Page:Cambridge Medieval History Volume 3.pdf/276

Rh than sound spiritual guides, they were not generally neglectful of pastoral duty; some were even distinguished for evangelical zeal. They were chosen oftenest, it would seem, for their practical capacity, and for a sympathy with his political and ecclesiastical aims gained by long service in the royal chapel or chancery; some, like the historian Thietmar, were chosen for their wealth, part of which they were expected to bestow on their impoverished sees; not a few were recommended by their Bavarian birth. Henry was not the man to dishonour the Church by giving it worthless prelates. Nevertheless, the bishops were his creatures, from whom he demanded obedience; in a word, the Church had to accept a position of strict subordination to the State.

It was not all at once that Henry was able to bring this about. The bishops whom he found in office at his accession owed nothing to him; and even when of proved loyalty they were not inclined to be subservient. Some indeed were openly disaffected. Of such were the Archbishops Heribert of Cologne and Gisiler of Magdeburg, and among bishops, the celebrated Bernward of Hildesheim. Whether indifferent or hostile, however, it was not the spiritual independence of the Church for which most of them were jealous, but for the temporal power and dignity of their own sees. Their sense of ecclesiastical unity was faint; nor did any voice sound from Rome to remind them of their allegiance to the Church Universal. To many even the welfare of their own national branch thereof was of small concern beside the interests of their particular dioceses. Papal impotence left Henry a free hand; and with the rise of a new episcopate the cohesion of the German Church was strengthened and its energies were revived, but only at the cost of its independence. For the bishops learned to acquiesce in Henry's claim to ecclesiastical authority, and zealous churchmen were not slow to enjoin obedience to the Crown as a duty of divine ordinance. But with the Church thus submissive, all fear that the bishops might use their means and their privileges in a spirit defiant of the secular power was removed. They had become, in truth, royal officials; and the more, therefore, that their position was enhanced, the better service could they render to the king. Accordingly, it was with no sparing hand that Henry, following the example of the Ottos, bestowed territory and regalities upon the episcopal churches. His charters reveal also two other special features of his policy. The one is the frequency with which he annexed royal abbeys of the lesser rank to bishoprics, to be held by them as part of their endowment; the other is his extension of the recent practice of giving vacant counties into the hands of prelates. In the former case, the purpose was achieved of turning the smaller religious houses to better account for the service of the State than they could be as isolated corporations; in the latter, advantage was gained for the Crown by the transfer of local authority from secular to ecclesiastical hands, since the bishops were now more amenable to royal control than were the lay counts. Thus the process, by which the bishops