partial resistance of the princes.17 The resistance of the Latin patri

rum doctrinæ et Evangelicæ, quam animas curæ Pastoralis officii et ministerii defraudatione mortificare et perdere. Quod peccatum committere dignoscuntur, qui in potestate curæ pastoralis constituti, de lacte et lana ovium Christi -salarium comparant, debita non administrant. Sicut in bonis causa boni melior est suo causato, sic et in malis causa mali pejor est suo causato. Manifestum, quoniam talium-introductores ipsis pessimis interemptoribus sunt pejores, Lucifero et Antichristo proximiores, et in hac pejoritate gradatim, quanto magis superexcellentes, qui ex majore et diviniore potestate-magis tenerentur ab ecclesia Dei talis interemptores pessimos excludere et exstirpare. Non potest igitur sanctissima sedes Apostolica aliquid vergens in hujusmodi peccatum - mandare. Hoc enim esset suæ potestatis evidenter sanctissimæ et plenissimæ vel defectio, vel corruptio, vel abusio. - Nec potest quis immaculata et sincera obedientia eidem sedi subditus et fidelis [ejusmodi] mandatis - undecunque emanantibus, etsi a supremo Angelorum ordine, obtemperare, sed necesse habet totis viribus contradicere et rebellare. Propter hoc, reverendi Domini, ego ex debito obedientiæ et fidelitatis, qua teneor utrique parenti Apostolicæ sedis sanctissimæ, - his quæ in prædicta litera continentur filialiter et obedienter non obedio, contradico et rebello. Breviter autem recolligens dico, Apostolicæ sedis sanctitas non potest nisi quæ in ædificationem sunt, et non destructionem: hæc enim est potestatis plenitudo, omnia posse in ædificationem. Hæc autem, quas vocant provisiones, non sunt in ædificationem, sed in manifestissimam destructionem. The Pope was enraged beyond all bounds, but the Cardinals advised him: Non expediret, Domine, ut aliquid durum contra Episcopum statueremus: ut enim vera fateamur, vera sunt, quæ dicit. Hence consilium dederunt Domino Papæ, ut omnia hæc conniventibus oculis sub dissimulatione transire permitteret, ne super hoc tumultus excitaretur. Maxime propter hoc, quia scitur, quod quandoque discessio est ventura. See Robert's complaints of ecclesiastical abuses on his death bed, ibid. p. 874 seq. Sewald, Archbishop of York, pursued a similar course, and was excommunicated (Matth. Par. ann. 1257. p. 956), but de solatio cœlitus mittendo minime desperavit, omnem Papalem tyrannidem patienter sustinendo. Nec opimos ecclesiæ suæ reditus transalpinis indignis et incognitis conferre volebat, nec curavit voluntati Papali, relicto juris rigore, muliebriter obedire vel inclinari. Quapropter quanto magis precipiente Papa maledicebatur, tanto plus a populo benedicebatur, tacite tamen, propter metum Romanorum. He, too, wrote to the Pope, complaining of this persecution (1. c. ann. 1258 p. 969): Humiliter igitur in scripto suo et instanter, sicut memoratus Episcopus Lincolniensis Robertus fecerat, petiit, ut consuetas tyrannides temperaret, humilitatem, seq. predecessorum sequendo. Dixit enim Dominus Petro: Pasce oves meas, non tonde, non excoria, non eviscera, vel devorando consume. Sed Dominus Papa subsannans et con. temnens indignationem concepit non minimaru, et salubribus monitis renuit inclinare. Remarkable, that of both these men, even the excommunicated Sewald, legends were current after their death, which show a belief in their peculiar holiness (1. c. p. 876. s. 969).

17 With regard to the legates, the kings both of France (de Marca, Lib. VI. c. 31) and England (1. c. Lib. V. c. 56. § 5 seq.) maintained that none should be sent without their consent. This was first made a condition by William II. of England, when Urban II. had sent a legate to that country, conventionem, ne Legatus' Romanus ad Angliam mitteretur, nisi quem Rex præciperet (Hugo Flavin. in Chron. Virdun. p. 241). This right was maintained up to the time of Henry III: who also insisting upon it, A. D. 1244, a certain Magister Martinus was sent (Matth. Paris, p. 641), habens novam et inauditam potestatem, videlicet ampliorem, quam unquam meminimus aliquem Legatum habuisse, but (1. c. p. 645) Legati vestibus pro privilegio Regis sophistice salvando non insignitus, whence Matth. Paris calls him the Legatus sophisticus. When however in 1264 the English barons reminded a legate of this right, he answered: Asseritis privilegium vestrum esse, quod ad vos Legatus non veniat non petitus. Sed absit, ut Romana Ecclesia lege propria se arctaverit, ne possit per alios visitare, quorum visitationem præsentialiter nequit adimplere. Nec potuit aliquis summus Pontifex legem ponere successori, quia non habet imperium par in parem, nec Papa unius præde

