CHAPTER II. ENTERPRIZES OF THE POPES OF THE NINTH CENTURY
CHAPTER III. TENTH CENTURY
CHAPTER IV. ENTERPRISES OF THE POPES OF THE ELEVENTH CENTURY
CHAPTER V. CONTESTS BETWEEN THE POPES AND THE SOVEREIGNS OF THE
TWELFTH CENTURY
CHAPTER VI. POWER OF THE POPES OF THE THIRTEENTH CENTURY
CHAPTER VII. FOURTEENTH CENTURY
CHAPTER VIII. FIFTEENTH CENTURY
CHAPTER IX. POLICY OF THE POPES OF THE SIXTEENTH CENTURY
CHAPTER X. ATTEMPTS OF THE POPES OF THE SEVENTEENTH CENTURY
CHAPTER XII. RECAPITULATION
CHRONOLOGICAL TABLE
ENDNOTES AND
TO
THE REV. RICHARD T. P. POPE,
AT WHOSE SUGGESTION IT WAS UNDERTAKEN,
THIS TRANSLATION
OF
THE PAPAL POWER
IS INSCRIBED,
AS A SMALL TRIBUTE OF RESPET AND REGARD
BY
HIS AFFECTIONATE FRIEND,
THE TRANSLATOR.
TRANSLATORS PREFACE
THE Work of which the following is a translation, had its origin in the
transactions which took place between Pius VII. and the French Emperor,
relative and subsequent to the restoration of the Roman Catholic
religion in France. Its object appears to have been, to exhibit to the
world the unreasonable pretensions of the Roman Court, and to appeal to
public opinion for support in resisting claims deemed incompatible with
the independence of the civil power, and derogatory to the honour of the
French throne. In pursuance of this object, an investigation was entered
into, to ascertain with precision the line of demarcation which
separated the recognized authority of the Papal See in France, from the
rights appertaining to the civil power, and the indisputable privileges
of the French Church. This investigation naturally led the enquiry up to
a remote period, and the present work may be considered an epitome of
the political history of the Roman Court, and of its relations with the
other Courts of Europe, from the period in which its spiritual authority
began to merge into temporal power, down to the occasion of the present
essay in the pontificate of Pius VII.
In the former period of this enquiry, the pages of early history
afforded the materials from which the requisite information was to have
been derived. This source was open to all; and the merit of the work is
here confined to the discrimination exercised in the selection of the
scattered parts, and the judgment with which they may be found combined
into an uniform whole.
In the latter period, the advantages possessed by the author were
peculiar and important. Access to the papal archives appears to have
opened to him abundant sources of information, which a patient
investigation enabled him to avail himself of, in applying those
documents, otherwise perhaps destined to oblivion, to the illustration
of the object which he had in view. These documents give to this portion
of the work a peculiar interest. For, though the period to which they
relate is recent, the circumstances in which Europe was placed during
the transactions more immediately referred to, and the extraordinary
revolutions to which both public opinion and political institutions were
subjected, not only give to it the charm of novelty, but confer on it an
interest similar to that derived from the dust of antiquity. Whatever
the defects of the translation, it will I trust be found a valuable
addition to our historical records, and a source of much useful and
interesting information.
R. T. H.
Montmorenci, 1825.
ADVERTISEMENT TO THE THIRD EDITION, ORIGINAL
WE have introduced into this Third Edition some developments which were
not in the two former. We have inserted many justificatory pieces, some
of which have never before been published. These pieces, and the
reflections induced by them, occupy the second volume, which is divided
into three parts, containing:
1. Exposition of the Maxims of the Court of Rome, since the fabrication
of the False Decretals, and especially from the time of Gregory VII. to
the present day:
2. Exposition of the Maxims of the Gallican Church, from St. Louis to
the Emperor Napoleon:
3. Exposal of the actual conduct of Pius VII. with some observations
on the effects it may produce.
CHAPTER I. ORIGIN OF THE TEMPORAL POWER OF THE POPES
WHOEVER has read the Gospel, knows that Jesus Christ founded no temporal
power, no political sovereignty. He declares that his kingdom is not of
this world;¹ he charges his apostles not to confound the mission he
gives them, with the power exercised by the princes of the earth.² St.
Peter and his colleagues are sent not to govern but to instruct³ and the
authority with which they are clothed, consists only in the knowledge
and the benefits they are to bestow.
¹ John xviii. 36.
² Luke xxii. 25.
³ Matt, xxviii. 20.
Faithful to confining themselves within the bounds of so pure an
apostolat, far from erecting themselves into rivals of the civil power,
they, on the contrary, proclaimed its independence and the sacredness of
its rights:⁴ obedience to sovereigns is one of the first precepts of
their pious morality. To resist governments is, they say, to offend the
Ruler of the world, and take up arms against God himself.⁵
The successors of the apostles for a long time held the same language:
they acknowledged no power superior to that of sovereigns but Divine
Providence itself.⁶ They subjected to kings all the ministers of the
altar, levites, pontiffs, evangelists, and even prophets.⁷ God alone
was, immediately and without mediator, the only judge of kings; to him
alone belonged their condemnation: the Church addressed to them only
supplications or respectful advice.⁸
⁴ Rom. xiii.
⁵ Qui resistit potestati, Dei ordinationi resistit; qui autem
fesistunt, ipsi sibi damnationem acquirunt.
⁶ Chrysostom. Comm, on Epistle to the Romans.
⁷ Deum esse solum in cujus solius, imperatores sunt potestate, à quo
sunt secundi, post quem primi ante omnes.— Colimus imperatorem ut
hominem à Deo secundum, solo Deo minorem.—Tertull.
⁸ Quod rex delinquit, soli Deo reus est.—Cassiodoi’us, Si quis de
nobis, 0 rex, justitiæ tram item transcendere volu-erit, à te
corrigi potest: si verô tu excesseris, quis te corripiet, quis te
condemnabit, nisi is qui se pronunciavit esse justitiam? —Gregor,
Turon. ad Chilpericum. Reges non sunt à nobis graviter
exasperandi, divino judiciô sunt reservandi.—Yvo. Carnot. See
Bossuet’s reflections on these various texts of Scripture, and of
the fathers. De(. Cler. Gail. par. 2. b. 6. ch. 13, 18, 26, 31,
32.
She exercised empire only through the medium of her virtues⁹ and
possessed no other inheritance than that of faith.¹⁰ These are the very
expressions of the holy fathers, not only during the three first
centuries, but subsequent to Constantine, and even after the time of
Charlemagne.
Every one knows, that previous to Constantine, the Christian churches
had been but individual associations, too frequently proscribed, and at
all times unconnected with the state. The popes, in these times of
persecution and of ferment, most assuredly were far from aspiring to the
government of provinces: they were contented in being permitted to be
virtuous with impunity; and they obtained no crown on earth save that of
martyrdom.
