85 Fleury. Eccles. Hist 1. 60. n. 33.

86 De Dirortio Lotharii, vol. 1. Operum Hincmari.

87 Annal. Meteits. ad ann. 866. Annal. Fold. ad. ann. 365, 886.-Concil. Gall. toi. iii. p. 879.

The holy father who wished to convert, could therefore do no more than excommunicate her. But he received from Lothaire an humble epistle, in which this prince having declared that he had not seen Valdrade since she left a.r.s.ena, conjures the court of Rome not to give the kingdom of Lorraine to one of his rivals: a supplication that may seem to us in the present day as the excess, if not delirium, of weakness, but which was dictated to this king by the apprehension of being stripped of his states to enrich Charles the Bald, who in fact did hope to obtain them from the Holy See.

Divers letters, written by Nicholas on this subject, contain a precious developement of his ideas of the royal powers, and of his own authority,:

"You say," he writes to the bishop of Metz, Adventius, "that "the apostle commands obedience to kings: but ex- "amine first whether those kings really be such, that "is, whether they act justly, conduct themselves "well, and govern their subjects properly; for other- "wise it is necessary to account them tyrants, and "as such to resist them. Be subject to them on "G.o.d's account, as says the apostle, but not against "G.o.d."

Fleury88 here observes, "that the pope makes the bishops judges, whether kings be so legitimately, or tyrants, while the Christian morality requires their obedience of the worst of masters: in fact, to what prince did the apostle exact fidelity from them? It was to Nero."

88 Hist. Eccles. 1.50. a. 35.

Nicholas wrote to the bishops,8? to know if Lothaire fulfilled his promises, and if they were satisfied with his behaviour to his first wife. He wrote to the King of Germany with new complaints of Lothaire?

"We learn," said he, "that he proposes "coming to Rome without our permission: prevent "his disobedience of us; and furthermore take care "to preserve to us, by secure methods, the revenues "of St. Peter, which we have not, for the two past "years, received from your states."

He declares to Charles the Bald,? that Theutberga having had recourse to the church, she could no longer be subject to a secular tribunal. In another letter to the same monarch,? he announces that he writes no longer to Lothaire because he has excommunicated him. Lothaire, indeed, though he had taken back Theutberga, had not altogether relinquished Valdrade; and Nicholas would not be satisfied with a shew of compliance.

8? Coll. Histories of France, vol. 8, p. 419.

? Ibid, p. 428.

? Ibid, p. 422.

? Ibid, p. 438.

Theutberga, finally, wearied with these contests, designed renouncing for ever the t.i.tles of wife and of queen:-the pontiff would not permit it; he addressed her in a long epistle, in which he recommended to her perseverance and intrepidity, and directed her rather to die than to yield.?

The same principles relative to the jurisdiction and independence of the clergy, are to be found in 'Nicholas's Rescript to the Bulgarians:'?4

"You who "are laymen," says he to them, "ought not to "judge either priest or clerk: they must be left to "the judgment of their prelates."

Thus, while the pope censures the conduct of kings, annuls or confirms their civil acts, and even disposes of their crowns, the members of the clerical body, to the lowest degree, are freed from all secular jurisdiction. Such is the _regime_ to which Nicholas wished to subject the East and the West. He especially had at heart to make Constantinople submit; and his first step was to condemn and depose the patriarch Photius, in defiance of the emperor Michael. He threatened to burn, in the face of the world, an energetic letter which this emperor had written him, to excommunicate the ministers who had advised him to this step, and to annul in a Western council whatever had been done for Photius in the East This quarrel, winch was prolonged under the successors of Nicholas, was the prelude to the schism of the Greek Church.

? Concilior, vol. 8, p. 425.

?4 Henry's Eccles. Hist -b. 60. n. 61.

Basilius Cephalas, or the Macedonian, a.s.sa.s.sinated his benefactor Michael, and seized upon the throne of Constantinople. Photius, on this occasion, was willing to imitate St. Ambrose, and ventured to address Basilius:

"Your hands are polluted with.

"blood: approach not the sacred mysteries."

But Basilius did not in any respect imitate Theodosius: he banished Photius, and re-established Ignatius, whom Michael had, not less unjustly, driven from, the patriarchal chair. Adrian II. took advantage from the disgrace of Photius to renew against him the anathemas of Nicholas. Photius, condemned already at Rome, was also condemned in a general council held at Constantinople.

