SIXTH LECTURE.

Object of the lecture-Separation of the governing and the governed parcy in the church-Indirect influence of the laity upon the clergy-The clergy recruited from all conditions of society-Influence of the church upon the public order and upon legislation-The penitential system— The development of the human mind is entirely theological-The church usually ranges itself on the side of power-Not to be wondered at; the aim of religions is to regulate human liberty-Different states of the church, from the fifth to the twelfth century-1st. The imperial church -2nd. The barbaric church; development of the separating principle of the two powers; the monastic order-3rd. The feudal church; attempts at organization; want of reform; Gregory VII.-The theocratical church-Regeneration of the spirit of inquiry; Abailard-Movement of the boroughs-No connexion between these two facts.

WE were unable, at our last meeting, to terminate the inquiry into the state of the church from the fifth to the twelfth century. After having decided that it should be considered under three principal aspects,-first, in itself alone, in its internal constitution, and in its nature as a distinct and independent society; next, in its relations to the sovereign and the temporal power; and lastly, in its relations with the people,—we have only accomplished the two first divisions of this task. It now remains for me to make you acquainted with the church in its relations with the people. I shall afterwards endeavour to draw from this three-fold inquiry a general idea of the influence of the church upon European civilization from the fifth to the twelfth century. And lastly, we will verify our assertions by an examination of the facts, by the history of the church itself at that epoch.

You will easily understand that, in speaking of the relations of the church with the people, I am forced to confine myself

to very general terms. I cannot enter into a detail of the practices of the church, or of the daily relations of the clergy with the faithful. It is the dominant principles and grand effects of the system and of the conduct of the church towards the Christian people, that I have to place before you.

The characteristic fact, and, it must so be called, the radical vice of the relations of the church with the people, is the separation of the governing and the governed, the noninfluence of the governed in their government, the independence of the Christian clergy with regard to the faithful.

This evil must have been provoked by the state of man and of society, for we find it introduced into the Christian church at a very early period. The separation of the clergy and the Christian people was not entirely consummated at the epoch under consideration; there was, ɔn certain occasions, in the election of bishops for instance, at least in some cases, a direct intervention of the Christian people in its government. But this intervention became by degrees more weak, and of more rare occurrence; it was from the second century of our era that it began visibly and rapidly to decline. The tendency to the isolation and independence of the clergy is, in a measure, the history of the church itself, from its very cradle. From thence, it cannot be denied, arose the greater portion of those abuses which, at this epoch, and still more at a later period, have cost so dear to the church. We must not, however, impute them solely to this, nor regard this tendency to isolation as peculiar to the Christian clergy. There is in the very nature of religious society a strong inclination to raise the governing far above the governed, to attribute to the former something distinct and divine. This is the effect of the very mission with which they are charged, and of the character under which they present themselves to the eyes of people, and such an effect is more grievous in the religious society than in any other. What is it that is at stake with the governed? Their reason, their conscience, their future destiny, that is to say, all that is most near to them, most individual, and most free. We can conceive, to a certain point, that although great evil may result therefrom, a man may abandon to an external authority the direction of his material interests, and his temporal destiny. We can understand the philo.

sopher, who, when they came to tell him that his house was on fire, answered, "Go and inform my wife; I do not meddle in the household affairs." But, when it extends to the conscience, the thought, and the internal existence, to the abdication of selfgovernment, to the delivering oneself to a foreign power, it is truly a moral suicide, a servitude a hundred-fold worse than that of the body, or than that of the soil. Such, however, was the evil which, without prevailing entirely, as I shall immediately show, gradually usurped the Christian church in its relations with the faithful. You have already seen that, for the clergy themselves, and in the very heart of the church, there was no guarantee for liberty. It was far worse beyond the church, and among the laity. Among ecclesiastics, there was, at least, discussion, deliberation, and a display of individual faculties; there the excitement of contest supplied, in some measure, the want of liberty. There was none of this between the clergy and the people. The laity took part in the government of the church as mere spectators. Thus we see springing up and prevailing at a very early period, the idea that theology and religious questions and affairs, are the privileged domain of the clergy; that the clergy alone have the right, not only of deciding, but of taking part therein at all; that in any case the laity can have no kind of right to interfere. At the period under consideration, this theory was already in full power; centuries, and terrible revolutions were necessary to conquer it, to bring back within the public domain, religious questions and science.