From the year 321, Constantine allowed the churches to acquire landed
property, and individuals to enrich them by legacies. Here we behold, in
all probability, says the President Henault, what has given rise to the
supposition of Constantine’s donation.¹¹ This donation preserved its
credit for such a lapse of time, that in 1478 some Christians were
burned at Strasburgh for daring to question its authenticity.
⁹ Pelag. 1 Concilior. vol. 5. p. 803. Greg. Mag. vol. 2. p. 675,
676, 677.
¹⁰ Nihil ecclesia sibi nisi fidem possidet.—Ambros. Op. tom. 2, p.
837.
¹¹ Abr. Chron. History of France, years 753, 754, 755.
In the twelfth century, Gratian and Theodore Balsamon copied it into
their canonical compilations; and St. Bernard did not consider if
apocryphal.¹² It had its origin before the tenth century,
notwithstanding what many critics say: for in 776 Pope Adrian avails
himself of it in an exhortation to Charlemagne. But, in 755, Stephen II.
had also an open to make use of it, as we shall shortly see; but as he
neither mentions it, nor refers to it in any way, it follows that it was
unknown to him as it had been to all his predecessors. It was therefore
after the middle, and before the end of the eighth century, that it must
have been fabricated. For the rest, the falsity of this piece is
according to Fleury more universally recognized than that of the
decretals of Isidore: and if the donation of Constantine could still
preserve any credit, to strip it of such credit, it would be sufficient
to transcribe it: here follow some lines:
“We attribute to the see of St. Peter all the dig−
“nity, all the glory, all the authority of the imperial
“power. Furthermore we give to Sylvester and to
“his successors our palace of the Latran, which is
“incontestibly the finest palace on earth; we give
“him our crown, our mitre, our diadem, and all
“our imperial vestments: we transfer to him the
“imperial dignity. We bestow on the Holy Pontiff
“in free gift the city of Rome and all the western
“cities of Italy; also the western cities of every
“other country. To cede precedence to him, we
“divest ourselves of our authority over all those
“provinces, and we withdraw from Rome, trans−
“ferring the seat of our empire to Byzantium;
“inasmuch as it is not proper, that an earthly
“emperor should preserve the least authority, where
“God has established the head of his religion.”
¹² De Consider, ad Eugen. book 4. ch. 4.—Dante de Monarchiâ, book 3,
proves that this donation could not bind the successors of
Constantine; he declares it null, but without disputing its
authenticity.
The respect which we owe to our readers, forbids all observation on such
palpable absurdities: but we have believed it not altogether useless to
relate them here, as they may give an idea of the means resorted to in
the eighth century to establish the temporal power of the popes. They
also furnish a standard of the public ignorance during the succeeding
centuries, in which this strange concession, revered by the people, and
even by their kings, effectually contributed to the developement of the
power of the Holy See. But we must also state, that at the restoration
of literature the first rays of light sufficed to dissipate so
contemptible an imposture.¹³
¹³ A copy of this donation will be found in the 2d volume.
Laurence Valle having demonstrated, towards the middle of the fifteenth
century, the falsity of this donation, the best writers of the
sixteenth, even those of Italy, treated it with the contempt it
deserved. Ariosto energetically expresses the contemptinto which it had
fallen¹⁴ and places it among the various chimeras which Astolphus meets
with in the moon.
Four hundred and sixty-three years had passed from the death of
Constantine in 337, to the coronation of Charlemagne in 800. Now during
all this period, no epoch, no year, can be specified, in which the popes
exercised sovereign authority. The immediate successors of Constantine
reigned, as he did, over Italy: and when on the death of Theodoras two
empires arose out of one, Rome, the metropolis of the west, continued to
be governed still by an emperor. Then, as all historians attest, the
popes assumed apostolic functions alone; they were not reckoned in the
number of the civil magistrates; although their election, the work of
the people and of the clergy, was obliged to be confirmed by the prince.
When they sought from their creed and the exercise of their spiritual
ministry, an independence which they did not always obtain, they
rendered homage to that of the civil power, and did not claim any of its
properties.
In 476 the Western Empire fell: Augustulus was dethroned; the Heruli,
the Ostrogoths, and other barbarians, invaded and laid waste Italy. Rome
was governed by Odoacre down to 493, by Theodoric to 526, and, during
the twenty-seven succeeding years, by Theodat, Vitiges, Totila, or the
generals of the Eastern Emperors.
¹⁴ Or puzza forte: Questo era il dono, se pero dir lece, Che
Costantino al buon Silvestro fece. Or I. Fur. 14th chap. 8th
stanza: This was the gift, with reverence be it said, Which
Constantine to good Sylvester made.
It is necessary to observe here, that the sovereignty of these emperors
over Italy, and especially over the city of Rome, had been acknowledged
by Odoacre and by Theodoric, and sometimes even by their successors¹⁵
But in 553, the victory of Narses over Theia restored to the Greek
emperors an immediate sovereignty over the Roman territory and the
neighbouring countries. Thus terminated seventy-seven years of wars and
revolutions, during which the popes neither obtained nor aspired to the
exercise of any temporal authority. Theodoric, in 498, confirmed the
election of Pope Symmachus;¹⁶ and when, in the year 500, this pope was
accused by his enemies, the decision of the matter was referred to
Theodoric.¹⁷
From 553 to 567, Narses governed Italy in the name of the emperors of
Constantinople. Shortly after his death, the Lombards, led by Alboin,
made themselves masters of the northern parts of Italy, and there
founded a kingdom, which lasted about two hundred years. The other
regions of Italy remained more or less under the authority of the
emperors of the East, which was administered by the Exarchs of Ravenna.
¹⁵ St Marc. Abridged History of Italy, vol. 1. p, 1 to 129.
¹⁶ Anastas. Bibliotb. of the Lives of the Roman Pontiffs, p. 84.
¹⁷ Fleury. Eccles. Hist b. xxx. n. 1.
The exarch was a governor general, to whom the dukes, prefects or
patricians, and also the governors of particular territories or cities,
were subordinate. From the exarch or the emperor they sought the
ratification of the election of each bishop of Rome: this is a fact of
which the proof exists in an ancient collection of the formulas of the
Romish Church¹⁸ Once only, at the election of Pelagius II. in 577, they
dispensed with the consent of the emperor, because the Lombards besieged
Rome, and cut off the communication with Constantinople. Paul Diacre, in
speaking of Gregory the Great, who in 590 succeeded Pelagius II. says
expressly, that it was not permitted to instal a pope without the order
of the Greek emperor.¹⁹
¹⁸ Liber decimus Romanorum Pontificum. Pere Gamier, & Jesuit,
published an edition of it at Paris, in 1680. This collection had
been published before by Holstenius, and was suppressed by the
Court of Rome.—Sec. on the Dependence of tho Popes, 3d and 4th
heads.
