$ 16.

The German chroniclers speak on the whole very favourably of Boniface. The monk of Furstenfeld considered him to be a Pope hated by many on account of his sense of strict justice, whỏ, had he lived longer, would have remedied many imperfections in the Church. Nicholas of Siegen is astonished at his courage, which was without equal. And indeed, says Schwab,3 after quoting this testimony, there is no mistaking a certain loftiness of mind in the bold words which he said to the cardinals in his distress: 'And if all the princes of the world were united against us, and against this (Roman) Church, we would regard them as straws, if we had truth on our side and were responsible for it. But if we had not truth and justice on our side, then indeed we should have reason to be afraid."4 It can reasonably be said of him, 'What he desired to effect was explained by the principles on which the Popes had acted for a long time. The failure of his plans did not lie with him, but in the important changes of the time. When the Papacy was obliged to descend again from the heights to which it had attained in the twelfth and thirteenth centuries, it could not have been done with more dignity than by Boniface VIII., and in the manner in which he conducted himself during his pontificate.' The sacrilegious outrage against him did not remain unpunished.6

1 Böhmer, Fontes rer. Germ. i. p. 24.

2 Chronicon Eccles. ed. Wegele, Jena, 1855, p. 372. Schwab, Gerson, pp. 4, 5.

Alleg. D. Papae pro confirmando rege Rom. Alberto ap. Marca, de Conc. 1. ii. c. iii. p. 111, ed. Baluz.

Möhler's Church History, edited by Gams, ii. pp. 472, 473.

• Bianchi, t. iii. l.c. § 7, n. 15, p. 546 seq. When Philip IV. died in 1314, many priests had to be forced to say Masses for his soul. Raynald. a. 1314, n. 26. In 1316 his son, Louis X., was poisoned, and in 1328 the throne passed to the line of Valois.

§ 17.

The question concerning the indirect power of the Church over temporal matters in a Christian State was not yet decided; it was further discussed in its various aspects. But in the person of Philip IV. the State was already in opposition to the

Church, having separated itself from her and raised itself above her,1 and France, which once was the glory and faithful support of the See of Rome, now reduced it to a state of servitude, and the fundamental principles of the medieval Christian State were put an end to. Regal pride and national egotism joined hands in the work, and the world was taught by experience that regal pride was not appointed as the protector of the Church, and that national egotism was in principle irreconcilable with the idea of a universal religion. The origin of many of the claims of the civil power must therefore be looked for in that unhappy time, and by degrees from that time they have received an historical form, and have been received as a part of positive law. The Church indeed at that time was still deeply rooted in the faith of nations; till then she had been the leader of general politics, and her institutions had a part in all the circumstances of life; but everything was preparing for the great breach which was to separate the life of the State from the life of the Church, in order that the civil should be raised over the spiritual power.

3

In his struggle with the Church, Philip IV. was greatly assisted by the widely-spread discontent against spiritual jurisdiction, which was very extensive. Incessant bickerings took place between the royal and episcopal courts, and the strain became so great that King Philip VI., the first Valois, ordered several conferences to be held in his presence at Paris and Vincennes (the end of 1329 and the beginning of 1330). The royal councillor, Peter de Cugnières, made a speech, alleging a passages from St. Matthew xxii. 21, in which he endeavoured to prove with the help of sixty-six arguments that no civil jurisdiction belonged to ecclesiastics, but that they had taken almost entire possession of it. Then the Archbishop of Sens, who, it should be said, did not recognise the assembly as a competent authority, in the name of the prelates made a speech founded on 1 Peter ii. 17. Later on, Peter Bertrandi, Bishop of Autun, endeavoured to refute the arguments of Peter de Cugnières in detail, and defended the indirect power of the Church in civil affairs. The prelates defended the principle of the jurisdiction which appertained to them, but allowed that in practice some abuses had crept in

amongst the Church officers, which they promised to put down. The king demanded a written deposition of the statement of the case by the bishops; they presented him with a short explanation in French, in which they begged him to leave the Church in possession of her rights. He expressed his strong desire to protect the rights of the Church, and then, when Peter de Cugnières had drawn up a fresh memorial, for the limitation of ecclesiastical jurisdiction,7 and had been forcibly answered by the Bishop of Autun, who begged for a clear declaration on the part of the king, Philip repeated that he did not intend to diminish. any ecclesiastical right, he would rather increase the liberties of the prelates. The edicts of the royal officers, which the bishops pointed out as offensive, were declared by the king to be invalid and published without his orders; on the other hand, he made the fulfilment of the promise to remove the acknowledged abuses a condition for granting his future protection to spiritual jurisdiction and his forbearance from further interference. Philip VI., who was praised by Pope John XXII. on account of his bearing towards the Church, showed that he was not moved by the same spirit which animated Philip IV., and which did not revive till later at the French court.

1 Phillips, K.R. iii. § 131, p. 267.

2 Cf. Greg. IX. et al. ap. Raynald. a. 1229, n. 53, 56; 1227, n. 60; Innoc. III. 1. xii. Ep. 27 (Migne, t. ccxvi. p. 36).

