Church. This was expressly determined by the Council of Constance, and
acknowledged by Pope Martin V. The pope is the ministerial head of the
Church, but he is not its absolute sovereign; on the contrary, facts
prove that he is subject to the jurisdiction of the Church; for
well-known instances are on record of popes being deposed on the score
of erroneous doctrine and immoral life, whereas no pope has ever
attempted to condemn or excommunicate the Church. Both the pope and the
Church have received authority to bind and loose; but the Church has
practically exerted that authority against the pope, whereas the latter
has never ventured to take any such step against the Church. In fine,
the words of Christ himself are decisive of the question--"If any man
neglect to hear the Church, let him be unto you as a heathen man and a
publican." This injunction was addressed to St. Peter equally with the
rest of the disciples.
The council proceeded to cite Eugenius by a formal monition to appear in
person at Basel; and on his failing to comply, they signified that on
the expiration of a further interval of sixty days ulterior means would
be put in force against him. Their firmness, added to the pressing
solicitations of the emperor Sigismund, at length induced the Pope to
yield. He reconciled himself with the council in December, 1433;
acknowledged that it had been legitimately convoked; approved its
proceedings up to that date; and cancelled the act by which he had
pronounced its dissolution.
Elated by their triumph, the Basilian fathers commenced in earnest the
task of Church reform, and passed several decrees of a character
vexatious to the Pope, particularly one for the total abolition of
annates. A second breach was the consequence. Eugenius, under pretence
of furthering the negotiation then pending for the reunion of the Greek
and Latin branches of the Church, published in 1437 a bull dissolving
the Council of Basel, and summoning another to meet at Ferrara. The
assembly at Basel retorted by declaring the Pope contumacious, and
suspending him from the exercise of all authority. Both parties
proceeded eventually to the last extremities. The council, after
proclaiming afresh, as "Catholic verities," that a general council has
power over the pope, and cannot be transferred or dissolved but by its
own act, passed a definitive sentence in its thirty-fourth session, June
25, 1439, deposing Eugenius from the papal throne. The Pope retaliated
by stigmatizing the Fathers of Basel as schismatical and heretical,
cancelling their acts, and excommunicating their president, the Cardinal
Archbishop of Arles.
Meanwhile an energetic and independent line of action was adopted by the
Government in France. The Crown, in concert with the heads of the
Church, availed itself of a train of events, which had so seriously
damaged the prestige of the papacy to make a decisive advance in the
path of practical reform and to establish the long-cherished Gallican
privileges on a secure basis. For this purpose Charles VII assembled a
great national council at Bourges, in July, 1438, at which he presided
in person, surrounded by the princes of his family and by all the most
eminent dignitaries spiritual and temporal; and here was promulgated the
memorable ordinance known as the "Pragmatic Sanction of Bourges."
The French Church, it must be observed, did not recognize the deposition
of Pope Eugenius, but adhered to his obedience, rejecting Felix V, whom
the Council of Basel elected to succeed him, as a pretender. It
continued, nevertheless, to support the council and to assert its
supreme legislative authority. Hence there arises a considerable
difficulty _in limine_ as to the character of the proceedings at
Bourges. For the deposition of Eugenius was either a rightful and valid
exercise of conciliar authority or it was not. If it was not--if the
council had wrongfully or uncanonically condemned the successor of
Peter--how could it be infallible? and when should its legislation in
any other particulars be indisputable? On the other hand, if the
deposition was a valid one, with what consistency could the French
continue to regard Eugenius as their legitimate pastor? It was a knotty
dilemma.