¹⁹ Non enim licebat tunc temporis quemlibet in Romanâ civitate ad
pontificatum promovere absque jussWeimperatoris. —Paul Diac. b. 3,
c. 4.
A letter of Martin I. to Gregory I. called ‘the Great’ has rendered
frequent homage to the civil authority; but letters have been
fabricated, under his name, in which he declares, that every king, every
prelate, every judge, who shall neglect to ascertain the privileges of
the three monasteries of Autun, and those of the Abbey of St. Medard de
Soissons, shall be deprived of his dignity, and condemned, like Judas,
to the pit of hell, unless he do penance, and become reconciled with the
monks.—See Maimbourg. Historical Treatise on the Church of Rome, chap.
99, the emperor thus commences: “Martin, bishop, to “the emperor our
most serene lord,” and ends with these words: “May the grace from above
preserve “the very pious empire of our lord, and bow the “neck of all
nations unto him.”²⁰ Thus a pope expresses himself who, imprisoned,
exiled, and deposed by Constantius, never disputed the rights of the
sovereign who treated him with so much rigour and even injustice. When
this emperor, Constantius, came to Rome in 662, the pope, Vitalien, paid
him the homage of a faithful subject.²¹
Two apostolic nuncios, stationed, the one at Constantinople, the other
at Ravenna, offered to the emperor and to the exarch the respect,
devotion, and tribute of the Roman pontiff. Pope Leo II. towards the
year 683, writing to Constantine Pogonat, calls him his king and lord.²²
In 686 and 687, the elections of the popes Conon and Sergius were
confirmed, the one by the Exarch Theodoric, the other by the Exarch
Platys, who exacted from Sergius a large sum, although this description
of tribute had been abolished by the Emperor under the pontificate of
Agathon.²³
²⁰ Morin. History of the Origin and Progress of the Power of the
Popes, p. 664,
²¹ Fleury. Ecclesiastical Hist. b. 39, n. 33.
²² Morin. History of the Origin and Progress of the Power of the
Popes, p. 664.
²³ Anast. Hist de vit. Bom. Pont, pages 147, 149.
In 710 Pope Constantine, ordered to Constantinople by Justinian the
Second, hastened to obey this superior order.²⁴ We shall only cite a
letter written by the Pontiff to the Duke of Venice in 727:²⁵
“The city of Ravenna having been taken, because
“of our sins, by the wicked nation of the Lombards,
“and our excellent master, the Exarch, being, as
“we are informed, retired to Venice, we conjure
“your Highness to unite with him, in order to re−
“store the city of Ravenna to the imperial domi−
“nion; to the end that we may, by the Lord’s as−
“sistance, remain inviolably attached to Leo and
“Constantine, our august emperors.”
The Pope who thus expresses himself, is Gregory the Second, one of those
who may be suspected of having been amongst the first, who sought to
extend, beyond the bounds of the apostolat, the pontifical authority.
His letter at least proves that the imperial sovereignty was then a
right universally acknowledged; a public and undeniable fact.
It is however in the eighth century, and a short time after the date of
this epistle, that we perceive, not the establishment certainly, but the
first symptoms of the temporal power of the Roman prelates. The various
causes which could tend to this result, about this period begin to be
perceptible, and to acquire additional strength from their combined
operation.
²⁴ Fleury. Ecclesiastical Hist. b. 41, no. 22.
²⁵ Baronius. Ecclesiastical Annals, vol. 13, p. 343.
The first of these causes consisted in the vast extension of all the
ecclesiastical institutions. Many popes, and other prelates, merited by
their virtues and their talents the respect of the people and the esteem
of their sovereigns: they obtained that imposing reputation, which, in
the midst of public troubles and misfortunes, is the universal prelude
to power. Zealous missionaries had spread the light of the gospel
through most of the countries of Europe, and prepared, nay, forwarded,
by religious instruction, the civilization of some barbarous nations. On
all sides churches and monasteries arose and were enriched: the pious
liberality of princes and private individuals increased every where, but
especially at Rome, the treasures and estates of the clergy: their
landed property acquired sufficient extent to be transformed insensibly
into principalities; a metamorphosis but too easy under such weak
governments and such vacillating legislation.— Let us add to these
circumstances the frequency and the solemnity of the councils, the
general interest which their decisions excited, and the almost
inevitable collision of their discussions with the quiet or disordered
state of political affairs. We may observe, in particular, that at the
commencement of the eighth century, there did not exist any great empire
save the Eastern; and, nevertheless, that the power of the Greek
Emperors—limited in Asia by that of the Caliphs, weakened in the very
heart of Constantinople by internal revolutions, represented at Ravenna
by unfaithful or injudicious Exarchs—with difficulty was upheld in Italy
against the arms of the Lombards, and occasionally required to be
defended by the influence of the Roman Pontiffs. In the mean while, the
thrones which had been newly erected here and there by some barbarous
conquerors, already tottered under their successors, whose ignorance,
generally equal to that of their subjects, seemed to tempt the
enterprises of the clergy. This clergy, though better informed than the
common people, was not, however, sufficiently so to perceive the bounds
of its proper functions under such circumstances, or to neglect
profiting, at all hazards, by the opportunities offered to increase its
power. When, in 681, a Council of Toledo loosed the subjects of Vamba
from their allegiance to this prince, perhaps the thirty-five bishops
who sat in this synod, neither perceived the weakness nor the monstrous
disloyalty of such a sentence. Fleury was right to point out to us²⁶
this first example of a king deposed by bishops; but he might also have
remarked, that so serious a novelty excited no reprehension—that kings
complained not of it, and that no obstacle opposed the execution of this
strange decree.
We may place in the catalogue of causes which favoured the ambition of
the popes, the preposterous taste of the Greek Emperors for dogmatical
controversies, and, the unfortunate part they incessantly took in them.
²⁶ Ecclesiastical History, b. 40, n. 34. and 3d disc. n. 10.
