2. But, while the enjoyment of these large posses- sions was undoubtedlj' the primary cause that provoked the distrust and displeasure of sovereigns, the struggle, Avhich at the qjose of the 11th and at the beginning of the 12th century was especially fierce between Germany and England on the one side and Home on the other, was directly brought about by the symbols incidental to feutlai tenures. Investiture by the lord and an oath of fealty by the tenant, which were necessary in the case of all lay barons, had already, even in the old Frankish Church, been required of ecclesiastics before they were admitted to the temporalities of a see (Hal- lam', Middle Ages, ii, part i, ch. vii, p. 181 ; Reicliel, See of Rome in the Middle Ages, p. 35C), and were claimed to be the special prerogatives of the king. But, instead of fealty and homage, to which the lay barons were subjected, the king used symbols in the investiture of ec- clesiastics. It had been at first the custom for the king to deliver or send to the bishops on their installation a ring or a staff, the one as a symbol of the close union which was to exist between the bishop and his congre- gation, the other as an emblem of his office as giude and shepherd. The delivery of the symbols was in ac- cordance with the fundamental legal principle ^^•hich the sovereigns were anxious to impress on the ecclesi- astics, viz. that all the possessions of the Church were only held by consent of the king and as loans (benefi- cia), for which reason it became also the bishop's duty to accompany the army when required (see Eichhorn, Deutsche Staats- u. Rechtsgesch. Gcitt. 1834, pt. i, p. 202, 505, 516 ; Sugenheim, Staatsleben d. Klerus i. Mittelal-
ter, Berlin, 1830, part i, p. 315). The bestowing of the symbols implied the installation into office, and was therefore called investiture. The investiture with both ring and staff was not habitual at first. Iving Clo- vis I (508) employed only the ring (Bouquet, Reruni Gallic, scriptor. iv, Clfi : "Quicquid est fisci nostri-^ per annulum tradimus") ; Clovis II (623), Louis of Ger- many, Arnulf, and also Otto I, conferred only the staff, while the emperors Henry II and Conrad II gave the ring to the bishops merely as a pledge that they -would afterwards be invested with the staff. It was not till after these emperors that the investiture with both ring and staff became general, and the sceptre was added to them still later. (See Mosheim, Instiiutiones hist, eccles. p. '108, note r. ; Hiillmann, 6'e«7/.(/f s Ursprungs d.Stdnde i. Deutschland, Berlin, 1830, p. 153; Planck, Geschichfe der christlichen Kirchl. Gesellsehnftsverfassiivg, iii, 462.) In the ninth century the symbols were first interpreted as referring not only to the investiture of the clergy into their office, but also as an obligation answeruig to the oath of fealty as given by the lay barons.
For nearly two centuries the practice had continued without exciting scandal or resistance, when the Church began to raise angry and frequent complaints against the assumption of this right by the lay suzerains. " On the part of the suzerains it was replied that they did not claim to grant by this rite the spiritual powers of the of-.- fice, their function being solely to grant possession of its temporalities, and of the temporal rank thereto annexed. But the Church party urged that the ceremonial in it- self mvolved the granting of spiritual powers, insomuch that, in order to prevent the clergy from electing to a see when vacant, it was the practice of the emperors to take possession of the crosier and ring imtil it shoidd be their own pleasure to grant investiture to their favorites." The disfavor in which the practice had long been held by the Chiurch was first expressed by Clement II (see Stenzel, Gesch. Deutschl. u. d. frankischen Kaiser, pt. i, 117; ii, 130), but its most energetic opponent it really first found in the person of Gregory VII, who, having in the year 107-4 enacted most stringent measures for the repression of simony, proceeded, in the beginning of the year 1075, to condemn, under excommunication, the practice of investiture, as almost necessarily connected with simony, or leading to it. "The prohibition was couched in the most imperious and comprehensive terms. It absolutely deposed everj' bishop, abbot, or inferior ec- clesiastic who shoidd receive investiture from any lay person. It interdicted him — whosoever should be guilty of this act of ambition and rebellion (which was the sin of idolatry), until he should have abandoned the bene- fice so obtained — from aU communion in the favor of St. Peter, and from admission into the Church. And if any emperor, duke, marquis, count, or secular potentate or person shoidd presume to grant such investiture of bishopric or inferior dignity, he was condemned to the same sentence. This statute made a revolution in the whole feudal system throughout Europe as regarded the relation of the Church now dominant to the state. In the empire (then under Henrj- IT) it annulled the precarious power of the sovereign over almost half his subjects. All the great prelates and abbots, who were at the same time the princes, the nobles, the counsellors, the leaders in the diets and national assemblies, became to a great degree independent of the crown; the em- peror had no concern, unless indirectly, in their promo- tion, no power over their degradation. Their lands and estates were as inviolable as their persons. Where there was no fealty there could be no treason. Every bene- fice, on the other hand, thus dissevered from the crown was held, if not directly, yet at the pleasure of the pope. For as with him was the sole judgment (the laity being excluded) as to the validity of the election, with him was the decis'on by what offences the dignity might be forfeited ; and as tlie estates and endowments were now inalienable, and were ^vithdrawn from the national pro]> erty, and became that of the Church and of God. the