The position, however, though logically open to objections, was not
without its practical advantages. For, since France maintained a good
understanding with both the contending parties, both found it conducive
to their interests to send deputations to the Council of Bourges: Pope
Eugenius, with a view to obtain its support for the rival council which
he had opened at Ferrara; the Fathers of Basel, in order to make known
their decrees, which, as agreeing with the received doctrine of Gallican
theologians, would, it was hoped, meet with a cordial welcome throughout
France. The assembly at Bourges did not fail to profit by these
exceptional circumstances. It accepted the decrees of Basel, yet not
absolutely, but after critical examination and with certain
modification; a course which, by implication, asserted a right to
legislate for the concerns of the French Church even independently of a
general council acknowledged to be orthodox. The following explanation
of this proceeding was inserted in the preamble of the celebrated
statute agreed upon by the authorities at Bourges. It is there stated
that this policy was adopted, "not from any hesitation as to the
authority of the Council of Basel to enact ecclesiastical decrees, but
because it was judged advisable, under the circumstances and
requirements of the French realm and nation." So that it appears, on the
whole, that while the French professed great zeal on this occasion for
the dogma of the superiority of a general council over the pope, the
principle practically illustrated at Bourges was that of a supremacy of
a national council over every other ecclesiastical authority. Such were
the anomalies which arose out of the strange necessities of the time.
The Pragmatic Sanction of Bourges embraces twenty-three articles. The
first treats of the authority of general councils, and of the time and
manner of convening and celebrating them. The second relates to
ecclesiastical elections, which are enjoined to be made hereafter in
strict accordance with the canons, by the cathedral, collegiate, and
conventual chapters. Reserves, annates, and "expective graces" are
abolished; the rights of patrons are to be respected, provided their
nominees be graduates of the universities and otherwise well qualified.
The pope retains only a veto in case of unfitness or uncanonical
election, and the nominations to benefices "_in curia vacantia_,"
_i.e._, of which the incumbents may happen to die at Rome or within two
days' journey of the pontifical residence. The king and other princes
may occasionally _recommend_ or _request_ the promotion of persons of
special merit, but without threats or violent pressure of any kind.
Other articles regulate the order of ecclesiastical appeals, which, with
the exception of the "_causa majores_" specified by law, and those
relating to the elections in cathedral and conventual churches, are
henceforth to be decided on the spot by the ordinary judges; appeals are
to be carried in all cases to the court immediately superior; no case to
be referred to the pope "_omisso medio_," _i.e._, without passing
through the intermediate tribunals. The remaining clauses consist of
regulations for the performance of divine service, and various matters
of discipline. The reader will remember that Pope Eugenius, on the
occasion of his temporary reconciliation with the Council of Basel in
1433, expressed his approbation of all its synodal acts up to that date;
and this sanction of their validity is held by Gallicans to extend to
the period of the second and final rupture in 1437. It follows that the
provisions of the Pragmatic Sanction of Bourges, so far as they coincide
with the decrees of Basel prior to 1437, were authorized by the holy
see; and this includes them all, with two exceptions.
The Pragmatic Sanction was registered by the Parliament of Paris on
July 13, 1439; becoming thereby part of the statute law of France. Its
publication caused universal satisfaction throughout the kingdom. At
Rome, on the other hand, it was indignantly censured and resolutely
opposed. Eugenius IV vainly strove to obtain the King's consent to an
alteration of some of its details. Nicholas V protested against it
without effect; but the superior genius and subtle measures of Pius II
were more successful. This Pontiff denounced the Pragmatic at the
Council of Mantua in 1460 as "a blot which disfigured the Church of
France; a decree which no ecumenical council would have passed nor any
pope have confirmed; a principle of confusion in the ecclesiastical
hierarchy. Since it had been in force, the laity had become the masters
and judges of the clergy; the power of the spiritual sword could no
longer be exerted except at the good pleasure of the secular authority.
The Roman pontiff, whose diocese embraced the world, whose jurisdiction
is not bounded even by the ocean, possessed only such extent of power in
France as the parliament might see fit to allow him." The ambassadors of
Charles VII, however, reminded his holiness that the Pragmatic Sanction
was founded on the canons of Constance and Basel, which had been
ratified by his predecessors; and when the Pope proceeded to threaten
France with the interdict, and to prohibit all appeal from his decisions
to a future council, the King caused his procureur-general, Jean Dauvet,
to publish an official protest against these acts of violence,
concluding with a solemn appeal to the judgment of the Church Catholic
assembled by the representation. While awaiting that event, Charles
declared himself resolved to uphold the laws and regulations which had
been sanctioned by previous councils.