They thus provoked apostolic resistance, which, by its splendor and
success, hum-bled in the eyes of the people the imperial authority. They
beheld the doctrines of the pontiff exercising a solemn triumph over the
edicts of the sovereign; and he, whose pastoral charges thus limited the
civil authority, must have appeared competent to exercise it, the moment
he ceased to disdain it. A sect was formed in Constantinople against the
images, brought into disrepute in some places by the victories of the
Mahometans over them. The Emperor Leo the Isaurian placed himself at the
head of the Iconoclasts or Image-breakers: he published, at the same
time nearly, an edict which prohibited the worship of every image, and
the proposition of a new capitation-tax to be paid by the people of
Italy. Pope Gregory the Second, become the defender of their _temporal
and spiritual_ interests, and their faith, addressed respectful but
energetic letters to the emperor, to induce him to maintain in the
churches an ancient and salutary practice. Leo replied only by menaces
calculated to strengthen in the hearts of the Italians their love and
veneration for the pontiff. What does Gregory do? he appears inattentive
to his personal danger, but implores for the people and their prince the
divine mercy he thunders no anathemas, but recommends good works, and
sets himself the example of them; he desires especially that each may
remain faithful to the head of the empire, whatever may the deviations
of Leo, and perseveres in applying to him the terms of emperor and head
of the Christians.²⁷ According to Gregory, it is God himself who
preserves the empire to Leo the Image-breaker:²⁸ a pontiff has no right,
says this pope, to bestow crowns: his eye should not seek to penetrate
into the palaces of kings: and it no more belongs to him to meddle in
politics, than for a sovereign to become a teacher of dogmas in
religion.²⁹ The army, the people, Venice, Ravenna, all Italy revolted,
says Paul Diacre, against Leo the Isaurian, and would undoubtedly have
acknowledged some other emperor, if the Roman pontiff had not himself
opposed it.³⁰ Anastasius relates the same facts, and represents Gregory
to us occupied in retaining the provinces in allegiance to their
legitimate sovereign.³¹
²⁷ Imperatorem et caput Christianorum. Greg. 2d Ep. to Leo.
²⁸ Vestri à Deo conservati imperii. Ibid.
²⁹ Pontifex introspiciendi in palatia potestatem non habet ac
dignitates regias deferendi.......Ecclesiis præpositi, sunt à
negotiis reipublicæ abstinentes.—Greg. 2.
³⁰ Nisi eos prohibuesset pontifex, imperatorem super se constituere
fuissent aggressi.—Paul Diac. de Gesl. Longob.
³¹ Omni8 Italia consilium iniit ut sibi eligerent imperatorem et
ducerent Constantinopolim. Sed compescuit tale consilium pontifex
sperans conversionem principis. Ne desisterent ab amore et fide
Romani imperii admonebat.—Anast. BibI. in vild Gregor.
It would be difficult for us to verify, after a lapse of ten centuries,
whether Leo really attempted, through the medium of his officers, the
life of Gregory; but no person in Rome, none in all Italy, doubted it;
and these abortive attempts excited general indignation, or contempt
more dangerous still: on the contrary, when the Duke Peter is driven
from Rome, when the Exarch Paul is killed at Ravenna, Gregory conducts
himself so orderly that no one thinks of imputing these things to him.
Liutprand, king of the Lombards, however, took advantage of these
troubles to make himself master of Ravenna and many other places: in
this conjuncture it was that Gregory wrote to the Duke of Venice the
letter which we have already transcribed. Gregory did more, he
negociated with Liutprand, he soothed him: but the King of the Lombards
in abandoning the cities he had conquered and pillaged, was not disposed
to restore them to the officers of the emperor; he made them a present
to the Roman Church, which abstained alike from an acceptance or refusal
of them. Disconcerted by so much wisdom, Leo, the Isaurian, saw himself
limited in his vengeance to detaching from the patriarchate of Rome the
churches of Illyria, of Sicily, the duchy of Naples and of Calabria, in
order to subject them to the patriarch of Constantinople. This was all
the mischief he could do to Gregory II. who died, without condescending
to complain of it. Whatever Theophanes and other Byzantine authors may
say on the subject³² who have very severely animadverted upon this
pontiff, there prevailed great moderation in his conduct; and if it was
policy, it was so profound, that we are induced to ascribe it to good
faith.³³
³² Cedrenus, Zon&ras.
³³ This portion of the history of the eighth century, has been
perfectly elucidated, by Bossuet. Def, Cler. Gall, “The time was
not yet come, I shall be told, to display the pontifical power;
and before resorting to violent remedies, the means of mildness
and conciliation should be attempted.” “Very well,” replies
Bossuet, “but if charity and Christian prudence did not yet permit
Gregory to make use of all his power, should they not, at least,
have made a diversion, to afford a glimpse to this proud prince of
its extent, in order to intimidate him, and prevent the execution
of his criminal projects. For, behold the style of the menaces of
the emperor, as we learn from this sainted pope: I will go to Rome
and break the image of St. Peter, and I will take Pope Gregory
away, in order to transport him hither loaded with chains, as
Constantius did with Martin.—He proposed to imitate, then, the
example of the heretical emperors and persecutors of the Holy
Pontiff. Let us see what Gregory conceived it his duty to reply to
a prince, who formed such impious projects, and who flattered
himself he could execute them, by putting forth the full extent of
the imperial power. Did Gregory say, he could, when he wished,
deprive him of this power? He dreamed not of it; and for his whole
defence, he declared he desired earnestly to receive the crown of
martyrdom, as did the blessed Pope Martin, whose memory all
believers honoured. How far then was he from thinking of revolt,
of taking up arms, of repelling force by force, in fine, from
pronouncing sentences of deposition! Perhaps our adversaries will
make the trifling reply, that the Church, as yet too feeble, was
not in a state to display all its powers. But it was the Empire,
not the Church, which was weak in Italy.—See also Natalis Alex, in
sec. 8th dissert. 1. Libeaus History of Low Empire, vol. 83, p.
368, 369.
His successor, Gregory the Third, conceived himself dispensed from so
rigorous a circumspection: at the head of a council, he excommuuicatcd
the Emperor, not, indeed, by name but by not excepting him from the
general sect of the Iconoclasts; and while Leo applied to himself this
anathema, evidenced by the burst of anger with which he resented it;
while he confiscated in Sicily the lands of the Roman church; while a
fleet, dispatched by him against Italy, was perishing by shipwreck; the
Pope laboured to create in the bosom of Rome an independent state, or,
at least, one destined to become so. Some authors think they perceive,
from the year 736, in the pontificate of Gregory the Second, a semblance
of a Roman republic; and we may assure ourselves, at least, that in 730,
a short.time previous to the death of this pope, and apparently without
his concurrence, the Romans formally erected themselves into a republic.
But it was especially subsequent to the year 731, and down to 741,³⁴
that is to say, under the pontificate of Gregory III. that the
expressions ‘republic of the Romans—republican association—³⁵ body of
the Roman army,’ were accredited phrases which did not disappear till
the year 800, and which, during the seventy preceding years, are very
often employed, both in the acts of interior administrations, and in the
negociations with the Kings of the Lombards, or Mayors of the palace of
Ferara.
³⁴ Anast. Bibl. in vitâ Gregorii III.
³⁵ Reipublica Romanorum, com pages S. Reipublicæ corpus Christo
delectum exercitûs Romani. Apud Anast.