archs in the East would have been more dangerous for the popes,18

cessoris heres est, sed successor. (Ex Ms. in de Marca, Lib. V. c. 56, § 13): and thus too Boniface VIII. maintained in opposition to Philip the fair (Raynald. ann. 1303, no. 34), quod Romanus Pontifex Legatos de latere ac Nuncios libere mittere potest ad quævis imperia, regna vel loca, prout vult, absque petitione cujuslibet vel consensu, usu vel consuetudine contrariis nequaquam obstantibus. — In Germany little was done in this particular except by the Hohenstaufen. Frederick I. in his dispute with Hadrian IV. (see § 52, note 13) complains de Cardinalibus quoque sine permissione Imperiali libere per regnum transeuntibus, et regalia Episcoporum palatia ingredientibus, et ecclesias Dei gravantibus: de injustis appellationibus et cæteris quam plurimis brevitatem superantibus (Baronius, ann. 1159, no. 15). cf. Hadriani Ep. ad Imp. (Baron. 1. c. no. 5): manifeste factus nobis contrarius, Cardinalibus a latere nostro directis non solum ecclesias, sed et civitates regni tui claudis. To this Frederick replies (1. c. no. 6): Cardinalibus utique vestris clausæ sunt Ecclesiæ, et non patent civitates; quia non videmus eos Cardinales, sed Carpinales; non prædicatores, sed prædatores; non pacis corroboratores, sed pecuniæ raptores; non orbis reparatores, sed auri insatiabiles corrasores. Cum autem viderimus eos, quales requirit Ecclesia, portantes pacem, illuminantes patriam, assistentes causæ humilium in æquitate, necessariis stipendiis et commeatu eos sustentare non differemus. Hadrian complains to the German bishops (Goldast. constitt. Imper. T. I. p. 266), [Imperator] facto edicto, ne aliquis de Regno vestro ad Apostolicam sedem accedat, per omnes fines ejusdem regni custodes dicitur posuisse, qui eos, qui ad sedem Apostolicam venire voluerint, violenter debeant revocare. The emperor explains this in his letter to the bishops (1. c.) thus: Introitum et exitum Italiæ nec clausimus edicto, nec claudere aliquo modo volumus peregrinantibus, vel pro suis necessitatibus rationaliter cum testimonio Episcoporum et Prælatorum suorum Romanam sedem adeuntibus: sed illis abusionibus, quibus omnes Ecclesiæ Regni nostri gravatæ et attenuatæ sunt, et omnes pene claustrales disciplinæ emortuæ et sepultæ, obviare intendimus. See § 53, note 5, at the end, and note 17. Henry II. attempted to do the same thing in England (Constit. Clarend. VIII., see § 52, note 25): but not only did the popes succeed in making him take back his decree (see § 52, note 27): but moreover the German emperors, from the time of Otho IV. (see above, § 54, notes 15, 18; § 58, note 9), were bound by oath in such a way as to disarm them.

18 The Latin patriarchs were not forgetful of the original dignity of their see. The second patriarch of Antioch, Rudolphus maintained, utrumque Petri esse Cathedram, Antiochenam et Romanam, eamque quasi primogenitam insignem prærogativa, and called himself collega et frater Domini Papæ, but was obliged to yield (Willelm. Tyrius, Lib. XV. c. 12, 13, who is not however an impartial historian, as between the sees of Antioch and Tyre there were territorial disputes. Baronius, ann. 1136, no. 26 seq. Also Egidii legati acerrima disputatio adv Antioch. Patriarcham in Ludewig Reliquia Manuscriptt. T. II. p. 452 seq): Still as late as 1198, Innocent. III. (Lib. 1. Ep. 50. Decr. Greg. Lib. I. Tit. 7. c. 1) had to reprimand a patriarch of Antioch for interfering in the papal right of transferring bishops. So too, A. D. 1208, (Lib. XI. Ep. 76) he complains of Thomas, first patriarch of Constantinople, for disobedience and disregard of the papal legate. His successor Everard is reproached by Honorius III. (Raynald. 1218. no. 26-28): Sicut-accepimus, tu supra te volens extendere alas tuas legatos de tuo latere dirigis cum ea plenitudine potestatis, qua legati sedis Apostolicæ diriguntur. Illi enim per Patriarchatum tibi commissum causarum audientiam, quæ ad te, vel ad ipsos per appellationem minime deferuntur, sibi vendicare præsumunt, et inconsultis Prælatis eorum subditos excommunicant, excommunicatos absolvunt,— appellationibus non deferunt, quas contingit ad Sedem Apostolicam interponi. — Ecclesiastica etiam beneficia conferunt, non exspectantes, quod ad te potestas eadem conferendi juxta Lateranense concilium (see note 9) devolvatur (not very unlike to their brethren of Rome). Still more severely the following patriarch Matthäus (Raynald. ann. 1222, no. 22 seq.), and accuses him also: ut quasi velis ab aquilone tuum solium collocare, excommunicatos a legato Apostolicæ sedis passim absolvis, et appellationibus legitime interpositis ad eandem deferre contemnis. According to Raumer, Bd. 3. S. 388. Anm. 3, there is more

