RELATION OF THE NATIONAL CHURCHES TO THE STATE

[1Illustration: A BISHOP OF THE FOURTEENTH CENTURY]

2The jealousies betwixt the ecclesiastical and secular tribunals arising from the immoderate extension of ecclesiastical jurisdiction still continued, but they began more and more to result in favour of the latter. In Germany the fundamental principle that secular causes belonged only to secular tribunals had been recognised long before, even by the prelates, who were themselves temporal lords of the land; it was, as a general rule, always maintained, though in individual cases the ecclesiastical tribunals continually overstepped their limits. But during the schism, the emperor Wenceslaus could only execute his decisions in things temporal, against the higher orders of the clergy, by deeds of violence. The cities continued to tax the excessive revenues of the ecclesiastical sovereignty.

3They either forbade altogether the increase of church property, or decreed that all fresh acquisitions should be alienated again in a year and a day, or required from the new revenues the customary taxes. Now that the parish priests, by their management of people’s wills, provided too well for themselves and for the church, it was determined that wills should only be made before the secular authorities. Paderborn even prohibited the multiplication of masses for souls. Still the popes wished to maintain a good understanding with the cities, and bind them to themselves by means of privileges.

4During the schism many concessions were made to the nobles also; thus Boniface IX, in 1399 allowed Albert IV, duke of Austria, the _jus primarum precum_. The free Swiss by the priests’ law (_Pfaffenbrief_) in 1370 put an end to the encroachments of the ecclesiastical tribunals. In Italy the operation of the ecclesiastical tribunals, like the condition of the whole country, was very fluctuating. Under Ghibelline lords they were often quite suppressed. In France ecclesiastical jurisdiction had reached its greatest extension; the kings connived at it, because they wished to keep their bishops well inclined to themselves, and knew how to tax any irregularities of the ecclesiastical tribunals.

5On the other hand the barons were continually at issue with the prelates on this point, and from both sides there were unceasing complaints of usurpation. The remarkable negotiations which were instituted by command of King Philip of Valois with the prelates summoned before parliament (1329), owing to the king’s political aims, failed of their intended result. Immediately afterwards the clergy sought to establish their jurisdiction still firmer by decrees of councils. On the other hand a powerful resistance to these proceedings was being developed in parliament, which was now transforming itself into a standing corporation; this was especially manifest from the time of Charles V.

6Henceforth ecclesiastical jurisdiction was not only confined to its proper limits, but parliament claimed a certain degree of superintendence over it, and drew to itself the right of decision upon many points, which were at that time universally held to be ecclesiastical.

7The earlier encroachments of the popes upon episcopal rights were still further increased by the fact that they now took to themselves entirely the appointment to ecclesiastical offices, and exercised the right of exemption in the highest degree, particularly during the schism. Thus the importance of the bishops in the church was small; they compensated themselves for this by secular honours and worldly enjoyment. The oppression which fell upon them from above they knew how to discharge upon those below, and so the lower orders of the clergy groaned beneath intolerable burdens.