They always avoided the positive declarations which would have irritated
the Court of Constantinople; in case of necessity they even acknowledged
the supremacy of the Emperor, solicited his assistance, and received his
officers: and the homage paid to the imperial authority, is the ground
of the opinion of those authors who deny the existence of this
republic.— Without doubt, it was but a shadow of a republic; but they
loved to present themselves under this title to the sovereigns of the
west of Europe:³⁶ it was a mode of ranking themselves secretly in the
number of independent states, and of weakening still more the ties which
held them to the Byzantine empire. Generally, the pope did not fill in
person the office of first magistrate of this republic; he left the
insignia of its power to a prefect, a duke, or a patrician; and prepared
to substitute, in a short time, for these unstable forms, a definite and
pontifical government.
³⁶ Gregory III. sent two ambassadors to the Mayor of the Palace,
Charles Martel, to invite him to declare himself in favour of the
Roman Republic against the Emperor of the East.
Baronius ascribes the embassy of one of these to Gregory II.an important
mistake, which Bossuet has removed.—Def. Cler. Gall, p. 2. b. 6. ch. 18.
Another cause tended to, and even justified, the revolution which was
going to take place in Italy against the authority of the Greek
Emperors; this was, the almost absolute state of abandonment in which,
for nearly two centuries, they left the provinces they possessed in this
country. They kept no garrison in Rome, and this city, continually
menaced by the Lombards, solicited more than once, through the organ of
its dukes or its pontiffs, but in vain, the protection of the Exarch and
the power of the Emperor. The Byzantine historians of this period
scarcely ever speak of Italy: one of them, Theophylactus Simosatta,
wrote the history of the empire from the year 582 to 802, without once
naming Italy, Rome, or the Lombards. Deserted by their master, the
Romans of necessity attached themselves to their pontiffs, who were
generally Romans, and meriting such attachment. Fathers and defenders of
the people, mediators between the great, and heads of the religion of
the empire, the popes united in themselves the various sources of
authority and influence which are conferred by riches, benefactions,
virtue, and the high priesthood. They reconciled, or set at variance
around them, the princes of the earth; and that temporal power, which as
yet they possessed not, they could at pleasure strengthen or weaken in
the hands of others.
Things being so disposed, it was inevitable but that occasions must have
occurred, favorable to the ambition of the Roman Pontiffs; or, rather,
they had now need only of a more active ambition. While Zachary
continued to pay homage to the sovereignty of the emperors, Liutprand
made himself master of the exarchate, and his successor, Rachis,
immediately after stipulated with the Romans for a peace of twenty
years. Under the same pope, Pepin dethroned in France the Merovingian
dynasty, submitted to the Holy See a famous case of conscience, and
obtained from it a reply, which, absolving in the eyes of the people his
audacious enterprise, placed in his hands a sceptre which he alone could
wield. A short time after this wise reply,³⁷ Astolphus, the successor
of Rachis, broke the truce of twenty years, conquered Istria,
repossessed himself of Ravenna, which the Greek officers had re-entered,
and drove them from it for ever. Eutychius, the last of the exarchs,
took flight and retired to Naples; and every thing announced that the
power of the emperors was about to be extinguished in Middle as it had
been in Upper Italy.
³⁷ It was a reply simply of opinion: and Bellarmine vainly
endeavoured to convert it into an absolute decree which deposed
Childerick III. Pepin owed his throne to his talents and his good
fortune: he obtained it by the consent of the French, and not by
the authority of the pope. See Natal. Alex. Dissert. 2. in Century
8. ’ Dupin. Treatise on the Ecclesiastical power, pa. 245.
Bossuet. Def. Cler. Gall. p. 2. book 6. ch. 34.—Eginhard says,
Missiserat Burchardus et Foldea-dus ut consulerent pontificem de
causà regum, &c. against this Roman republic, in which the head of
the empire still preserved some shadow of sovereignty.
The Pope, Stephen II. supplicated Constantine Copronymus to relieve the
city of Rome, by dispatching an army which might put the Lombards to
flight and maintain in Italy the integrity of the empire and the honor
of the imperial authority.³⁸ It is evidently as the sovereign of Rome
that Stephen addresses Constantine. But Constantine, occupied in making
war against images,³⁹ directs Stephen to negociate with Astolphus, and,
if Astolphus was intractable, with Pepin king of the French. The pontiff
proceeds into France; there, as minister of the Greek emperor, he gives,
in 753, to Pepin and to his sons, the title of Roman Patricians, which
Charles Martel had before borne: and received, they assert, in exchange,
the gift of the provinces which Astolphus usurped, and which this same
emperor claimed, in whose name Stephen negociated. Pepin hesitated the
less in bestowing them, as he was neither their possessor nor sovereign.
³⁸ Id cum’ipsius imperio pemiciosum, tom nomine quoque apud posteros
fore turpissimum.—Sigoniut Hist. rtgn. liai. 1.3, p. 197.
³⁹ Joannes Silentiarius à Constantino cum legatis pontificiis rediit,
narrans imperatori placere ut ipse ad regem proficiscens, quantum
precibus atque auctoritate “profiscere posset,
experi-retur,—Sigm.ibii.p. 199.
Ambitious, however, to derive some advantage from his title of
patrician, he passed the Alps in 754, besieged Pavia, and compelled
Astolphus to promise that he would restore the Exarchate and the
Pentapolis, not to the Emperor of Constantinople, but to St. Peter—to
the Roman Church and Roman Republic. Vain promise! no sooner is King
Pepin returned into France, than the Lombard king forgets his oaths,
lays waste the environs of Rome, and labours to become master of the
city. It was at this time, in 755, the pope wrote to the French monarch
many letters, of which the one written in St. Peter’s name, gives us to
perceive, says Fleury,⁴⁰ “the genius of the age, and to what extent the
most grave of mankind may carry fiction when they consider it useful.”:
“Peter, called to the apostolat by Jesus Christ,
“the Son of the living God, &c........As by me the
“Roman Church, of which Stephen is bishop, is
“founded upon the stone........I adjure you, O ex−
“cellent Pepin, Charles, and Carloman, three kings,
“and with you the bishops, abbes, priests, and
“monks, and also the dukes, counts, and people....
“I adjure you, and with me the Virgin Mary, the
“angels, the martyrs, and all the other saints adjure
“you, not to suffer that my city of Rome, and my
“people, be any longer left a prey to the Lom−
“bards........If you obey me quickly, you shall in
“this life receive an abundant recompense for it;
“you shall overcome your enemies, you shall live
“long, you shall eat the fat of the land, and you
“shall, besides, receive eternal life. If you obey
“me not, know that by the authority of the Holy
“Trinity and of my apostolat, you shall be deprived
“of the kingdom of God.”
⁴⁰ Hist. Eccl. book 43. no. 17.