3

Phillips, 1.c. p. 268.

Phillips, l.c. p. 269 seq. Hefele, vi. p. 549 seq. The Libellus D. Bertrandi adv. Mag. Petrum de Cugnières, in Max. Bibl. PP. Lugd. t. xxvi. p. 109 seq.; also in the Traités des Droits et des Libertés de l'Eglise Gallicane, 1731, t. i. Raynald. a. 1329, n. 75 seq. Mansi, xxv. 883 seq.

Each of the speakers, whether bishop or layman, took a verse from the Bible as a text.

Hence the expression reintegrare temporalia.'

Not for the introduction of the 'appel comme d'abus,' which was first instituted in the fifteenth century. Phillips, p. 271.

* Joh. XXII. Ep. iii. Non Jun.: 'Literas regias fervorem magnae devotionis et fidei, quibus erga Deum et Ecclesiam praefulgere regalis serenitas noscitur, recensentes delectabiliter et responsum perversis detractoribus laedere sinceritatem regiam circa praemissa molientibus factum, sicut Catholicum et orthodoxum decebat principem, describentes, recepimus laeta manu.' Cf. Natal. Alex. H. E. saec. 13 et 14, cap. x. a. 7, t. xv. p. 556 seq.

VOL. II.

եւ

ESSAY XII.

GIFTS OF LAND MADE BY THE POPES AND THE DONATION OF CONSTANTINE.

WE have already seen, in the case of Gregory VII., how unjustly has been attributed to him the opinion that the Pope can at pleasure bestow on others lands which are not his own. Let us now examine the remaining cases brought forward in proof of this supposed Papal doctrine.

The forged donation of the Emperor Constantine is especially pointed out as the basis of the extensive spiritual and temporal jurisdiction of the Pope, and was, according to Janus (p. 142 seq.), a Roman fabrication, in order to move the King of the Franks to act in favour of Rome, and bestow upon her fresh gifts.

PART I. GIFTS OF LAND MADE BY THE POPES.

§ 1, 2. Writers on Papal rights over individual and especially heathen lands. § 3. Bull of Alexander VI. 'Inter cetera.' § 4. Slavery. § 5. In what sense the Bull implies a gift. § 6. In any case it is no definition of faith. § 7. Pope Nicholas V. on the possessions of Mahometans. § 8. Clement VI. on the Canary Islands. § 9. Alexander III. on the Saracens. § 10. Ireland given to the English king by Hadrian IV. § 11. Whether in fief. § 12. Possibility of obreptions and subreptions, which are not inconsistent with the doctrine of Infallibility. § 13. Falsifications of Papal deeds severely punished. § 14. The Papal power not based on falsifications.

§ 1.

It cannot be denied that certain writers (defenders of the direct power of the Church in matters temporal) have claimed for the Pope full sovereignty over all kingdoms of the world, in a sense never put forward by the Apostolic See itself. Others again were of opinion that the Pope might dispose at will of heathen

lands. Some have held the same opinion as to the power of the emperor; and under this idea Albrecht of Apeldern, 1198-1229, obtained for Livonia certain rights from Philip and Otto IV.1 Even though there may have been no foundation for this opinion, it is never made a subject of reproach to those who, acting upon it, asked and obtained for themselves heathen lands from the emperor. But in the Middle Ages the authorisation of the Pope was sought far more eagerly than that of the emperor; and meeting with readier acknowledgment from the whole of Christendom, it offered far better means of defence against internal and external foes. It remains to be seen whether and to what degree this opinion may have been in truth founded not merely upon isolated general expressions, but upon certain determinate acts of the Popes.

1 Döllinger, Lehrbuch der Kirchengeschichte, ii. p. 110.

2 Many authors agree in this view that the universal empire exercised by ancient Rome, based upon the subjugation of many nations, was justified by the good end which it served. Dante, de Monarch. 1. ii. c. vi. : 'Declaranda . . . . duo sunt, quorum unum est, quod quicunque bonum reipublicae intendit, finem juris intendit, aliud est, quod Romanus populus subjiciendo sibi orbem bonum publicum intendit.'

§ 2.

Although certain ancient writers, such as the Cardinal Bishop Henry of Ostia (died 1271), Ægidius of Rome, Alvarus Pelagius, and Augustinus Triumphus, deny to unbelievers the right of possession, yet the greater number of theologians dispute this,' and teach, with St. Thomas, that unbelievers retain their dominions; that the Church cannot depose and deprive of their territory unbelieving princes who have never been her subjects; those only who, having at one time accepted the Faith, have fallen away from it, may, if needful, be declared by judgment of the Church to have forfeited their dominions. On the other hand, the Church claims an absolute right of preaching the Gospel in every place, thus fulfilling the duty laid on her by Christ in virtue of the power given to Him in heaven and on earth, of going out into all the world, teaching and baptising all nations (St. Matt. xxviii. 18, 19). Moreover, according to Hugo