which threatened to overtake them after death. This was the principal source of those immense treasures which from this century onward, through all the subsequent ages, flowed in upon the clergy, the churches, and the monasteries.1

4. The gifts moreover by which princes and noblemen endeavoured to satisfy the priests and to expiate their past sins were not merely private possessions, which common citizens might own, and with which the churches and monasteries had often before been endowed; but they were also public property, or such as may properly belong only to princes and to nations, royal domains (regalia) as they are called; for emperors, kings, and princes transferred to bishops, churches, and monasteries whole provinces, cities, and castles, with all the rights of sovereignty over them. Thus the persons whose business it was to teach contempt for the world, both by precept and example, unexpectedly became Dukes, Counts, Marquises, Judges, Legislators, sovereign Lords, and not only administered justice to citizens, but even marched out to war at the head of their own armies. This was the origin of those great calamities which afterwards afflicted Europe in the lamentable wars and contests about investitures and royal prerogatives.

5. Of this extraordinary liberality, which was never heard of out of Europe, not the vestige of an example can be found anterior to this century. There can therefore be no doubt that it grew out of the customs of the Europeans, and the form of government most common among these warlike nations; for the sovereigns of these nations used to bind their friends and clients to their interests, by presenting to them large tracts of country, with towns and castles in full sovereignty, reserving to themselves only the rights of supremacy and a claim to military services. Princes also might think they were obeying a rule of political wisdom in thus enriching the priests and bishops, as it is not probable that superstition was the sole cause of these extensive grants; for they might expect that men who were

the tombs of the saints, and the like. These were the penances imposed by the priests on persons who confessed to them their sins; and they would be the most irksome to such as had spent their lives without restraint, amidst pleasures and indulgences, and who wished to continue to live in the same way. Hence the opulent most eagerly embraced this new method of shunning, by the sacrifice of a part of their estates, penalties so irksome.

1 Hence the well-known phraseology used by those who made offerings to the churches and the priests, that they made the offering for the redemption of their Eouls. The property given was likewise often called the price of sin. See Muratori, Diss. de Redemptione Peccator. in his Antiquit. Ital. Med. Evi, tom. v. p.

712, &c.

under the bonds of religion and consecrated to God would be more faithful to them than civil chieftains and military men accustomed to rapine and slaughter; and moreover they might hope to restrain their turbulent subjects, and keep them to their duty, by means of bishops, whose denunciations inspired so great terror.2

6. This great aggrandizement of clergymen in the countries of Europe commenced with their head, the Roman pontiff, and thence extended to inferior bishops, priests, and monkish fraternities; for the barbarous nations of Europe, on their conversion to Christianity, looked upon the Romish bishop as succeeding to the place of the supreme head or pontiff of their Druids or pagan priests; and as the latter had possessed immense influence in secular matters and was exceedingly feared, they supposed the former was to be reverenced and honoured in the same manner.3 And what those nations spontaneously gave, the bishop of Rome willingly received; and lest perchance on a change of circumstances he might be despoiled of it, he supported his claims by arguments drawn from ancient history and from Christianity. This was the origin of that vast pre-eminence acquired by the Roman pontiffs in this century, and of their great power in regard to

liam of Malmsbury in his fifth book De Gestis Regum 2 I will here quote a remarkable passage from WilAngliæ, p. 166, among the Scriptores Rer. Anglic. post Bedam, Francf. 1601, fol. He there gives the reason for those great donations to the bishops. "Charlemagne in order to curb the ferocity of those nations bestowed nearly all the lands on the churches, wisely considering that men of the sacred order would not be so likely as laymen to renounce subjection to their sovereign; and moreover if the laity should be rebellious, the clergy would be able to hold them in check by the terrors of I

excommunication and the severities of their discipline."