had not their very existence depended too entirely on Rome and the West. In France alone, distinguished in this period above all other countries for knowledge of the ancient canon law, as well as political unity and vigor, were any bounds set to these abuses, by the Pragmatic Sanction of Lewis IX. A. D. 1269.19 But it was not till the contest of Philip the Fair with Boniface, that not only separate consequences, but the general principles of the papal system were openly opposed,20 and the extravagance of the papal pretensions universally felt.21

on this subject in the Regest Honorii inedit. The patriarchs of Constantinople, however, who, according to Matth. Paris, ann. 1238, p. 481, excommunicated the Pope, were not as Raumer suggests, Bd. 6. S. 316, Latin prelates, but Schismatics, see Raynald. ann. 1238, no. 35.

19 March, 1268, Old Style. See Ordonnances des Roys de France de la troisième race recuillies par M. de Lauriere Paris, 1723, fol. vol. I. p. 97. Leibnitii mantissa cod. jur. gent. p. 157. The chief points are: statuimus et ordinamus primo ut ecclesiarum regni nostri prælati, patroni, et beneficiorum collatores ordinarii jus suum plenarium habeant, et unicuique sua jurisdictio debite servetur. II. Item ecclesiæ cathedrales et aliæ regni nostri liberas electiones et earum effectum integraliter habeant. - V. Item exactiones et onera gravissima pecuniarum per Curiam Romanam ecclesiæ regni nostri impositas vel imposita, quibus regnum nostrum miserabiliter depauperatum extitit, sive etiam imponendas vel imponenda, levari aut colligi nullatenus volumus, nisi duntaxat pro rationabili, pia et urgentissima causa, et inevitabili necessitate, ac de spontaneo et expresso consensu nostro et ipsius ecclesiæ regni nostri. The conclusion: Harum tenore universis justitiariis, officiariis et subditis nostris mandamus, quatenus omnia et singula prædicta diligenter et attente servent — atque servari — inviolabiliter faciant: nec aliquid in contrarium quovis modo faciant vel attentent, seu fieri vel attentari permittant: transgressores aut contra facientes - tali pœna plectendo, quod cæteris deinceps cedat in exemplum. The genuineness of this document, which is questioned chiefly by P. Daniel, is shown by E. Richer hist. concill. general. Lib. III. p. 189. Libertés de l'église Gallicane, edit. ann. 1771. T. III. p. 633, 667. Velly hist. de France, T. III. p. 239.

20 Johannes de Parrhisiis de potest. regia et Papali (see § 59, note 34) cap. XI, in Goldasti Monarchia, T. II. p. 120: Potestas Prælatorum inferiorum non est a Deo mediante Papa, sed immediate a Deo, et a populo eligente vel consentiente. Non enim Petrus, cujus successor est Papa, misit alios Apostolos, quorum successores sunt alii Episcopi: nec LXXII discipulos, quorum successores sunt presbyteri Curati: sed eos Christus immediate misit (Joann. 20. et Luc. 10). Nec Petrus insufflavit in alios Apostolos, dans eis Spiritum sanctum, et potestatem dimittendi peccata, sed Christus (Joann. 20 et deinde 21). In novo (i. e. Gratiani Decr. Dist. XXI. c. 2) dicitur, quod omnes a Christo simul eandem et æqualem acceperunt potestatem. Paulus etiam dicit, suum Apostolatum non accepisse a Petro, sed a Christo, seu a Deo immediate ad Gal. 1, etc.