Louis XI, urged by alternate menaces, entreaties, and flattery from
Rome, revoked the Pragmatic Sanction shortly after his accession. This
step accorded well with his own arbitrary temper; for he could not
endure the privilege of free election by the cathedral and monastic
chapters; nor was he less jealous of the influence exerted, under the
shelter of that privilege, by the high feudal nobility in the disposal
of church preferment. He seems to have expected, moreover, that while
ostensibly conceding the right of patronage to the apostolic see, he
should be able to retain the real power in his own hands. The event
disappointed his calculations. No sooner was the decree of Bourges
rescinded than the Pope resumed and enforced his claim to the provision
of benefices in France. Simony and the whole train of concomitant abuses
reappeared more scandalously than ever; and Louis found himself despised
by his subjects as the dupe of papal artifice.
The parliamentary courts, meanwhile, assumed a determined attitude in
defence of the right of election guaranteed by the Pragmatic Sanction.
They pronounced the abolition of that act illegal, and treated it as
null and void; they insisted on their own authority in entertaining
appeals against ecclesiastical abuses; they eagerly supported anyone who
showed a disposition to withstand the pretensions of Rome in the matter
of patronage. The King, smarting under the trickery of the Pope, made no
attempt to restrain them in this line of conduct; and the result was
that the repeal of the Pragmatic Sanction was never fully executed,
having never been legalized by the forms of the constitution. On the
other hand, the popes so far maintained the advantage they had extorted
from Louis that the ancient franchise of the Church as to elections
became virtually extinct in France.
Things remained in this unsettled state during the reigns of Louis XI,
Charles VIII, and Louis XII. The latter Prince, on coming to the throne,
published an edict reëstablishing the Pragmatic Sanction; and this step,
added to his ambitious enterprises in Italy, brought him into hostile
collision with Pope Julius II. The King, unwilling to make war on the
head of the Church without some semblance of ecclesiastical sanction,
convoked a council at Tours in September, 1510, and consulted the clergy
on a series of questions arising out of the disturbed state of his
relations with Rome. They decided, in accordance with the known views
and wishes of the sovereign, that it is lawful for an independent
prince, if unjustly attacked, to defend himself against the pope by
force of arms; to withdraw for a time from his obedience; to take
possession of the territory of the Church, not with the purpose of
retaining it, but as a temporary measure of self-protection; and to
resist the pretensions of the pontiff to powers not rightfully belonging
to him. Citations to appear in Rome might, under such circumstances, be
safely disregarded; as also papal censures, which would be null and
void. If the emergency should arise, the council added, the king ought
to be governed by the ancient principles of ecclesiastical law, as
confirmed and reënacted by the Pragmatic Sanction.
The Gallican clergy sent a deputation to Pope Julius on this occasion to
entreat him to adopt a more conciliatory policy toward the princes of
Christendom; and they determined, in case their advice should be
fruitless, to demand the convocation of a general council to take
cognizance of the Pope's conduct, and prescribe the measures necessary
for the guidance and welfare of the Church. An ecclesiastical congress,
calling itself a council-general, but altogether unworthy of that august
title, was held, in fact, in the following year at Pisa, under the
auspices of the King of France and the emperor Maximilian. The Pope
refused to appear there, and convoked a rival synod at Rome, summoning
the cardinals who had authorized the meeting at Pisa to present
themselves at his court within sixty days. On the expiration of this
term he publicly excommunicated them, degraded them from their dignity,
and deprived them of their preferments.
Thus the Western Church once more exhibited the spectacle of a "house
divided against itself," as during the scandalous strife between the
synods of Basel and Florence; and for some time a formal schism appeared
imminent. The so-called Council of Pisa consisted of the four rebellious
cardinals, twenty Gallican prelates, several abbots and other
dignitaries, the envoys of the King of France, deputies from some of the
French universities, and a considerable number of doctors of the Faculty
of Paris. This assembly justified its position on the ground that there
are extraordinary cases in which a council may be called without the
intervention of the pope; and that, since the present Pontiff had
neglected to obey the decree of the Council of Constance which enjoined
a similar celebration at the interval of every ten years, the cardinals
were bound to take the initiative in the matter, according to a solemn
engagement which they had made in the conclave when Julius was elected.