doubt not that here is stated the true reason why Charlemagne, a prince by no means superstitious or a slave of priests, heaped upon the Roman pontiff and upon the bishops of Germany, Italy, and other countrics which he subdued, so many estates, territories, and and resources of the clergy, that he might by means of riches. That is, he enlarged immoderately the power the bishops restrain and keep in subjection his dukes, counts, and knights. For instance from the dukes of Beneventum, Spoleto, Capua, and others in Italy, much was to be feared after the extinction of the Lombard monarchy; and hence he conferred a large portion of power, and menaces, he might deter those powerful and Italy upon the Roman pontiff, so that by his authority, vindictive princes from sedition, or overcome them if they dared rebel. That other kings and princes in Europe reasoned in the same manner as Charles did, will not be questioned by one who considers well the political constitutions and forms of government of that age. That aggrandisement therefore of bishops and priests which we should naturally ascribe wholly to superstition, was also the result of civil prudence or state policy. On the subject of excommunications mentioned by Malmsbury above, we shall have something to say hereafter.

3 Cæsar, De Bello Gallico, lib. vi. cap. xiii. His autem omnibus Druidibus præest unus, qui summam inter cos (Celtas) habet auctoritatem. Hoc mortuo, si qui ex reliquis excellit dignitate, succedit. At si plures pares, suffragio Druidum adlegitur; nonnumquam etiam armis de principatu contendunt.

that he had plundered. But the next year the Lombard king having violated his promise and laid siege to Rome, Pepin again marched an army into Italy, compelled him to observe his promise, and with unparalleled liberality bestowed on St. Peter and his church the Grecian provinces, namely, the Exarchate and the Pentapolis, which he had wrested from the grasp of Aistulphus. 9. After the death of Pepin, Desiderius, the king of the Lombards, again boldly invaded the patrimony of St. Peter, namely, the territories given by the Franks to the Romish church. Hadrian I. who was then pontiff, had recourse to Charles, afterwards called the Great [Charlemagne] the son of Pepin. He crossed the Alps with a powerful army in the year 774, overturned the empire of the Lombards in Italy which had stood more than two centuries, transported KingDesiderius into France, and proclaimed himself king of the Lombards. In this expedition when Charlemagne arrived at Rome, he not only confirmed the donations of his father to St. Peter, but went further; for he delivered over to the pontiffs to be possessed and governed by them, some cities and provinces of Italy which were not included in the grant of Pepin. But what portions of Italy Charlemagne thus annexed to the donation of his father, it is very difficult at this day to ascertain.?

I See Sigonius, De Regno Italiæ, lib. iii, p. 202, &c. Opp. tom. ii. Bünau, Hist. Imp. Romano-German. tom. ii. p. 301, 366; Muratori, Annal. tom. iv. p. 310, &c. and many others. But the exact boundaries of this exarchate thus disposed of by Pepin, have been much controverted, and been investigated with much industry in the present age. The Roman pontiffs extend the exarchate given to them as far as possible; others contract it to the narrowest limits they can. See Muratori, Droits de l'Empire sur l'Etat Ecclésiastique, chap. i. ii. and Antiq. Italicæ Medii Evi, tom. i. p. 64-68, 986, 987. But he is more cautious in tom. v. p. 790. This controversy cannot easily be settled except by recurrence to the deed of gift. Fontanini, Dominio della S. Sede sopra Comacchio, Diss. i. cap. c. p. 346, cap. 67, p. 242, represents the deed of gift as still in existence, and he quotes some words from it. The fact is scarcely credible; yet if it be true, it is unquestionably not for the interest of the Romish church to have this important ancient document brought to light. Nor could those who defended the interests of the pontiff against the emperor Joseph, in the controversy respecting the fortress of Comacchio in our time, be persuaded to bring it forward though challenged to do it by the emperor's advocates. Blanchini however in his Prolegomena ad Anastasium de Vitis Pontificum Rom. p. 55, has given us a specimen of this grant, which bears the marks of antiquity. The motive which led Pepin to this great liberality, was, as appears from numerous testimonies. to make expiation for his sins, and especially the great sin he had committed against his master Childeric. [It appears however from more recent researches that Pepin, while he reserved to himself the superiority over Rome, only made the pope a kind of exarch in nominal subjection to the Greek emperor. See Savigny, Geschichte d. Röm. Rechts, &c.; Cathcart's translation, vol. i. p. 340, &c.-R.

