aliorum Prailatorum de lege conimuni dci-ivatur a Papa. — Apostoli alii — non
suscepcrunt potcstatem jurisdictionis immediate a Christo, sed mediantc Petro.
Ergo sequitur, quod etiam nunc Pr«lati, qui sunt in Ecclesia, jurisdictionis pote-
statem suscii)iant immediate a Papa, et non a Christo, c. 65 : Romanus Pontifex
immediatus Praelatus ct judex est omnium Christianorum, potestque facere in toto
orbe tcrrarum, quicquid inferiores Pra;lati agei'e possunt. — In quocumque ordine
quando tota potestas inferiorum dependet et originatur a potestate superioris, ad
quaecunque se potest extenderc potestas inferiorum, ad omnia ilia se potest exten-
dere immediate potestas superioris : sed potestas jurisdictionis, de qua est sermo,
omnium aliorum Praelatorum in Ecclesia a potestate Papa2 derivatur; ergo sequitur.
I
Chap. I. Papacy. § 135. General vieio of . 265
which had their consequence only from him ; i'' and that himself in-
fallible, he could prescribe what was to be believed by others.^" So
quod summus Pontifex potest in toto oi-be omnia facere immediate, quaecumque
possunt alii Pr.Tlati. Thorn. Cajetanus de auct. Papa; et Cone. c. 3 ( Rocaberti
XIX. p. 449) : In Petro eta Petro inchoat omnis Ecclesia; potestas, et derivatur in
totam Ecclesiam via oi'dinaria.
'^ Jo. de Turrccremata II. c. 80: Romaniis Pontifex superior, ac major juris-
dictionis auctoritate est tota ipsa residua universali Ecclesia. — Omnis pastor —
superior est grege, cujus est pastor, sed Kom. Pont, est pastor Ecclesia; univer-
salis, ergo ipse est — superior universali Ecclesia. Lib. III. c. 28 : universaliter
Conciliorum auctoritas a Rom. Pont, pendet et emanat. c. 32 : ea, qua; in univer-
salibus Conciliis statuuntur, sententiantui-, aut detiniuntur, aut interpretantur,
auctoritate Romani Pontificis principaliter regulariter tiunt. c. 44 : Rom. Pontifex
snperior estjurisdictionis auctoritate universali Concilio. c. 47: appellare non licet
a Romano Pontitice ad Concilium universale, sed magis e converso, puta a senten-
tia Concilii, quam Apostolica sedes nondum approbavit, ad Papam licet appellare.
c. 51 : Rom. Pontifex nee ligatur, nee subjicitur necessitate quorumcunque Con-
ciliorum, — nee universalium statutis, legibus, aut canonibus, qua; sub juris positivi
genere comprehenduntur. c. 55 : Rom. Pontifex non solum auctoritatem in cano-
nibus sacrorum Conciliorum, etiam universalium, et decretis suorum praedecesso-
rum dispensandi habet, verum etiam tollendi, aut revocandi, aut mutandi, prout
temporum aut causarum necessitasexposcit. c. 62: Quemadmodum ad Romanum
Pontificem, ut ad Ecclesise Principem, pertinet. Concilia universalia, si bene pro-
cesserint, approbatione et auctoritate sua confirmando lionorare ; ita ipsius est, ea
Concilia, quae in pei-niciem fidei, aut toiius Ecclesise perturbationem celebrata
reperta fuei-int, corrigere, reprobare, ac cassare, ea, qua; minus juste, minusque
bene acta sunt, retractando et conderanando. Thorn. Cajetanus de auctor. Papae
et Concilii, c. 7 seq. (Rocaberti XIX. p. 455) c. 20. p. 474, it is granted, quod
Papa factus hsereticus subest potestati ministeriali Ecclesis, et non auctoritativae
super Papam : on the other hand decidedly denied, c. 24. p. 482 seq., quod Papa
propter incorrigibilitatem in quocumque notorio crimine scandalizante Ecclesiam
.subjiciatur Concilii potestati, ita quod possit deponi : and the reason given c. 26.
p. 487 is, because we read, Matth. 18, quod pes, manus, vel oculus, non tamen
caput scandalizans amputaretur. Apologise, P. I. c. 1. (1. c. p. 494) : Natura
ecclesiastici regiminis ab ipsa sua nativitate est, non ut in communitate ad unum
vel plures derivetur, quemadmodum accidit in regimine civili humano ; sed ut in
uno certo Principe suapte natura sit. Et cum Princeps iste unus atque idem
Dominus Jesus heri, hodie, et in saecula vivat et regnet; secundum naturalis juris
consequentiam oportet, ut ad ipsum Principem, non ad communitatem Ecclesiaj
spectet in sua absentia ordinäre de Vicario, non communitatis Ecclesiee, quse utpote
serva nata principandi jui-e caret, sed ipsius Principis, naturalis Domini communi-
tatis Ecclesias. Et iioc ipsum Salvator noster per semetipsum exequi dignatus est,
dum Petrum Apostolum solum instituit suum V'icarium post resurrectionem, ante-
quam coelos ascenderet, ut patet Joan. ult.
