XIII.'

dels of piety and virtue. Such of the Sacerdotal C E N T. order as were advanced to places of authority PART II. in the church, behaved rather like tyrants than rulers, and showed manifestly, in all their conduct, that they aimed at an absolute and unlimited dominion. The popes, more especially, inculcated that pernicious maxim, "That the bishop "of Rome is the supreme lord of the universe, “and that neither princes nor bishops, civil go"vernors nor ecclesiastical rulers, have any law"ful power in church or state but what they

derive from him." This extravagant maxim, which was considered as the sum and substance of papal jurisprudence, the Roman pontifs maintained obstinately, and left no means unemployed, that perfidy or violence could suggest, to give it the force of a universal law. It was in consequence of this arrogant pretension, that they not only claimed the right of disposing of ecclesiastical benefices, as they are commonly called, but also of conferring civil dominion, and of dethroning kings and emperors, according to their good pleasure. It is true, this maxim was far from being universally adopted; many placed the authority of councils above that of the pontifs, and such of the European kings and princes as were not ingloriously blinded and enslaved by the superstition of the times, asserted their rights with dignity and success, excluded the pontifs from all concern in their civil transactions, nay, even reserved to themselves the supremacy over the churches that were established in their dominions []. In opposing thus the haughty pretensions

M 3

[m] As a specimen of this, the reader may peruse the letters of INNOCENT III. and the emperor Отно IV. which have been collected by the learned GEORGE CHRIST. GEBAUR, in his History of the Emperor RICHARD, written in German, p. 611-614. Other princes, and more especially the kings of England and France, displayed, in the defence of their rights and privileges, the same zeal that animated ОTHO.

XIII.

CEN T. pretensions of the lordly pontifs, it was, indeed, PART II. necessary to proceed with mildness, caution, and prudence, on account of the influence which these spiritual tyrants had usurped over the minds of the people, and the power they had of alarming princes, by exciting their subjects to rebellion.

The power

bi-hops ab

the pontifs.

III. In order to establish their authority, both of creating in civil and ecclesiastical matters, upon the firmbora, &c. est foundations, the Roman pontifs assumed to elamed by themselves the power of disposing of the various offices of the church, whether of a higher or more subordinate nature, and of creating bishops, abbots, and canons, according to their fancy, Thus we see the ghostly heads of the church, who formerly disputed with such ardour against the emperors in favour of the free election of bishops and abbots, overturning now all the laws that related to the election of these spiritual rulers, reserving for themselves the revenues of the richest benefices, conferring vacant places upon their clients and their creatures, nay, often deposing bishops that had been duly and lawfully elected, and substituting, with a high hand, others in their room [n]. The hypocritical pretexts for all these arbitrary proceedings were an ardent zeal for the welfare of the church, and an anxious concern, lest devouring heretics should get a footing among the flock of CHRIST [o]. The first of the pontifs, who usurped such an extravagant extent of authority, was INNOCENT. III. whose example was followed by HONORIUS III. GREGORY

[a] Many examples of this may be taken from the history of this century See STEPH. BALUZII Miscellan. tom. vii. P.443466. 476. 488. 491. 493.-Galila Christiana, tom. i. p. 69. Append.-Luc. WADDINGI Annal. Minor. in Diplomat.WOOD, Antiquit. Oxon. tom. i. p. 148. 201, 202.

[o] See the Epistle of INNOCENT IV. in BALUZ. Miscellan. tom. vii. p. 468,

GREGORY IX. and several of their successors. CENT.

XIII.

But it was keenly opposed by the bishops, who PART II. had hitherto enjoyed the privilege of nominating to the smaller benefices and still more effectually by the kings of England and France, who employed the force of warm remonstrances and vigorous edicts to stop the progress of this new jurisprudence [p]. LEWIS IX. king of France, and now the tutelar saint of that nation, distinguished himself by the noble opposition he made to these papal encroachments. In the year 1268, before he set out for the Holy Land, he secured the rights of the Gallican church against the ininsidious attempts of the Roman pontifs, by that famous edict known in France by the name of the pragmatic sanction [9]. This resolute and prudent measure rendered the pontifs more cautious and slow in their proceedings, but did not terrify them from the prosecution of their purpose. For BONIFACE VIII. maintained, in the most express and impudent terms, that the universal church was under the dominion of the pontifs, and that princes and lay patrons, councils and chapters, had no more power in spiritual things, than what they derived from CHRIST's vicar upon earth.

rity of the

IV. The legates, whom the pontifs sent into The authothe provinces, to represent their persons, and pope's leexecute their orders, imitated perfectly the ava- gates. rice and insolence of their masters. They violated the privileges of the chapters; disposed of the smaller, and sometimes of the more important ecclesiastical benefices, in favour of such as had gained them by bribes, or such like considerations [r]; extorted

M 4

[p] BOULAY, Histor. Acad. Paris. tom. iii. p. 659. and principally tom. iv. p. 911.