After repeating the stereotyped formula concerning the supreme authority
of general councils, and the imperative necessity of a reformation of
the Church in its head and in its members, the fathers addressed
themselves professedly to the herculean task thus indicated; but little
or nothing was effected of any practical importance.
RENÉ FRANÇOIS ROHRBACHER[84]
Charles held an assembly at Bourges in the month of July, 1438. He
attended this himself, with the Dauphin, his son, afterward Louis XI,
many princes of the blood, and other nobles, with a great number of
bishops and doctors of the Church. The deputies of Pope Eugenius IV and
those of the prelates of Basel were heard one after another.
The result of this Assembly of Bourges was an ordinance and twenty-three
articles which were called the "Pragmatic Sanction," a name introduced
under the ancient emperors. In this were adopted, sometimes with
modifications, most of the decrees of Basel. Among them the first was
conceived in these terms: "General councils shall be held every ten
years, and the pope, according to the opinion of the council which is
closing, shall designate the place of the next council, which cannot be
changed except for most important reasons and by the advice of the
cardinals. As to the authority of the general council, the decrees
published at Constance are renewed, by which it is said that the general
council holds its power immediately from Jesus Christ; that all persons,
even of papal dignity, are subject to it in that which regards the
faith, the extirpation of schism, and the reformation of the Church in
the head and in the members; and that all must obey it, even the pope,
who is punishable if he transgresses it. Consequently, the Council of
Basel states that it is legitimately assembled in the Holy Ghost, and
that no one, not even the pope, can dissolve, transfer, nor prolong it,
without the consent of the fathers of the council."
The other articles may be reduced principally to the following
propositions: Canonical elections shall be held, and the pope shall not
reserve the bishoprics and other elective benefices. Expectant pardons
shall be abolished. Graduates shall be preferred to others in the
conferring of benefices, and for this reason they shall suggest their
degrees during Lent. All ecclesiastical causes of the provinces at a
distance of four days' journey from Rome shall be tried in the place
where they arise, except major causes and those of churches which are
immediately dependent on the holy see. In the case of appeals, the order
of the tribunals shall be preserved. No one shall ever appeal to the
pope without passing previously through the intermediate tribunal. If
anyone, believing himself injured by an intermediate tribunal subject to
the pope, makes an appeal to the holy see, the pope shall name the
judges from the same places, unless there should be important reasons
for bringing the cause directly to Rome. Frivolous appeals are punished.
The celebration of divine service is regulated and spectacles in
churches are forbidden. The abuse of ecclesiastical censures is
repressed, and it is declared that no one is obliged to shun
excommunicated persons, unless they have been proclaimed by name, or
else that the censure shall be so notorious that it cannot be denied or
excused. Such are the principal matters of the Pragmatic Sanction of
Bourges. It was registered at the Parliament of Paris, July 13, 1439;
but the King ordered its execution from the day of its date, 1438.
The Pragmatic Sanction of Bourges had a little defect; it was radically
null; for every contract is null which is not consented to by both of
the contracting parties. Now the Pragmatic Sanction was a contract
between the churches of France and the pope to regulate their mutual
relations. The consent of the pope to it was therefore absolutely
necessary, the more especially as he was the superior. For if one must
admit that a general council is superior to the pope, the Assembly of
Bourges was certainly not a general council. Moreover, the first use
that it made of its Pragmatic Sanction was to break it--and happily. In
its first articles, it had recognized the Council of Basel as ecumenical
and as superior to Pope Eugenius IV, with obligation to everyone to obey
its decrees. Now, the following year, 1439, the Council of Basel deposes
Eugenius IV, and substitutes for him Felix V, with obligation to
everyone, under penalty of anathema, to reject the first and submit to
the second. Nevertheless France does neither the one nor the other; she
continues to recognize Eugenius IV, and derides the pope of Ripaille and
of Basel, as she will declare in a new assembly of Bourges in 1440.