21 See the remarkable expressions of Guilelmus Durandus, bishop of Mende (Mimatum) in his tractatus de modo celebrandi generalis concilii (written 1311, on occasion of the council at Vienna) Part II. Tit. 7: Proverbium vulgare est: "qui totum vult, totum perdit." Ecclesia Romana sibi vendicat universa: unde timendum est, quod universa perdat: nam, sicut Salomon ait Proverb. XXX [v. 33]," qui multum emungit, sanguinem elicit." Sicut habetur exemplum de ecclesia Græcorum, quæ ex hoc ab ecclesiæ Romanæ obedientia dicitur recessisse.

CHAPTER SECOND.

HISTORY OF THE HIERARCHY IN THE NATIONAL CHURCHES.

$ 63.

THEIR RELATION TO THE STATE.

WHILST the popes were thus making themselves the heads of both church and state, the efforts of the hierarchs of the various national churches to make themselves entirely independent of the temporal power, were impeded by the existing feudal relations. The right formerly exercised by the temporal lords, of bestowing vacant benefices, had, indeed, been modified to a bare jus primarum precum ; but the prelates, though chosen by the church, were still bound to take the oath of fealty,3 to perform their feudal duties, and, in all feudal matters, to abide by the decision of their feudal lords.5 On these feudal relations were founded also the right of Regalia (jus

1 See § 48, note 12. Comp. Urbani II. Epist. 14, ad Rodulphum comitem (Mansi XX. p. 659) Nosse te volumus, quia nulli sæcularium domino potestatem in clericos habere licet; sed omnes clerici Episcopo soli esse debent subjecti. Quicumque vero aliter præsumpserit, canonicæ procul dubio sententiæ subjacebit. See § 49, notes 14 and 15. § 50, note 8.

2 See above, § 49, note 5. § 50, note 8.

* The first trace of which in Germany is under King Richard, but with the expression: vestigia prædecessorum nostrorum et imperatorum Romanorum inhærentes (Aventin. antiqu. Altah. in fele scriptt. rer. Bavar. T. I. p. 728). Then in the letter of Rudolph of Hapsburg to an Abbot, in the Paraleipomenis ad Chron. Ursperg. ann. 1286, and thence Goldast. Const. Imp. T. III. p. 446: Cum ex antiqua et approbata, ac a divis Imperatoribus et Regibus ad nos producta consuetudine qualibet Ecclesia in nostro Romano Imperio constituta, ad quam beneficiorum ecclesiasticorum pertinet collatio, super unius collatione beneficii precum nostrarum primarias admittere teneatur, Devotionem tuam rogamus, quatenus huic clerico de ecclesiastico beneficio, quod ad tuam collationem attinet, ob reverentiam sacri imperii, studeas liberaliter providere. cf. Wurdtwein subsid. dipl. T. II., 1. On the whole subject see Thomassinus, P. II. Lib. I. c. 54.

3 Conceded even by Innocent. III. in Conc. Lateran. ann. 1215, c. 43 (Decr. Greg. Lib. II. Tit. 24, c. 30).

4 Comp. Thomassin. P. III. Lib. I. c. 45-48. Hullmann's Gesch. d. Ursprungs d. Stände in Deutschland, Th. 2. S. 56 ff. Montag's Gesch. d. deutschen staatsbürgerl. Freyheit, Bd. 2. S. 447 ff.

Conceded by Alexander III. Deer. Greg. Lib. II. Tit. 2. c. 6 (where the Rubrik reads: Si quæstio feudalis est inter clericum et laicum, cognoscet dominus feudi) and c. 7. Thus Innocent III. intercedes with King Philip II. of France, (Lib. XIII. Ep. 190) for the bishops of Auxerre and Orleans: dum eorum saissiri fecisti regalia, immo etiam quædam alia præter illa, levi occasione prætensa, quod quidam eorum milites in tuo exercitu constituti ad locum, quem eos adire præceperas, ire cum aliis noluerunt, absentibus eisdem Episcopis per licentiam a te liberaliter impetratam. Et cum- tibi humiliter supplicaverint, ut faceres eis reddi regalia sic subtracta, paratis postmodum curiæ tuæ subire judicium, sicut in talibus fieri consuevit, tù supplicationes eorum admittere noluisti, etc. cf. Lib. XIV. Ep. 52.

regalia), and of spoil (jus spolii, or jus exuviarum), claimed by the lords of the land,6 and maintained (notwithstanding the opposition of the popes) in Germany till the time of Otho IV.;8 in France and England always.9