[9] Idem, ib. p. 389.

[r] See BALUZII Miscellanea, tom. vii. p. 437. 475. 508, &c.

PART II

CEN T.extorted money from the people by the vilest XIII. and most iniquitous means; seduced the unwary by forged letters and other stratagems of that nature; excited tumults among the multitude, and were, themselves, the ringleaders of the most furious and rebellious factions; carried on, in the most scandalous manner, the impious traffick of relicks and indulgences, and distinguished themselves by several acts of profligacy still more heinous than the practices now mentioned. Hence we find the writers of this age complaining unanimously of the flagitious conduct and the enormous crimes of the pope's legates [s]. Nay, we see the Roman pontif ALEXANDER IV. enacting, in the year 1256, a severe law against the avarice and frauds of these corrupt ministers [t], which, however, they easily evaded, by their friends and their credit at the court of Rome.

The wealth

V. From the ixth century to this period, the and reve- wealth and revenues of the pontifs had not renues of the ceived any considerable augmentation; but at pontif augmented. this time they were vastly increased under INNO

CENT III. and NICOLAS III. partly by the events of war, and partly by the munificence of kings and emperors. INNOCENT was no sooner seated in the papal chair, than he reduced under his jurisdiction the præfect of Rome, who had hitherto been considered as subject to the emperor, to whom he had taken an oath of allegiance in entering upon his office. He also seized upon Ancona, Spoletto, Assisi, and several cities and fortresses which had, acccording to him, been un

justly

[] See that judicious and excellent writer MATTH. PARIS, in his Historia Major, p. 313. 316. 549. and particularly p. 637. where we find the following remarkable words: "Serper

solent legati quales, et omnes nuncii papales regna quæ ingre"diuntur depauperare, vel aliquo modo perturbare." See also BOULAY, Histor. Acad. Paris. tom. iii. p. 659.

[] This edict is published by LAMI, in his Delicia Eruditorum, tom. ii. p. 300.

XIII. PART II.

justly alienated from the patrimony of StCENT. PETER [u]. On the other hand, FREDERIC II., who was extremely desirous that the pope should espouse his quarrel with OTHо IV. loaded the Roman see with the richest marks of his munificence and liberality, and not only made a noble present in valuable lands to the pope's brother [w], but also permitted RICHARD count of Fundi to leave, by will, all his possessions to the Roman see [x], and confirmed the immense donation that had formerly been made to it by the opulent MATILDA. Such was the progress that INNOCENT III. made, during his pontificate, in augmenting the splendour and wealth of the church. NICOLAS IV. followed his example with the warmest emulation, and, in the year 1278, gave a remarkable proof of his arrogance and obstinacy, in refusing to crown the emperor RODOLPHUS I. before he had acknowledged and confirmed, by a solemn treaty, all the pretensions of the Roman see, of which, if some were plausible, the greatest part were altogether groundless, or, at least, extremely dubious, This agreement, to which all the Italian princes, that were subject to the emperor, were obliged to accede, was no sooner concluded, than NICOLAS reduced under his temporal dominions several cities and territories in Italy, that had formerly been annexed to the imperial crown, particularly Romania and Bologna. It was therefore under these two pontifs, that the see of Rome arrived, partly by force, and partly by artifice, at that high degree of grandeur

[u] See FRANC. PAGI Breviar. Romanor. Pontif. tom. iii. p. 161.-MURATORII Antiq. Italicæ, tom. i. p. 328.

[w] This brother of the pontif was called RICHArd. See for an account of this transaction, MURATORI's Antiquitat. 1talicæ, tom. v. p. 652.

[*] ODOR. RAYNALDUS, Continuat. Annal. Baronii, ad A. 1212, sect. ii.