See Sigonius, De Regno Italia, lib. iii. p. 223, &c. Opp. tom. il. Bünau, Hist. Imp. Romano-German. tom. ii. p. 368, &c. De Marca, De Concordia Sacer dotii et Imperii, lib. 1. cap. xli. p. 67, &c. Muratori,

10. By this munificence, whether politic or impolitic I leave to others to determine, Charlemagne opened his way to the empire of the West, or rather to the title of emperor of the West, and to supreme dominion over the city of Rome and its territory, on which the empire of the West was thought to depend.3 He had doubtless long had this object in view; and perhaps his father Pepin had also contemplated the same thing. But the circumstances of the times required procrastination in an affair of such moment. The power of the Greeks, however, being embarrassed after the death of Leo IV. and his son Constantine, and the impious Irene, who was very odious to Charlemagne, having grasped the sceptre in the year 800, he did not hesitate to carry his designs into execution. For Charlemagne coming to Rome this year, the pontiff, Leo III. knowing his wishes persuaded the Roman people, who were then supposed to be free and to have the right of electing an emConringius, De Imperio Romano-German. cap. vi. Droits de l'Empire sur l'Etat Ecclés chap. ii. p. 147, &c. [Bower's Lives of the Popes, vol. iii. Life of Hadrian I.] and numerous others. Concerning the extent of Charlemagne's new donation to the popes, there is the same warm contest between the patrons of the papacy and those of the empire, as there is respecting Pepin's donation. The advocates for the pontiffs maintain that Corsica, Sardinia, Sicily, the territory of Sabino, the duchy of Spoleto, besides many other tracts of country, were presented by the very pious Charlemagne to St. Peter. But the advocates for the claims of the emperors diminish as far as they can the munificence of Charlemagne, and confine this new grant within narrow limits. On this subject the reader may consult the writers of the present age who have published works on the claims of the emperors and the popes to the cities of Comacchio and Florence, and the duchies of Parma and Placentia; but especially the very learned treatise of Berret entitled Diss. Chorographica de Italia Medii Evi, p. 33, &c. The partialities of writers, if I mistake not, have prevented them from discerning in all cases the real facts; and it is easy to fall into mistakes on subjects so long involved in obscurity. Adrian affirms that the object of Charlemagne in this new donation was to atone for his sins; for he thus writes to the Emperor in the ninety-second Epistle of the Codex Carolinus, in Muratori, Scriptor. Rer. Italicar. tom. iii. par. ii. p. 265-"Venientes ad nos de Capua, quam Beato Petro, Apostolorum Principi, pro mercede anima vestræ atque sempiterna memoria, cum cæteris civitatibus obtulistis." I have no doubt that Charlemagne, who wished to be accounted pious according to the estimates of that age, expressed this design in his transfer or deed of gift. But a person acquainted with him and with the history of those times will not readily believe that this was his only motive. By that donation Charlemagne aimed to prepare the way for obtaining the empire of the West, which he was endeavouring to secure (for he was most ambitious of glory and dominion); but he could not honourably obtain his object in the existing state of things, without the concurrence and aid of the Roman pontiff. Besides this, he aimed to secure and establish his new empire in Italy, by increasing the possessions of the holy see. On this point I have already touched in a preceding note; and I think whoever carefully considers all the circumstances of the case will coincide with me in judgment.