It is most important here to remark, that this letter makes no mention
either of the donation of Constantine, or that which Pepin-le-Bref has
the credit of having made in 703, and renewed in 754. It is not the most
feeble argument of those who dismiss to the rank of chimeras, the second
as well as the-first of these donations. They add, that the original
title of Pepin’s grant exists no where in the world—that no authentic
copy of it can be produced —and that its directions, omitted by
contemporary historians, are only known to us through Anastasius, who
compiled his History of the Popes at the end of the ninth century, one
hundred and thirty years after the death of Stephen II. The supporters
of this grant confine themselves to asserting, that Anastasius declares
his having seen the original of it, and cites besides the remains of an
inscription preserved at Ravenna, without very scrupulously inquiring
the era in which so mutilated a monument might have been erected.⁴¹
⁴¹ Pipinus. pius. primus, amplificandæ. ecclesiæ. viam. aperuit. et
exarchatum. Ravennæ. cum amplissimis. Pere le Cainte cites the
begiimiug of this inscription, and ends thus: Urbibus. temtoriis.
ac. seditibus. principi. apostolorum. ejus. qua. demum.
successoribus. lubens. ac. volens. concessit. Ann. Èçcl. Fr. vol.
6. p. 544.
Will they now ask us what the nature of the concession was which was
made to the popes by Pepin-le-Bref: if he bestowed the absolute
sovereignty or the mere administration; a secondary or delegated power,
or the property only, and, as it is termed, the fee-simple of it? In
default of a positive text which would offer an immediate reply to these
questions, we have no other way of resolving them, but by continuing,
even to the year 800, the examination of facts relative to the
government of Rome and the authority of the popes. Now, it is certain,
as we have stated, that during the fifty last years of the eighth
century, the popes had never been sovereigns, seldom administrators. We
have a series of letters in which they complain of the non-fulfilment of
the promises of Pepin, and of the infidelity of the Lombard kings, who
ravaged, or again seized on, the possessions of the church. Besides,
Constantine Copronymus never renounced his rights: he offered to pay the
expenses attending’the victories of the French army over the Lombards,
provided the places recovered from them were restored to him. Pepin,
though very little disposed to comply with these requisitions, evaded
characterizing the power which he exercised over the Roman republic by
the title of patrician; leaving it undecided, whether he considered
himself as actual sovereign, or as but provisionally invested with the
functions of the impeiial authority. What is very remarkable is, that in
fixing the limits of the states of this monarch, no French historian
extends them beyond the Alps.⁴² As to the popes, although their
influence almost always swayed the authority of the deputies of the
patrician, they did not as yet exercise a civil magistracy, properly so
called, either regularly instituted or delegated. They continued to date
from the reign of the emperors of Constantinople, and to call them their
lords and masters. This is to be seen in an epistle written by Stephen
II. in 757, a short time before his death;⁴³ in a diploma subscribed
the same year by Paul I. the brother and successor of Stephen;⁴⁴ in a
statute or rule of the same Paul in 758;⁴⁵ in a letter which Adrian
addressed, in 772, to the emperor, in transmitting to him the decision
respecting a crime committed in the duchy of Rome;⁴⁶ and in 785, in an
epistle of the same Adrian to Constantine V. and his mother Irene.⁴⁷
⁴² Antiquit. S. Dionyt. 1.2, c. 9. Regnabant inter Rhenum Ligerimque
priores, Ad Boream fuerat terminus oceanus, Australemque dabant
Balearica littora finem. Alpes et tectæ perpetuis nivibus.
⁴³ Ibid. 1.2. c. 3.
⁴⁴ Concil. vol. 6. p. 1619.
⁴⁵ Ibid. vol. 6. p. 1694.
⁴⁶ Fleury Hist. Eccles. 1.14. n. 2.
⁴⁷ [--Greek--] Concil. Vol. 7. p. 99.
Many cities comprised in the pretended donation were governed, according
to the instructions of Pepin, by the Archbishops of Ravenna, who seem to
have succeeded the Exarchs, whose title remained unrevived.
Charlemagne, called by Adrian against Didier, king of the Lombards,
blockaded Pavia, and renewed in Rome, in 774, the donation of
Pepin.—This act, however, is no better authenticated to us than those of
753 and 754. There is no original document, no authentic copy, nor even
unauthenticated one. It is Anastasius also, who, after one hundred
years, specifies its conditions to us.
To Pepin’s gift Charlemagne added, according to this Anastasius,
Corsica, Sardinia, Liguria, Sicily, Venice, Beneventum; and deposited
the chart, which was to enrich to this extent the Roman church, upon the
tomb of the holy apostles Peter and Paul. Anastasius does not explain to
us how Charlemagne bestowed provinces which he never possessed, and over
which he had no right of sovereignty, not even that of conquest. Sicily
and Sardinia were never in his possession: Venice, struggling more and
more for independence, yet recognised in form the sovereign rights of
the Greek emperors. A duke governed Beneventum, which had been ceded to
the Holy See only in 1047 by Henry the Black. This cession of 1047, does
not embrace the whole territory of Beneventum, and the deed by which it
is transferred is besides not the most authentic: but what is to be
noticed here is, that this act does not renew in any way the pretended
donation of Charlemagne; it makes no mention of it: on the contrary it
implies, that the Court of Rome, for the first time, in 1047 is going to
possess the city of Beneventum.
Another objection which Anastasius does not resolve, is, that after 774,
the popes did not assume the government or administration of either
Beneventum, Venice, Sicily, Sardinia, the Exarchate, or even the city of
Rome. Charlemagne, the conqueror and successor of the Lombard kings,
adds the title of King of Italy, to that of Patrician of the Romans. The
sovereignty or supreme authority remained in his hands; he exercised it
either by himself or by his delegates, received the homage of the
pontiffs, invested himself with the right of confirming their elections,
and subjected their possessions and their persons in such sort to his
authority, that we cannot suppose him to have ceded to them anything
more than the ownership or feudal tenure of their domains. The Duchy of
Rome, the Exarchate, the Pentapolis, were comprised, by the historians
of this prince, in the account of the states over which he ruled,
previous to the year 800,⁴⁸ and Piga thinks proper to add Corsica to
them.⁴⁹
⁴⁸ Eginhart. de Car. Mag. p. 91—96 of 6th vol. of Coll. of the
Historians of France.
⁴⁹ Crit Ann. Baiomi ad Ann. 800. a. 11.
