could appoint and depose bishops, could interfere always and directly in their dioceses by the exercise of a concurrent jurisdiction, and bring any cases before his own Court. Innocent III., as we have seen, claimed a special Divine revelation for the Pope's right of deposing bishops. It has been charged against him as a wicked error and capricious invention; but we must remember that, when he had persuaded himself and others that every Pope possesses the fulness of jurisdiction, and is absolute ruler of the whole Church, not by concession of the Church, but by Divine appointment, he might fairly assume a Divine right to dispose of his bishops as an absolute monarch disposes of his officials. And, in fact, some bishops soon began to subscribe themselves as such "by the favour of the Papal See."

Whatever relics of freedom had hitherto been preserved from the ancient Church were now trampled and rooted out. No one had doubted before that a bishop could resign his office when he felt unequal to its duties. This was usually done at Provincial Synods. But from the time of Gratian and Innocent III., the new principle, that only the Pope can dissolve the bond between a bishop and his Church, was extended to the case of resignation

also.

And then came the further requirement, made into a rule by John XXII., that sees vacated by resignation lapsed to the Pope.

Again, the appeals encouraged in every way by the Popes, and the ready grants of dispensations, paved the way for their acquiring one of the most important rights, in the appointment of bishops. As the pseudo-Isidore had given an unprecedented extension and impetus to appeals to Rome, the new Decretal legislation since Alexander III. was specially adapted for multiplying and encouraging appeals to the Curia. Alexander

knew well what he was about when he declared appeals, which hung like a Damocles' sword over the head of every bishop, to be the most important of his rights. Some thirteen new articles in the Decretals 2 provided for the Curia being occupied annually with thousands of processes, which often extended over many years, bringing in a rich harvest to the officials, and filling the streets and also the churchyards of Rome. And a further point was secured by this, for the bishops and archdeacons, impeded and disabled by the endless number of Papal exemptions and privileges, lost all desire to 1 D. de Translat. c. 2 (1, 7).

2 They are quoted in Die Geschichte der Appel. von Geistl. Gerichtshof. Frankfort, 1788, p. 127 sqq.

take Church discipline in hand, and thereby involve themselves in tedious and costly processes at Rome. And thus the anarchy in dioceses and wild demoralization of the clergy reached a point one cannot read of without horror in contemporary writers. When appeals came to Rome on disputed presentations to benefices or episcopal elections, the Popes often took occasion to oust both the rival claimants, and appoint a third person. Abbot Conrad of Lichtenau says, "There is no bishopric or spiritual dignity or parish that is not made the subject of a process at Rome, and woe to him who comes empty-handed! Rejoice, mother Rome, at the crimes of thy sons, for they are thy gain; to thee flows all the gold and silver; thou art become mistress of the world through the badness, not the piety, of mankind."1

No people suffered more from these appeals and processes than the Germans. After the Concordat of Worms (1122), the Popes had gradually managed to exclude the German emperors from all share in episcopal appointments, and practically to nullify the Concordat. And then, partly from the circumstances of the German dioceses, partly from the new Papal enactments, most 1 Chron. p. 321.

elections came to be disputed, and a handle was given to one party or the other for an appeal to Rome, which was taken full advantage of. The candidates or their proctors had to waste years in Rome, and either died there or carried home with them nothing but debts, disease, and a vivid impression of the dominant corruption there. The Popes could now dispose as they liked of the German archbishops and their votes for the empire; for besides the pallium, the heavy tax, and the oath of obedience, they had the Roman debts and censures to fear, in case of insolvency, and this constrained them to follow the Pope's guidance even in secular matters, supposing the oath they had sworn was not sufficient to make them into mere machines of the will of the Curia. These facts alone explain the elections of Henry Raspo in 1246, William of Holland in 1247, Richard and Alphonsus in 1257, and the miserable interregnum from 1256 to 1273. Only in this way could the ruin of the Hohenstaufen House have been accomplished, and Germany have been kept in the state of weakness and division required for the French and Angiovine interest, and the policy of the French Popes, Urban IV., Clement IV., and Martin IV.

During the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries the

Popes made gigantic strides in the acquisition of new rights and the suppression of other peoples'. Innocent III. had recognised the right of archbishops to confirm and ordain their suffragans,1 but Nicolas III. (1280) reserved their confirmation to the Pope. In the ancient Church it was held uncanonical for a Pope or Patriarch to make appointments or bestow benefices out of his own district. The Popes began their meddling in the matter only by begging recommendations of favourites of their own, and without specifying any particular benefice. So was it still in the twelfth century. But soon these recommendations took the form of mandates. Italians, nephews and favourites of the Popes, persons who had aided them in the controversies of the day, or suffered in their interest, were to be provided for, enriched, and indemnified in foreign countries. Rights of patronage were not respected if they stood in the way; the Papal lawyer knew how to manage that, often through means of Papal executors appointed for the purpose. This caused loud discontent in national Churches; protests were made even at the Synod of Lyons in 1245. Meanwhile the Popes had another gate open for attaining rights of patronage. A great number of bishops and

1 D. De Elect. c. 11, 20, 28 (1, 6).