pope and the emperor, the latter, who wished to be crowned at all events, determined to frighten the pope into compliance. At the suggestion, it is said, of two German prelates, one of whom was the archbishop of Metz, Henry ordered his German soldiers to lay hands on the pope. A scuflle ensued; and the people of Rome, irritated at seeing their pontiff prisoner, fell on the German soldiers, and drove them back with considera- ble slaughter to their camp outside of the town. Henry, however, kept possession of the person of the iiope, whom he dragged after him, stripped of his pontifical ornaments and bound with cords. Paschal remained for nearly two months in a state of confinement, during which he was assailed by the remonstrances of his cler- gy, many of whom were prisoners with him in the Ger- man camp, until at last he yielded to their entreaties, consented to consecrate Henry unconditionally, and gave up by a bull the right of investiture to the em- peror. After the ceremony Henry returned to (Jer- many, and Paschal thought it necessary to assemble a council in the Lateran to submit his conduct to the judgment of the Church. He declared to them at the same time that he would rather abdicate than break his word to tlie emperor, either by excommunicating or molesting him. After much deliberation, Paschal's ces- sion of the riglit of investiture was. solemnly con- demned; and it was declared that the investiture of churchmen by lay hands was a heresy. The prelates of France and Italy, and even some of those of Germany, approved of the proceedings of the Lateran council, and several of the turbulent German feudatories revolted against Henry. The emperor, however, kept the field, and, having defeated his revolted subjects, marched again to Italy to terminate the question with the see of Rome. Paschal, blamed and even personally insi-.lted by the Romans because of his indulgence towards Hen- ry, and threatened at the same time by the latter, es- caped to Benevento ; and Henry, entering Rome, caused himself to be crowned again by the bishop of Benevento. After Henry's departure Paschal returned to Rome, but soon fell ill of fatigue and anxiety, and died in January, 1118. The question of the investiture was settled by a compromise in 1122, under Calixtus II, the successor of Gelasius. It was agreed that the bishops, being elected according to the canonical forms, should receive their regalia at the hand of the emperor, and do homage for them ; but that in this ceremony the emperor should no longer use the ring and crosier, the insignia of spiritual authority, but the sceptre only. Paschal had also been in controversy with Henry I of Englantl on the same subject, but they had settled in 1108 on similar terms. See Vita Paschalis in Muratori, '• Scriptores," vol. iii; Gfrorer, Gref/orius VII v. s. Zeit ; Baxmann, Gesch. der Politik der Pdpste ; Collier, Eccles. Hist. ; Stenzel, Gesch. Deutschh iinter den frank. Kuisern (Leips. 1827), i, 571, 612, 627, 667 ; Gervais, Gesch. Deutschl. unter Heinrich V (Leips. 1841); MUman, Hist, of Latin Christianity, iv, 67-125 ; iv, 291, 429-431 ; Hefele, Condi iengesch. vol. v ; Aschbach, Kirchen-Lexikon ; Riddle, Hist, of the Pa- pacy, ii, 253 ; Bower, Hist, of the Popes, s. v. See Ix-
VESTITUItK.
Paschal III, antipope, was elected by tl;e influ- ence of the emperor Frederick I, in opposition to Alex- ander III, in 1165. He took possession of Rome for a short time, Alexander being obliged to escape to Bene- vento, but with the departure of the imperial army from Rome in 1167 Paschal was obliged to quit also. He died shortly after (in 1168) at Viterbo. See Riddle, Hist, of the Papacy, ii, 100; Miiman, ///.'-•/. (;/' Latin Christianity, iv, 296, 429-431. See also Ai.kxandek IIL
Paschal Candle. See Paschal Tapek.
Paschal Controversy designates the various disputes which have agitated the Church regarding the proper reckoning of Easter. The three synoptical Gos- pels are unanimous (Matt, xxvi, 17, 19; Mark xiv, 12-
1>ASCHAL CONTROVERSY 721 PASCHAL CONTROVERSY
16; Luke xxii, 17-19) in their statement that our Lord instituted the holy Eucharist in his last paschal supper. John is equally precise in saying that tlie Jews would not enter the juilgment-hall "lest they should be de- filed" through blood pollution, and be precluded from eating the passover in the evening (John xviii, 28). How came it^ then, that our Lord should have cele- brated the passover on one evening, and that the Jews should have deferred the memorial feast till the corre- sponding period of the next day V This is a real diffi- culty, which will be found discussed in full under Pass- ovEK. We here give the following as a possible solu- tion. Since the appearance of the new moon determined the. Jewish calendar, an assembly was held in tl>e Tem- ple on the closing day of each month, to receive intelli- gence respecting the first fcimg of the new moon. If nothing was announced a day was intercalated, yet if the appearance of the moon was afterwards authenticated the intercalation was cancelled. This naturall}' caused much confusion, especially in the critical month of Ni- san. Hence (Talmud, Rosh Hash. 1) it was permitted that in doubtful cases the passover might be observed on two consecutive days. For the intercalation could hardly be known in Galilee ; and, according to Maimon- ides C^Tn UJTp), in the more distant parts of Judoea the passover was in some years kept on one day, at Je- rusalem on another. Our Lord, coming in from the country, followed the letter of the law : but the main body of the Jews, observing rather the "tradition of the elders," sacrificed the passover on the following day in consequence of the intercalation of a day in the preced- ing month. Thus our Lord ate the passover on the evening of the 14th Nisan, and was upon the same day "the very Paschal Lamb" by the death of the cross (Harvey, Creeds, p. 328).