in Provence, he was admitted in the quality of servant to the Canons of St. Rufus, where he became monk, and in the sequel Abbot and General of the Order.

dinals, and a numerous troop of nobles, came forth from his residence, and crossing the extent of Rome, amidst the acclamations of the people, arrived at the Lateran Palace, where he celebrated the festival of Easter.' Soon afterwards, Arnold unhappily fell into the power of Frederic Barbarossa, who was then in Italy on his advance to Rome; Frederic and the Emperor, probably actuated by a common dislike Barbarossa. to independence and innovation under every form, yielded up his prisoner to the solicitations of the Pope. He was conducted to Rome, and subjected to the partial judgment of an ecclesiastical tribunal. His guilt was eagerly pronounced, the prefect of the city delivered his sentence, and he was burnt alive, in the presence of a careless and ungrateful people.' But lest this same multitude, with the same capriciousness, should presently turn to adore the martyr and offer worship at his tomb, his ashes were contemptuously scattered over the bosom of the Tiber. His name has been the subject of splendid panegyric and scandalous calumny: with its claims to political celebrity, we have no concern in this history; but in respect to his disputes with the church, we may venture to rank Arnold of Brescia among those earnest but inconsiderate reformers, whose premature opposition to established abuses produced little immediate result except their own discomfiture and destruction; but whose memory has become dear, as their example has been useful, to a happier and a wiser posterity; whom we celebrate as martyrs to the best of human principles, and whose very indiscretions we account to them for zeal and virtue.

Frederic Barbarossa, whose elevation was nearly contemporaneous with that of Adrian, had also announced his intention to restrain the increasing wealth and moderate the insolence of the Pope and his clergy; and in 1155, he proceeded to Rome for the purposes of celebrating his coronation, and commencing his reform: but he found the Pontiff as firm and as powerful to resist imperial interference as to quell domestic disorder. And so far was Adrian, on this occasion, from betraying the interests of his order, or the prerogatives of his office, that he even asserted a recent and ambiguous and singularly offensive claim-he demanded the personal service of the Emperor to hold his stirrup when he mounted his horse *. A precedent for this indignity having been pointed out to him, Barbarossa, the haughtiest prince in Europe, at the head of a powerful and obedient army, submitted to an office of servitude, which he may possibly have mistaken for Christian humiliation. But, however that may be, the triumph of the See over so great a monarch proved the substantial reality of its power, and the awe which it deeply inspired into the most intrepid minds.

Some vexatious pretensions of Adrian respecting the regalia, and a gratuitous insinuation that Frederic held the empire as a fief (beneficium) from Rome, served to keep alive a jealous irritation between the Church and the empire, though peace was not actually interrupted. Frederic, on the other hand, published, in 1158, an edict, of which the object was to prevent the transfer of fiefs without the knowledge and consent of the superior or lord in whose name they were held. It was by such unauthorized transfers of feudal property that the territories of the Church had

This homage' (says Gibbon) 'was paid by kings to archbishops, and by vassals to their lords; and it was the nicest policy of Rome to confound the marks of filial and feudal subjection.' Chap. 69.