In 778, to Charles is referred the decision of the disputes which sprung
up between the pope and the archbishop of Ravenna: the latter retained
the administration of the Exarchate, perhaps from Charlemagne having
tacitly authorised it. Many letters addressed to this monarch, by Pope
Adrian, after the year 775, have been collected into the code of
Charlemagne, they prove that Charles was not very desirous to invest the
Holy Fathers with the temporal power. The donation of Constantine is
mentioned in one of these epistles,⁵⁰ as we have already observed; the
name of the new Constantine is there promised to Charles, if he fulfils
his engagements. But in 789, the pope complains of the delightful
expectation held out to him, being still unfulfilled; he again brings
forward the donation of Pepin as an act remaining without effect. It
appears, however, that Adrian, in the course of the six last years of
his pontificate, did exercise some actual power, since we find coin
bearing his name. But the dukes of Beneventum, and other delegated
governors, exercised at the time the same privilege, with the consent of
their sovereigns. A much greater number of medals were struck at Rome in
the name of Charlemagne;⁵¹ and appeals were made to his officers from
the decisions passed by the popes.⁵²
⁵⁰ Cod. Carol. Ep. Adriani VI. p. 550 of 5th vol. of Coll. of the
Historians of France.
⁵¹ Leblanc. Medals of Charlemagne, &c, p. 17.
⁵² Velly. History of France vol. 1. p. 399.
Charlemagne, before the end of the eighth century, so little thought of
investing the popes with a sovereign power, that he avoided, on the
contrary, assuming to himself an absolute sovereignty over the city and
territory of Rome. He did not dispute that of the Greek Emperors; and
although he governed without receiving their commands, he left it to be
supposed that he considered himself only as their representative. It is
even conjectured, that in 781, he had received from Irene the letter
which created him, in express terms, Patrician of the Romans. When Paul
Diacre says, that Charles added Rome to his States from the year 774; it
is according to Duquet an hyperbolical expression⁵³ since Charles
himself was satisfied with the simple patriciate. Theophanus ascribes
only to the year 779, the commencement of the domination of the French,
over the capital of Italy; and even he is not exact, as we shall shortly
see, since he anticipates by a year, the absolute extinction of the
sovereignty of the Greek Emperors over the Romans.
To measure the extent of the authority exercised by Charles in Rome,
previous to the year 800, it is necessary to form an idea of the nature
of the dignity of patrician, with which he was invested.
⁵³ Rhetorici hâc et hyperbolici loquitur Paulus. Anno eriim 774, Roma
neque à Longobardis oppressa fuit, neque à Carolo cum dilionibus
suis unita, sed a Longobardorum in-sultibus liberata et Carolo
jure patriciatûs tantum subdita.— Collection of Gallic and French
Historian», vol. 5. p. 191. n. a.
Constantine, anxious to restore the ancient patricians, had invented
this personal title of patrician, to be given to the governor or first
magistrate of the city of Rome. From 729 to 800, that is, during the
existence of a shadow of the Roman republic, the office of patrician was
often conferred by the clergy, the nobles, and the people of this city,
almost always at the will of the popes, but never at their sole
discretion. The Greek emperors ratified either expressly or tacitly the
election of the patrician; preferring that it might be supposed he
governed in their name, rather than it should be believed he ruled in
despite of them. Many barbarous kings, Visigoths, Ostrogoths, and
others, have received and borne this title; and Charlemagne did not
disdain a dignity, subordinate in appearance, but in reality
independent, and which might serve as a step to a more perfect
sovereignty.
Leo III. succeeding, in 790, to Pope Adrian, hastened to address to
Charlemagne a letter of homage, similar to those which this prince was
accustomed to receive from his vassals.⁵⁴ However, there remains to us
a monument of the supremacy still preserved by the Emperor of the East
over the Romans in 797; it is a mosaic, with which Leo III. ornamented
the hall of the Lateran palace.⁵⁵
⁵⁴ Ann. Lauresh. St. Marc, Abr. Chron. of Hist, of Italy, vol. 1.
year 796.
⁵⁵ Ciampini, Vetera. Mon. par. 2. p. 128.
We here behold a prince crowned, which circumstances prove to be
Constantine V.: another prince, without a crown, and a pope, are
represented kneeling, and by an inscription are named Charles and Leo.
The Emperor receives a standard from the hands of Jesus Christ;
Charlemagne receives another of them from St. Peter’s left hand, who,
with his right hand, bestows a pallium on the pope. This mosaic is at
once the emblem of the supremacy of the emperor, the power of the
patrician, and the pretensions of the pontiff.
In 799 a conspiracy is formed against Leo III.— he is accused before
Charlemagne, who refers to commissioners the investigation and decision
of the whole affair.⁵⁶ This fact suffices to shew, how far the pope was
from being a sovereign before the year 800.
The 25th of December this year, Charles is proclaimed emperor. He had
been raised to this supreme dignity, not by the pope alone, but by an
assembly of the clergy, of the nobility, and of the people of Rome.⁵⁷
⁵⁶ Theophan. Chron. — Eginhard, ad ann. 799.—Anastasius vit. Leonis
iii.—Fleury. Hist. Eccles. 1* 45. n. 14.
⁵⁷ Fleury. Hist. Eccles. 1. 45. n. 14. See also how Anastasias, the
historian of the popes, relates the coronation of Charlemagne:
Post hæc, adveniente die natali. D. N. J. C. in jam dictâ basilicâ
B. Petri apostoli omnes interum congregati sunt, et tunc
yenerabilis almificus pontifex xnanibus suis propriis
pretiosissimâ coronâ coronavit eum. Tunc universi jidelcs
Romani...unanimiter altisonâ voce, Dei nutu atque B. Petri
clavigeri regni cœlorum, exclamaverunt: Carolo piissimo Au-gusto à
Deo coronato, magno, pacifico imperatori, vita et victoria. Ante
sacram confessionem B. Petri apostoliter dictus est, et ab omnibus
constitutes est imperator Romanorum. Illico sanctissimus pontifex
unxit oleo sancto Carolum, &c.— Anast. Bibl. in vita Leonis III.
Behold, then, the precise period of the extinction of the sovereign
rights of the Eastern Emperor in Rome: then, also, ceased the
patriciate, properly so called; and the pope, no longer recognizing any
intermediate person between him and the Western Emperor, became, indeed,
the governor or first magistrate of Rome and of its territory.
Charlemagne, in order to deceive the court of Constantinople, had
pretended to fill only a passive part in his own coronation:—it was
without his knowledge that they decreed him the imperial crown —it was
against his consent that he suffered it to be placed on his victorious
head: such, at least, is the account which his chancellor Eginhard has
given us of this event; an account which Sigonius⁵⁸ and Muratori⁵⁹
have classed with the fabulous, and to which even Father David himself
refuses all credence.
⁵⁸ De Regn. Ital. 1. iv. p. 252.
⁵⁹ Annali d’ltalia, ann. 800.