1' Jo. de Turrecremata, II. c. 107 : Ad Romani Pontificis auctoritatem spectat,
tanquam ad generalem totius orbis pi'incipalem magistrum et doctorem, determinare
ea, quas lidei sunt, et per consequens edere symbolum fidei, sacrae Scriptur» inter-
pretari sensus, et doctorurn singulorum dicta ad fidem spectantia appi'obare vel repro-
bare. c. 109 : tanta soliditate veritatis apostolicum thronum elementia Divinitatis
firmaverat, quod judicium ejus in his, qua; fidei sunt, errai'e a veritate non possit.
Decebat sane ut sedes ilia, qu;« superni dispositione Concilii magistra fidei, et cardo
omnium instituebatur Ecclesiarum, in his, qua; fidei sunt, hominumque necessaria
saluti, ah ip-^o omnium auctore Deo, — hoc singular! infallibilitatis muneie donaretur.
In cujus rei sacramentum prime illius sedis Pontifici — noirien firmitatis imponitur,
soil. Petrus, quod Syra lingua i-upes interpretatur. c. 112 : Ubi — bene adverten-
dum, quod non dicitur, quod Papa errare non possit, aut male sentire aut judicare
in his, quae fidei sunt ; — sed dicitur, quod sententia, quam in judicio Rom. Pontifex
profert in his, quae fidei sunt, errare non possit, aut quod sedis Apostolica; judicium,
quod idem est, errare non po-sit. — Sedis autem Apostolicae — sententia in judicio
prolata a Rom. Pontirice intelligitur, non quse occulte, malitiose, aut inconsulte per
VOL. III. 34
2Ö6 Third Period. Div. V. A. D. 1409 — 1517.
far were they carried in their zeal, that some of them maintained that
the donatio Constantini, levied by Laurentius Valla, was only a resti-
tutio,^*^ and made the Pope a God on earth. ^'-^
solum Rom. Pontificem, aut etiam qua per ipsum cum paucis sibi favcntibus, aliis
in fraudem contemptis sive non vocatis, ad partem prot'ertur ; scd qua; a Rom.
Pontilice cum maturo et gravi virorum sa|)ieiituiii, et maxime doininorum Cardina-
lium primo Concilio digcsta et niatuiata saucitur et piofertur. Lib. III. c. 58. on
the question utnim universale Concilium in his, qua; lidei sunt, errare possit .' Ad
quam quastionem nobis videtur sub distinctione respondendum. De Concilio uni-
versali loqui possumus dupliciter : uno modo de Concilio universal! plcnario, plena-
rium autem Concilium diciiiius, in quo cum Ecclesiae patiibus Romanus Pontifex
eorum caput — concurrit. — Secundo modo loqui possumus de Concilio, piout
dicitur coipus tantum patruin, distinctum a capite suo Romano Poutifice. 8i primo
modo loquamur de Concilio, lit ista conclusio: ConciUum universale in his, qua; ad
fideui pertinent, errare non potest, qua; tam patrum Ecclesia;, quam Romani Pon-
titicis unanimi consensu definita sunt. — Apostolica; sedis judicium in his, qua; lidei
sunt, errare non potest ; ergo nee Concilium universale, in quo Apostolica; sedis
intervenit, sive concurrit auctoritas et consensus. — On the other hand, however.