In principle, then, as well as in fact, the legal separation of the clergy and the Christian people was almost consummated before the twelfth century.

I would not have you suppose, however, that even at this epoch the Christian people were entirely without influence in its government. The legal intervention was wanting, but not influence-that is almost impossible in any government, still more so in a government founded upon a belief common both to the governing and the governed. Wherever this community of ideas is developed, or wherever a similar intellectual movement prevails with the government and the people, there must necessarily exist a connexion between them, which no vice in the organization can entirely destroy

To explain myself clearly, I will take an example near to us, and from the political order: at no epoch in the history of France has the French people had less legal influence on its government, by means of institutions, than in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, under Louis XIV. and Louis XV.

No one is ignorant that at this period nearly all official and direct influence of the country in the exercise of authority had perished; yet there can be no doubt that the people and the country then exercised upon the government far more influence than in other times-in the times, for instance, when the states-general were so often convoked, when the parliament took so important a part in politics, and when the legal participation of the people in power was much greater.

It is because there is a force which cannot be inclosed by laws, which, when need is, can dispense with institutions: it is the force of ideas, of the public mind and opinion. In France, in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, there was a public opinion which was much more powerful than at any other epoch. Although deprived of the means of acting legally upon the government, it acted indirectly by the empire of ideas, which were common alike to the governing and the governed, and by the impossibility which the governing felt of taking no note of the opinion of the governed. A similar fact happened in the Christian church from the fifth to the twelfth century; the Christian people, it is true, were deficient in legal action, but there was a great movement of mind in religious matters-this movement brought the laity and the ecclesiastics into conjunction, and by this means the people influenced the clergy.

In all cases in the study of history, it is necessary to hold, as highly valuable, indirect influences; they are much more efficacious, and sometimes more salutary, than is generally supposed. It is natural that men should wish their actions to be prompt and evident, should desire the pleasure of participating in their success, power, and triumph. This is not always possible, not always even useful. There are times and situations in which indirect and unseen influences are alone desirable and practicable. I will take another example from the political order. More than once, especially in 1641,

the English parliament, like many other assemblies in similar crises, has claimed the right of nominating directly the chief officers of the crown, the ministers, councillors of state, &c.; it regarded this direct action in the government as an immense and valuable guarantee. It has sometimes exercised this prerogative, and always with bad success. The selections were ill concerted, and affairs ill governed. But how is it in England at the present day? Is it not the influence of parliament which decides the formation of the ministry, and the nomination of all the great officers of the crown? Certainly; but then it is an indirect and general influence, instead of a special intervention. The end at which England has long aimed is gained, but by different means; the first means which were tried had never acted beneficially.

There is a reason for this, concerning which I ask your permission to detain you for a moment. Direct action supposes, in those to whom it is confided, far more enlightenment, reason, and prudence: as they are to attain the end at once, and without delay, it is necessary that they should be certain of not missing that end. Indirect influences, on the contrary, are only exercised through obstacles, and after tests which restrain and rectify them; before prospering, they are condemned to undergo discussion, and to see themselves opposed and controlled; they triumph but slowly, and, in a measure, conditionally. For this reason, when minds are not sufficiently advanced and ripened to guarantee their direct action being taken with safety, indirect influences, although often insufficient, are still preferable. It was thus that the Christian people influenced their government, very incompletely, in much too limited an extent, I am convinced-but still they influenced it.

There was also another cause of approximation between the church and the people; this was the dispersion, so to speak, of the Christian clergy amongst all social conditions. Almost everywhere, when a church has been constituted independently of the people whom it governed, the body of priests has been formed of men nearly in the same situation; not that great inequalities have not existed among them, but, upon the whole, the government has appertained to colleges of priests living in common, and governing, from the depths of