Charlemagne hastened to dispatch ambassadors to Constantinople; he
received in return those of the Emperor Nicephoras, and concluded a
treaty of friendship and alliance with him, which fixed the limits of
the two empires, without, however, a formal recognition of the Emperors
of the West by the Greeks. But the absolute sovereignty of Charles over
the Exarchate, the Pentapolis, and the Roman territory, became
undisputed.⁶⁰
⁶⁰ In uniting all these facts, says Bossuet, it is easy to see that
Baronins asserts very inappropriately, that the popes had deposed
the emperors because of their heresy, and transferred their empire
to the French. It is on the contrary evident, that in Italy and at
Rome, the popes themselves have constantly recognized as emperors,
the image-breaking princes; and that the empire was only
transferred to the French when it was possessed by Irene, a most
catholic princess after her rejection of heresy.
It is no less evident, that the popes solicited the assistance of the
French, not on account of the heresy of the Emperor, but because they
had no other resources to oppose the Lombards: that their affairs were
altogether desperate, and that they could hope for no succour from the
emperors of the east. There were wanting none of the circumstances
necessary, as is said in the present day, to justify the deposition of
kings. These emperors were heretics, obstinate in error, cruel in their
persecutions, and besides, were forgers and perjurers; a circumstance,
which according to our adversaries, rendered them still more worthy of
deposition, since it was against the church they sinned, in violating
the oath, which they had taken at the foot of the altar, to commit no
innovation in religion.
Notwithstanding the violation of these solemn promises, the catholics
not only honored as emperor, the prince who persecuted them, but did all
which lay in their power, to restrain those who, under such pretext,
wished to excite seditions and revolt against the empire: so true it is,
that they had not then the least idea of that power, in which, at the
present day, all the hopes of the church are made to consist, and which
is regarded as the firmest bulwark of the pontifical authority. Def.
Cler. Grail, p. 26. 6 ch. 20. in the year 803,⁶¹ and in 806,⁶² dates
from the reign of the Emperor Charles. This prince designates himself
‘Head of the Roman Empire;’⁶³ and the confines of his states are,
henceforward extended, even to the lower Calabria, by Eginhard⁶⁴ and
other historians.
Stephen IV. as soon as he was elected successor to Leo. III. made the
Romans take an oath of allegiance to Louis-le-Debonnaire, the successor
of Charlemagne.⁶⁵ Among the gifts of which the Holy See avails itself,
there is one which bears the name of this first Louis, and the date of
816 or 817:⁶⁶ it is pretended, that in confirming the concessions of
Charlemagne and of Pepin, Louis has reckoned Sicily in the number of the
territories acquired by the Roman Court, and that he has renounced for
himself and his successors also, the right of ratifying the elections of
the popes.
⁶¹ Imperante nostro domino Carolo piiasimo à Deo coronato. Ughelli,
Ital. see vol. 5. col. 1095.
⁶² Concilior. vol. 8. p. 1120.
⁶³ Carolus serenissimus Augustus......imperator Romanorum gubamans
imperium......Datum idibus junii, anno iii. imperii nostri, et 35
regni nostri in Franciâ. Lecoinle Ann. ecclct. Francorvm. vol. 6.
p. 814.
⁶⁴ Italiamtotam. usque in Calabriam inferiorem. Eginhard.
⁶⁵ Theg. de gestis Ludovici Pii. ann. 816.
⁶⁶ Baronius Ann. Eccles. ann. 817.—Sigon. Hist Ital. 1.4.
But we see him, in 827, examine into and approve that of Gregory IV.
Eginhard, and another historian of Louis-le-Debonnaire,⁶⁷ attest this
circumstance to us. As to Sicily it did not in any wise belong to Louis:
he never possessed it; the pope did not even dream of governing it; and
it is so incredible that it should have been ceded to the pope in 816,
by the emperor, that Father Morin,⁶⁸ in supporting the authenticity of
the donation of Louis I. is obliged to suppose, that the name of this
isle had not been originally in it, but had been inserted in the course
of time. Furthermore, it is a donation unknown to contemporary writers,
and which appears not in historical records until long after its date.
⁶⁷ Coll. of Histories of France, toI. 6. p. 108.
⁶⁸ History of the Origin of the Power of the Popes, p. 627.
The forgery of documents occurs often in the history of the temporal
power of the popes. The Donation of Constantine was fabricated, as we
have already observed, between the years 756 and 779, and it was about
the same period that an Isidore, Mercator or Peccator, forged the
decretals of the ancient popes, Anaclet, Clement, Evaristus, and others,
down to St. Sylvester. In the sixth century, Dionysius-le-Petit was
unable to collect any decretals, but those subsequent to St. Siricius,
who died at the end of the fourth. Those of Isidore are long, full of
common place, and all in the same style, which, according to Fleury⁶⁹
is much more that of the eighth century, than of the early ages of the
Church. “Their dates are almost all of them incorrect,” adds the
historian we have just mentioned,:
“and the matter of these letters, still further
“evinces the forgery: they speak of archbishops,
“primates, patriarchs, as if these titles had been
“received from the birth of the Church. They
“forbid the holding of any council, even a provincial
“one, without the permission of the pope, and
“represent as a usual thing, the appeals to Rome.”
These false decretals have contributed to the extension of the popes’
spiritual power, and to invest them with political authority: their
fatal effects have been fully exposed by Fleury, in his fourth discourse
on ecclesiastical history.
We believe, that from the details we have collected, it is sufficiently
clear, that up to the year 800, and still later, the pope and the Romans
have always acknowledged, as their sovereigns, the emperors of the East
or the West, and even particular governors, as the exarch, the
patrician, and the kings of the Lombards, or of Italy.⁷⁰
⁶⁹ Hist, eccles. I. 45. n. 22.
⁷⁰ Muratori introduces the same results, in the three first chapters
of his work entitled: Piena Esposizione di diritti im-periali ed
Estensi sopra Comacchio, 1712, in—fol.
The pope at the end of Louis-le-Deboimaire’s reign, in 840, was not yet
a sovereign; and taking the word in its literal sense, that is, as
expressing supreme authority, independent and undelegated, we may
maintain with certain authors, that he did not begin to be such until
1355, when the Emperor Charles IV, receiving the imperial crown at Rome,
renounced in the most express terms every sort of authority over the
Holy See.
But without sovereignty a power may yet be effective. Such was that of
the popes long before 1355, and even from the time of Charlemagne. An
actual temporal power, though subordinate, delegated or borrowed, rested
from that period, in the hands of the pontiffs; and, from this time, the
perpetual quarrels between the priesthood and the empire, had no other
object, than to emancipate and extend their power. It was necessary in
the first place, to render it independent; and from the time it was or
asserted itself so to be, to amplify its prerogatives, its rights, its
limits, finally to transform itself into a universal monarchy. Behold
the common origin, of all the anathemas, all the quarrels, all the wars
of which we are about to sketch the picture! Here is the secret of the
eternal contentions of the Court of Rome with the greater number of the
European powers, especially those which obtained an ascendancy in Italy.