Concilium universale non inlerveniente consensu et approbatione Apostolica; sedis
errare potest in his, qua» tidei sunt. — Phantasia stulta eorum, qui omni Concilio
non errandi gratiam quasi essentialiter inesse affirmant, cum tam ex Evangelio,
quam ex actibus Apostolorum, et gestis antiquorum Conciliorum manifeste opposi-
tum habeatur. Dominicus Venetus (see note 12) de Cardinalium legitima crea-
tione (appended to Marci Ant. de Dominis de Rcpubl. eccl. P. I.) Propos. VjI :
Universale Concilium legitime congregatum, et auctoiitate Romani Pontilicis con-
firmatum, in se et decretis suis universalem Ecclesiam repracsentat : et id, quod
facit aut determinat cum tali approbatione et consensu Maxinu Pontilicis, tenendum
est ratum et firmum, ac si universalis Ecclesia detenninaret, qua; non pcrniittitur a
Deo errare in fide, nee in determinando ea, qua; ad bene vivendum pertinent. —
Heec autem infollibilis regula non est Concilium, etiam legitime congregatum. —
Nam multa Concilia errasse leguntur; — Ephesina secunda universalis fuit, et
legitime congregata, utpote auctoritate Leonis Max. Pont, et pro justa causa,
utpote pro damnatione hsresis: qua; tamen errasse legitur. — In cujus corrcctio-
nem Synodus Chalced. convocata est ejusdem Leonis auctoritate ; et hoc quia non
requiritur solum auctoritas Rom. Pontilicis in congregando, sed etiam in definita et
sancita approbando. — Similiter etiam nee Papa solus est ilia regula infullibilis, quia
aliqui errasse leguntur in fide, ut patet de Libeiio, et de Anastasio secundo, qui
communicavit Acacio haeretico, ideo percussus est a Deo (plainly confounding him
â– with the emperor Anastasius) : ergo infallibilis regula erit Papa, adhibito dcbito
consilio peritorum ; a fortiori ergo si cum generali Concilio, quod pro arduis causis
congregatur, quia difficilius errant plures, quam pauci. Thorn. Cajetanus de
auctor. Papa; et Conciliis, c. 9 (Rocaherti XIX. p. 460): Magis potest errare
communitas Ecclesia; sine auctoiitate Papa;, quam Papa. Et ratio est, quia error
Papa; in definitiva sententia fidei est error totius Ecclesia;, — quia ad ipsum spectat
determinare finaliter de fide quid tenendum, et quid repellendum. — Impossibile
est autem universalem Ecclesiam errare in fide, ergo impossii)ilc est, Papam in
judicio definitivo auctoritative errare in fide. — Papa in hujusmodi judicio est
rectissimus propter assistentiam Spiritus Sancti.
>* Antonini Summa historialis. Pars I. Tit. 8. c. 2. § 8 : Qusstio adhuc agitur
inter Canonistas et Legistas, utrum ilia tenucrit donatio. Quod Canonistsp onuiino
firmant, et Thcologi magis confirmant co (juia non fuit simplex donatio, sed potius
restitutio Ecclesia; facta juris sui, cum omnia sint de Christi dominio, cujus Papa
est vicarius in terris : ca;tera vero dimisit doininis temporalibus. Jo. Major (see
note 2) comm. in Matth. c. 16. in Gersonii ()])p. ed. du Pin, II. p. 1158: Qua;-
ritur, an Constantinus contulerit justum tituium Pontifici in terris, qua nunc
vocantur Ecclesia». Est hie modus dicendi : alicjui volunt, quod nunquam ei dedit
terras in Italia, nee Romanam urbem ; aliqiubus placet, quod nee dare poterat
Italiam, sive istas terras qua; dicuntiu- lOcclcsia' ; alii tcnentes, Pontificem habere
dominium tam in spiritualibus, quam in temporalibus, dicunt, quod nihil dedit, sed
solum detentum injuste restituit. He maintains on the contrary : Ecclesia licite
Chap. I. Papacy. §135. General vip,w of . 267
Each of these systems condemned the other as heretical, but the
fear of causing an incurable schism prevented their comino- to ex-
tremes. The popes were also embarrassed by the circumstance that
the lawfulness of their succession depended upon the acknowledg-
ment of the Council of Constance, whilst in the decrees of that coun-
cil was founded the system which they opposed. Hence they were
glad as far as possible to pass over these decrees in silence ; -"^ when
forced to say something, they had recourse to evasion ; whilst many
of their adherents did not hesitate to deny the validity of the council
al together. ^1
cepit, and Constantinus M. licite multa contulit Ecclesiis, therefore Rom. Pont,
juste possidet. It is remarkable that the Cardinal Bernaidinus Carvajal Card. S.
Crucis, who was at the liead of the Cardinals who forsook Julius 11., and sum-
moned the Council of Pisa in 1511, had previously written in support of this notion
of a restitutio : Jo. Boutzhachius (Prior in the convent of Laach near Andernach)
says of hiin, A. D. 1511, in his Auctariuin in hbruni Jo. Trithemii de scriptoribus
ecclesiasticis (Ms. in the library of the University of Bonn, fol. 143) : Scripsit
quidem prsclara opera, e quibus unuiii exstat, quod mihi duduiii innotuit contra
Laurentiuni Vallain et alios, qui vesana sua loquacitate audent latrare in summum
Christi Vicarium et s. Romanain Ecclesiam, quasi non vera, sed falsa et conficta sit
donatio Constantini Iniperatoris. In quo quidem prfegrandi volumine omnera
istorum assertionem ita subnervavit, ut non tantum veram, sed quod map;is est,
legitimam et dcbitam restitutionem potius quam donationem fuisse probet. Omnem
itaque bestialem Laurcntii invectionem elidens scripsit contra eundem : De restitu-
tione Constantini, lib. I.