Charles the Bald and Lewis the German, impatient to divide between them the states of their nephew Lothaire, hoped that Adrian would finally excommunicate that prince. But Adrian did not think it suitable to provide such means of aggrandizing their domains: he permitted Lothaire to come to Rome, and admitted him to the holy table;-did not hesitate to absolve Valdrade herself, and. contented himself for such great condescension with the King of Lorraine's oaths and promises. The monarch swore he had no connexion with Valdrade while she was under excommunication, and pledged himself never more to see her. Lothaire died at Placentia, a few days after taking this oath; and his death, which was considered as a punishment of his perjury,?5 produced the result for his two uncles, which they expected from his excommunication.

They divided his kingdom between them, without respect to the rights which preceding treaties had given to the Emperor Louis.

Adrian, of his own motion, declared himself the guardian and arbiter of the respective rights of the three princes; decreed the states of Lothaire to the emperor, who had not as yet claimed them; enjoined Charles and Louis, under the usual penalties of ecclesiastical censure, to renounce the part.i.tion they had dared to make; and menaced with the same punishment every lord or bishop who should support their usurpation.

?5 Ann. Metens. ad. ann. 869.-Rhegin. Chron, ann. 869.

But neither in France nor Germany were any found disposed to the obedience prescribed by Adrian-his commands were despised. Hincmar, archbishop of Rheims, replied to him in the name of the nation, that a bishop of Rome was not the dispenser of the crowns of Europe; that France never received her masters from the pope's hands; that wild anathemas, launched forth from mere political motives, could not alarm a king of France; that, until Nicholas, the popes had never written to the French princes save respectful letters: in a word, that in reverencing the apostolical ministry of the pontiff, they knew how to resist efficaciously his attempts, whenever he sought to become at once both pope and king.?6

?6 Hincmari Op. vol. 2, p. 689.-This letter is cited by Bossuet with applause. Def. Cler. Gal. p. 2, b. 6, ch. 23.

This letter, worthy of a more enlightened age, excited in the soul of Adrian the most violent anger. He knew that a son of Charles the Bald, named Carloman, had revolted against this monarch; he knew that another Hincmar, bishop of Laon, and nephew of the archbishop of Rheims, had taken part with Carloman, and carried his rashness so far as to excommunicate the king. Adrian declared himself the protector both of Carloman and the seditious bishop. The latter, seeing his acts annulled by his uncle, who was also his metropolitan, cited him before the Holy See:

"an insolent step," says Pasquier.

"unknown and contrary to the ancient "decrees, which do not wish that causes should "pa.s.s the confines of the kingdom in which they "had their origin."

They hesitated not to break this appeal, they even deposed the appellant. A second fit of rage seizes Adrian, who commands the king, by his apostolic power, to send the parties to Rome to await their judgment there. In the vigorous reply of Charles, he protests that the kings of France, sovereigns in their states, never shall humiliate themselves so far as to hold themselves but as popes' lieutenants,:

"exhorting him, in fine," adds Pasquier, "that for the future he might desist from "letters of such a nature towards him and his pre- "lates, lest he should be obliged to reject them."

This epistle of Charles produced the effect which persevering firmness always secures: the holy father became softened, excused himself, abandoned Carloman, confirmed the deposition of the bishop of Laon, and said no more about the part.i.tion made of the states of Lothaire. He wrote the king a letter so full of professions of regard, of praises, and of promises, that it contained the request to keep it very secret: but it became and remains public.?7 Adrian died a short time after having written it, and John VIII. succeeded him in December, 872.

?7 Concilior. vol. 8, p. 936.;-Coll. of Histories of France, vol. 7, p. 456-468.

The ravages of the Saracens in Italy, and especially about Rome, obliged the pope, John, to use a degree of management with the princes of Christendom. He refrained, for instance, from displeasing Basilius, when this emperor, having been reconciled to Photius, wished to replace this prelate in the patriarchal chair of Constantinople, which the death of Ignatius had left vacant. John, by his legates and letters, concurred in the acts of the Council of Constantinople, which restored Photius, and carried his desire to please the Greeks so far, as to blame those who had added the word 'filioque,' to the Creed.?8

?8 Fleury's Eccles. History, b. 53. n. 24.

