of the absence of both his friends and his enemies, without whose presence the result would establish nothing.[1109] In estimating the mingled power of imagination and conscience which rendered the proposal insupportable to the emperor, we must allow for the influence which a man like Hildebrand with voice and eye can exert over those whom he wishes to impress. At an earlier stage of his career, in 1055, he improvised a very effective species of ordeal, when presiding as papal legate at the Council of Lyons, assembled for the repression of simony. A guilty bishop had bribed the opposing witnesses, and no testimony was obtainable for his conviction. Hildebrand addressed him: “The episcopal grace is a gift of the Holy Ghost. If, therefore, you are innocent, repeat, ‘Glory to the Father, and to the Son, and to the Holy Ghost!’” The bishop boldly commenced, “Glory to the Father, and to the Son, and to—” here his voice failed him, he was unable to finish the sentence; and, confessing the sin, he was deposed.[1110] Henry’s prudence in declining the Eucharistic ordeal was proved by the fate of the unfortunate Imbrico, Bishop of Augsburg, who, in the same year, 1077, after swearing fealty to Rodolph of Suabia, abandoned him and joined the emperor. Soon after, while saying mass before Henry, to prove the force of his loyal convictions, he declared that the sacrament he was about to take should attest the righteousness of his master’s cause; and the anti-imperialist chronicler duly records that a sudden disease overtook him, to be followed by speedy death.[1111] In the case of William, Bishop of Utrecht, as related by Hugh of Flavigny, the Eucharist was less an ordeal than a punishment. He dared, at the Assembly of Utrecht, in 1076, to excommunicate Gregory, at the command of Henry IV.; but when, at the conclusion of the impious ceremony, he audaciously took the Host, it turned to fire within him, and, shrieking “I burn! I burn!” he fell down and miserably died.[1112] According to a Spanish theologian in the sixteenth century, when the Eucharist was administered as an ordeal it was to be taken without previous sacramental confession—presumably in order that the accused might not escape in consequence of absolution.[1113] After the Reformation, the Protestants who denied the real presence naturally rejected this form of ordeal, but Del Rio, writing in 1599, compares them to frogs swelling themselves against an elephant; and Peter Kluntz, in 1677, assures us that it was still commonly used in his day.[1114] CHAPTER X. THE ORDEAL OF THE LOT.