3 In reality Charlemagne was already emperor of the West, that is, the most powerful of the kings in Europe. He therefore only lacked the title of emperor, and sovereign power over the city of Rome and the adjacent country; both of which he easily obtained by the aid of Leo III.

peror, to proclaim and constitute him emperor of the West.1

11. Charlemagne being made emperor and sovereign of Rome and its territory, reserved indeed to himself the supreme power and the prerogatives of sovereignty; but the beneficial dominion, as it is called, and subordinate authority over the city and its territory, he seems to have conferred on the Romish church.2 This plan was undoubtedly suggested to him by the Roman pontiff; who persuaded the emperor, perhaps by showing him some ancient though forged papers and documents, that Constantine the Great (to whose place and authority Charlemagne now succeeded), when he removed the seat of empire to Constantinople committed the old seat of empire, Rome and the adjacent territories or the Roman dukedom, to the possession and government of the church, reserving however his impeperial prerogatives over it; and that, from this arrangement and ordinance of Constantine, Charlemagne could not depart without incurring the wrath of God and St. Peter.3

1 See the historians of those times, and especially the best of them all, Bünau, Hist. Imp. Romano-German. tom. ii. p. 537, &c. The advocates of the Roman pontiffs tell us that Leo III. by virtue of the supreme power with which he was divinely clothed, conferred the empire of the West, after it was taken from the Greeks, upon the nation of the Franks and upon Charlemagne their king; and hence they infer that the Roman pontiff, as the vicar of Christ, is the sovereign lord of the whole earth as well as of the Roman empire; and that all emperors reign by his authority. The absurdity of this reasoning is learnedly exposed by Spanheim, De Ficta Transla tione Imperii in Carolum M. per Leonem III. in his Opp. tom. ii. p. 557. [See also Bower's Lives of the Popes, vol. iii. Life of Leo III.] Other writers need not be named.

2 That Charlemagne retained the supreme power over the city of Rome and its territory-that he administered justice there by his judges and inflicted punishments on malefactors-and that he exercised all the prerogatives of sovereignty, learned men have demonstrated by the most unexceptionable testimony. See only Muratori, Droits de l'Empire sur l'Etat Ecclés. chap.vi. p. 77, &c. Indeed they only shroud the light in darkness who maintain with Fontanini (Dominio della S. Sede sopra Comacchio, Diss. i. c. 95, 96, &c.), and the other advocates of the Roman pontiffs, that Charlemagne sustained at Rome not the character of a sovereign but that of patron of the Romish church, relinquishing the entire Sovereignty to the pontiffs. And yet to declare the whole truth it is clear that the power of the Roman pontiff in the city and territory of Rome was great, and that he decreed and performed many things according to his pleasure and as a sovereign. But the limits of his power and the foundations of it are little known and much controverted. Muratori (Droits de l'Empire, p. 102) maintains that the pontiff performed the functions of an exarch or viceroy of the emperor. But this opinion was very offensive to Clement XI. nor do I regard it as correct. After considering all the circumstances, I suppose the Roman pontiff held the Roman province and city by the same tenure as he did the exarchate and the other territories given him by Charlemagne, that is as a fief; yet with less circumscribed powers than ordinary feudal tenures, on account of the dignity of the city, which was once the capital or the seat of empire. This opinion receives much confirmation from the statements which will be made in the following note; and it reconciles the jarring testimonies of the ancient writers and other documents. 3 Most writers are of opinion that Constantine's pre

12. Amidst these various accessions to their power and influence, the Roman pontended grant was posterior to this period, and that it

was forged perhaps in the tenth century; but I believe it existed in this century, and that Hadrian and his successor Leo III. made use of it to persuade Charlemagne to convey feudal power over the city of Rome and its territory to the Romish church. For this opinion we have the good authority of the Roman pontiff himself, Hadrian I. in his Epistle to Charlemagne, which is the forty-ninth in the Coder Carolinus, published in Muratori's Rerum Italicar. Scriptores, tom. iii. par. ii. p. 194, and which well deserves a perusal. Hadrian there