But the compet.i.tion which divided the numerous 'heritors of Charlemagne, offered more than one opportunity to John VIII. to const.i.tute himself arbiter, in return for the services he rendered to some, the right of humiliating others, and of ruling over all.

The Emperor Louis died in 875; and Charles the Bald, in order to obtain the imperial dignity, in prejudice of his elder brother, the king of Germany, had occasion to have recourse to the Holy Father.-John VIII.

who did not expect to find in the German, and in his sons, defenders sufficiently powerful 'against the Saracens, preferred Charles, and took advantage of circ.u.mstances to dispose of the empire in favour of a king of France. He consecrated him emperor during the festival of Christmas.

"We have adjudged him," said he, "worthy of the imperial sceptre: we have raised him to the dignify and-power of the empire; we have adorned him with the t.i.tle of Augustus." Charles dearly repaid the ceremony of this coronation. He consented to date from this day all the charters he should henceforward subscribe: and, according to appearances, John must have obtained from him considerable sums, which served afterwards to pay the tributes enacted of him by the Saracens. It is even added, that Charles stripped himself in favor of the pope, of his sovereign rights over the city and territory of Rome; but the deed of such cession does not exist; contemporary historians, with one exception, say nothing of it: and John himself makes no mention of it in the letters of his which have reached us.

In 877, when Charles had so much difficulty in defending France against the Normans, John drew him into Italy to fight the Saracens. "Do not forget," he says to him, "from whom you hold the empire, and do not cause us to change our mind." Charles survived this threat but a short time; and the imperial crown, which he had borne for so short a period, was again solicited from the sovereign pontiff by several compet.i.tors.

This time John confined himself to promising it, in order to hold it for the highest price: for three years there was no Emperor of the West: none of those who were ambitious of the t.i.tle were powerful enough to a.s.sert it without the aid of the court of Rome. Louis the Stammerer, son of Charles the Bald, succeeded him only as king of the French. The pope came into France in the first year of this reign, and presided at the Council of Troyes. He there fulminated anathemas against Lambert, duke of Spoleto, and against Adelbert, marquis of Tuscany; against Gosfrid, count of Mans; Bernard, marquis of Sep-temanei; and Hugues, son of Lothaire and Valdvade.

It is decreed by one of the canons of this council, that the bishops shall be treated with respect by the secular authorities, and that none must be so bold as to be seated before them without their invitation.??

One of the projects of John VIII. was to exercise over the affairs of France a more immediate and habitual influence, through the medium of a legate of the Holy See; already even he had clothed with this t.i.tle Angesius, archbishop of Sens: but this novelty was not pleasing to the other prelates, nor too much so to the monarch. Hincmair, especially, opposed it earnestly: he wrote a treatise to shew how pernicious it must be; and his brethren, instructed by his lessons and animated by his example, persevered in repelling this undertaking. The pope was indeed willing to relinquish it: in truth, he had much preferred obtaining military and pecuniary succours against the Saracens; but these were more abundantly promised than granted.

Sergius, duke of the Neapolitans, continued to favour the Saracens, notwithstanding the anathemas of Rome, and in despite of the remonstrances of his brother Athanasius, bishop of Naples. Athanasius took the resolution to tear out Sergius's eyes, and proclaim himself duke in his place. It is painful to relate, that the pope highly approved this crime, or as Fleury has it, 'this proceeding:'

?? Concilior. vol. 9. p. 208.

Eccles. Hist. b. 52, n. 47.4

But the letters are preserved which John wrote on this occasion, and in which he applauds Athanasius for having preferred G.o.d to his brother, and having, according to the precept of the gospel, 'plucked out the eye' that scandalized him. This barbarous, and almost ludicrous, application of a sacred text, opens to our view the character of John VIII. whose three hundred and twenty letters speak so perpetually of excommunication, that this menace presents itself as an ordinary and, as we may say, an indispensable formula.

In 880, John disposed of the imperial crown; he gave it on Christmas-day to the son of Louis the Gorman, Charles-le-Gros, who in 884 became king of France, by the death of Louis III. and of Carlo-man, son of Louis the Stammerer. The names of these princes suffice to remind us of the decline of the Carlovingian race. A bishop of France wrote one day to Louis III.

"It was not you who chose "me to govern the church; but it was I, with my "colleagues, who chose you to govern the kingdom, "on condition of observing its laws."