As late as the twelfth century, the clergy were often laid under contribution by their temporal lords, and sometimes in an oppressive and unjust manner.10 But Alexander III. (A. D. 1179) made all such contributions to the support of the state voluntary, except where they arose out of their feudal relations,11 and Innocent III. made

Comp. de Marca de Conc. Sac. et Imp. Lib. VIII. c. 1 seq., esp. c. 17 seq. Natalis Alex. hist. ecclesiast. ad Sæc. XIII. et XIV. Diss. VIII. Planck, Bd. 4. Absch. 2. S. 79 ff. Eichhorn's deutsche Staats- u. Rechtsgeschichte, Th. 2. S. 430. These rights are not found to have existed any where till the 12th century. In Germany the first trace of the Regalia is probably in Frider. Archiep. Colon. epist. ad Otton. Bamb. (see § 49, note 21). In the time of Frederick I. the right of spoil was already long established. See § 53, note 6. The grounds of the claim to Regalia given by Philip the fair to the bishop of Auxerre (see de Marca, Lib. VIII. c. 22, § 6: Sicut feodum vassallo vacans interim cum suis reditibus a domino licite occupatur, et propter defectum hominis, ut vulgari nostræ patriæ verbo utamur, de jure et generali consuetudine regni nostri per dominum, quousque superveniat persona, quæ illi serviat, licite detinetur: sic nos et nostri antecessores vacante Ecclesia Carnotensi et temporalem jurisdictionem et bona temporalia accipimus, et nostros facimus omnes fructus, qui proveniunt ex eisdem. Non solum autem nostram potestatem in bonis episcopalibus exercemus; imo bona temporalia præbendarum et dignitatum, sive sit jurisdictio temporalis, sive alia bona temporalia, quæ possint ad aliquem pertinere, cum vacante præbenda vel dignitate concedimus, et de eis, prædicto tamen modo, disponimus nostro jure.

7 Conc. Claromont. ann. 1095, can. 31. Conc. Tolosan. ann. 1119, can. 4.

By Otho IV. see above, § 54, note 15; by Frederick II. see ibid. note 22, who also secured the same to the German prelates, in a document of A. D. 1220 (best ed. in Schilteri Institutt. Jur. publ. T. II. p. 110), and finally by Rudolph of Hapsburg, § 58, note 8.

The Conc. gener. Lugdun. ann. 1274, can. 12, in Mansi, T. XXIV. p. 90, excommunicates those (according to the report of the eye-witness Guil. Durandus sen. in his comm. ad canones Conc. Lugd. ad clamorem Prælatorum Franciæ et Angliæ) qui regalia, custodiam, sive guardiam advocationis, vel defensionis titulum in ecclesiis, monasteriis, sive quibuslibet aliis piis locis, de novo usurpare conantes, bona ecclesiarum, monasteriorum, aut locorum ipsorum vacantium occupare præsumunt. On the other hand: Qui autem ab ipsarum ecclesiarum, ceterorumque locorum fundatione, vel ex antiqua consuetudine, jura sibi hujusmodi vindicant: ab illorum abusu sic prudenter abstineant, et suos ministros in eis solicite faciant abstinere, quod ea, quæ non pertinent ad fructus sive reditus provenientes vacationis tempore, non usurpent; nec bona cætera, quorum se asserunt habere custodiam, dilabi permittant, sed in bono statu conservent. Still an attempt was made by Boniface VIII. though ineffectual, to dispute the right to the Regalia with Philip the Fair, see above, § 59, note 12; ibid. note 21, no. V.

10 On the taxes and the immunities of the clergy in this period generally, see Thomassin. P. III. Lib. I. c. 41-44. Planck, Bd. 4. Abschn. 2. S. 158 ff. Bernhard of Clairvaux, in his letter of thanks to the Duke of Lorraine for the remission of certain taxes (Epist. 119) says still, as did Ambrose long before (Vol. I. § 89, note 1): Alioquin non renuimus Domini nostri sequi exemplum, qui pro se non dedignatus est solvere censum, parati et nos, libenter quæ sunt Cæsaris Cæsari reddere, et vectigal cui vectigal, et tributum cui tributum: præsertim quia juxta Apostolum non tam debemus requirere datum nostrum, quam vestrum lucrum (Phil. iv. 17).

11 Conc. Lateran. III. can. 19. in Mansi, XXII. p. 228 (Decr. Greg. Lib. III. Tit. 49. c. 4) in diversis partibus mundi rectores et consules civitatum necnon et