Above certain laws which men write on sheets of paper, with a
goose-quill and ink, they bear in themselves another law, written by
the hand of God, and which is good sense. Happy the nations which never
depart from this living and general law, or which, at least, know enough
to return to it promptly!
Accordingly, September 2, 1440, in the new Assembly of Bourges, King
Charles VII published a declaration by which he commanded all his
subjects to yield obedience to Pope Eugenius, with prohibition to
recognize another pope or to circulate among the public any letters or
despatches bearing the name of any other one whomsoever who pretended to
the pontificate. Nevertheless, Monsieur de Savoie, for so Charles VII
called the antipope, was united to him by ties of blood. This
declaration of the King and of the Assembly of Bourges was religiously
observed in all France, except in the University of Paris, where they
declared openly enough for the antipope. The reason of this is very
simple: the doctors of the Church in Paris dominated in the mob of
Basel, the antipope was of their own creation, and their colleagues of
Paris could not fail to recognize him.
As for King Charles VII, at the close of the year 1441 he sent an
embassy to Pope Eugenius to ask the convocation of a general council
which should put an end to the troubles of Christendom. The principal
orator was the Bishop of Meaux, Pierre de Versailles, formerly Bishop of
Digne, and originally a monk of the Abbey of St. Denis. He had an
audience in full consistory December 16th, and he spoke to the Pope in
the following terms:
"The most Christian King, our master, implores your assistance, most
holy Father, or rather it is the entire people of the faithful who
address to you these words of Scripture: '_Be our leader and our
prince._' Not that any one among us doubts that you have not the
princedom in the Church; for we know that the state of the Church was
constituted monarchical by Jesus Christ himself; but we ask you to be
_our prince_ by functions of zeal and by considerateness. We pray you to
manage wisely the boat of St. Peter, in the midst of the tempests by
which it is buffeted. The princes of the Church, most holy Father, ought
not to resemble those of the nations. The latter have frequently no
other rule of government than their own will; on the contrary, the
princes of the Church ought to temper the use of their authority; and it
is for that that the holy fathers have established laws and canons.
Now, here is the source of the ills which afflict the Church. There are
two extremes: one consists in exercising ecclesiastical authority as the
princes of the nations exercise theirs, without rule and without
measure; the other is the enterprise of those who, in order to correct
its abuses, have desired to annihilate authority, who have denied that
supreme power rests in the Church, who have given this power to the
multitude, who have changed the entire ecclesiastical order in
destroying the monarchy which God placed there, to substitute for it
democracy or aristocracy, who have arrived, not only with respect to the
leader but also with respect to doctrine, at the point of causing an
execrable schism among the faithful.
"These considerations, most holy Father, have touched the most Christian
King; and to mitigate these two extremes, he has resolved to solicit the
convocation of a general council. That of Basel pushed the second
extreme too far when it undertook to suppress the truth as to the
supreme power in one alone. That of Florence, which you are now holding,
has well elucidated this truth, as may be seen in the decree concerning
the Greeks; but it has determined upon nothing to temper the use of this
power. This has caused many to believe it too near to the first
extremity. A third will be able, therefore, to take the just mean and
restore everything to order.
"I shall be told, no doubt, that there is no more need of general
councils; that there have been enough of them up to this time; that the
Roman Church suffices to terminate all controversies; that a prince does
not willingly intrust his rights to the multitude; that we would be
again exposed, by the convocation of another council, to the movements
which agitated the assembly at Basel; but, in order to answer that, it
is sufficient to cast our eyes upon the present state of the Church.
There should rest in you, most holy Father, and in all other prelates,
two kinds of authority; one of divine power and institution, the other
of confidence in the people and of good reputation. The first, although
it cannot fail you, has, however, to be amenable to the second, and you
will obtain this by means of a general council, not such a one as that
of Basel, but such as the most Christian King asks; that is to say, a
council which shall be held at your order, and which shall be regulated
according to the decrees of the holy fathers. Such an assembly will not
be a confused multitude; and your monarchical power, which comes from
heaven, which is attested by the Gospel, which is recognized by the
saints and by the universal Church, will not be exposed to any danger."