exhorts Charlemagne, who was not yet emperor, to order the restitution of all the grants which had formerly very clearly distinguishes the grant of Constantine from the donations of the other emperors and princes; and what deserves particular notice, he distinguishes it from the donation of Pepin, which embraced the exarchate,

been made to St. Peter and the church of Rome. And he

and from the additions made to his father's grants by Charlemagne; whence it follows legitimately that Hadrian understood Constantine's grant to embrace the city of Rome and the territory dependent on it. He first mentions the grant of Constantine the Great,

thus: "Deprecamur vestram excellentiam-pro Dei amore et ipsius clavigeri regni cœlorum-ut secundum

promissionem, quam polliciti estis eidem Dei Apostolo, pro animæ vestra mercede et stabilitate regni vestri, omnia nostris temporibus adimplere jubeatis. Et sicut temporibus Beati Silvestri Romani Pontificis, a sanctæ recordationis piissimo Constantino Magno, Imperatore, per ejus largitatem (vide ipsam Constantini donationem) sancta Dei catholica et apostolica Romana ecclesia elevata atque exaltata est, et potestatem in his Hesperia partibus largiri dignatus est: ita et in his vestris felicissimis temporibus atque nostris, sancta Dei ecclesia germinet-et amplius atque amplius exaltata permaneat.

-

Quia ecce novus Christianissimus Dei Constantinus Imperator (N.B. Here the pontiff denominates Charles, who was then only a king, an emperor, and compares him with Constantine) his temporibus surrexit, per quem omnia Deus sanctæ suæ ecclesiæ-largiri dignatus est. (Thus far he speaks of Constantine's donation. Next the pontiff notices the other donations, which he clearly discriminates from this.) Sed et cuncta alia, quæ per diversos Imperatores, Patricios, etiam et alios Deum timentes, pro eorum anima mercede et venia peccatorum, in partibus Tuscia, Spoleto seu Benevento, atque Corsica, simul et Pavinensi patrimonio, Beato Petro Apostolo,-concessa sunt, et per nefandam gentem Longobardorum per annorum spatia abstracta atque ablata sunt, vestris temporibus restituantur.(The pontiff adds in the close that all those grants were preserved in the archives of the Lateran, and that he had sent them by his ambassadors to Charlemagne.) Unde et plures donationes in sacro nostro scrinio Lateranensi reconditas habemus; tamen et pro satisfactione Christianissimi regni vestri, per jam fatos viros, ad demonstrandum eas vobis, direximus; et pro hoc petimus eximiam Præcellentiam vestram, ut in integro ipsa patrimonia Beato Petro et nobis restituere jubeatis."-By this it appears that Constantine's grant was then in the Lateran archives of the popes, and was sent with the others to Charlemagne. [Of this pretended Donatio Constantini there are four texts in Greek and one only in Latin in the Pseudo-Isidorian Collection, under the title of Edictum Don. Constantini Imper. extracts from which are in the Decret. Gratian. Dist.. xcvi. c. 13. (See Fabricius, Biblio. Græca, tom. vi. p. 4-7.) That there never was any such grant is acknowledged by Otho III. in 999; though this acknowledgment is declared spurious by Baronius, Gretzer, Pagi, and others, but defended by Muratori and adopted by the French Benedictines. It is also pronounced to be a "mendacium et fabula heretica," by Pope Eugenius in a letter of his in 1152, in Martene et Durand, Ampliss. Collect. &c. tom. ii. p. 553. In the fifteenth century this is demonstrated to be the case by Nic. Cusanus, De concord. Cath. about the year 1432, and especially by Laur. Valla, De falso credita et ementita Const. donatio. Since that period the document is universally allowed to be spurious, but the donation itself is still asserted by Baronius, Gretzer, Blanchini, Mamachius, and others. Gieseler's Lehrbuch, &c. Cunningham's translation, vol. ii. p. 69, 83, 187.-R. U