*' Gersonii circa materiam excommunicationum resolufio, Consideratio XL
(0pp. II. p. 424) : Contemptus clavium — non incuri'itur, dum in prajmissis casibus
dicit aliquis — juxta conscientiam suam, quod hujusmodi sententis non sunt timen-
da^, et hoc praesertim si observetur informatio seu cautela debita, ne sequatur scan-
dahun pusilloruin, qui aestimant Papain esse unum Deum, qui habet potestatera
omnem in ccelo et in terra. Compare the passage from Rodericus Sancius, above,
note 11. Christophorus Marcellus, in an oration delivered before the Council of
the Lateran in the 4th Session, Dec. 10, 1512, thus addresses Julius II. ( Labbei et
Cossartn Concilia XIV. p. 109): Hinc merito conqueri potest Ecclesia. — His
lamentationibus et querimoniis ad tuos sanctissimos devoluta pedes in hunc modum
opem humiliter implorare videtur : — Tua sub ditione defensa sum. — Ad te igitur
supplex tanquam ad verum principem, protectorem, Petrum et sponsum accedo. —
Cura, pater beatissime, ut sponsK tua; foiina decorque redeat et pulcritudo. — Tu
enim pastor, tu medicus, tu gubernator, tu cultor, tu denique alter Deus in terris.
^'^ Paul Sarpi in a letter to Leschasser (in Le Bret's Magazin für Staaten- u.
Kirchengesch. Th. 2. S. 324) speaking in the person of the Roman Court, says :
Concilium Constantiense neque probari, neque emendari inter arcana habemus.
2' It is in this manner that Jo. de Turrecremata Summa II. c. 99. (Rocaberti
XIII. p. 426) answers the proofs brought from the decrees of the Councils of Con-
stance and Basil for the assertion. Concilium generale potestatem a Christo habere
immediate. With i-egard to the decree at Constance, Sess. V. (see § 130, note 8),
in which this is distinctly asserted, he remarks first: Ecce manifeste, quod decre-
tum illorum Patrum non loquitur univei-saliter de qualibet Synodo universaliter,
sed de ilia singulariter, pro cujus tempore non erat in Ecclesia unus pastor totius
Ecclesiae indubitatus. But apart from that the decree in question was not binding
(non habet necessitatem) : for Decreta ilia, si ita sunt appellanda, facta sunt solum a
Patribus aliquibus obedientiae Johannis XXIII. The Council of Constance ^vas not a
general Council, he argues, till all were united under one Pope. Besides prasfatum
decretum Constantiense non militat, quoniam per Apostolicam sedem non fuit ap-
probatum, immo videtur per Dominum Martinum reprobatum, sive annullatum in
condemnatioue erroris Joannis Vicleff et Joannis Hus, inter quos — unus articulus
condemnatus est : quod Petrus non est nee fuit caput Ecclesise sanctae catholicas.
2aS Third Period. Div. V. A. D. 1409 — 151T.
The consequence of this dispute in the hierarchy itself was that
the secular power once more gained an influence in the affairs of the
church, so as to decide in each country wiiich system should prevail.-'-^
This depended, however, always on political considerations. Whilst
in France the papal system, whenever it ventured to show itself, was
immediately condemned by the parliament and the university of
Paris, - ^ in other countries the opposite system met with the same
fate ; -'^ and whilst from France and Germany the most humiliating
In like manner he shows, cap. 100, that the decrees of the Council of Basil on the
subject are not binding. As to their having been confii-med by Eugene IV. (see
§ 131, note 17) he answers that objection by maintaining, quod pra^fats bullse
magis extorta; fuerunt minis, quam de mente Domini Eugenii emanaverint. But
apart from that, nihil eoruni, qua? in prsfatis bullis continentur, sufti'agatur adver-
sariis, quoniam Dominus Eugenius numquam pra^buit consensum decretis Concilii
Basileensis. Compare his Kesponsio de summi Pont, et gen. Concilii potestate,
1. c. p. 578. In like manner Cajetamis de auct. Papas et Cone. c. 8 ( Rocaberti
XIX. p. 456) denies the validity of the decrees of the Council of Constance, and
tries to show in particular that the confirmation of Mai-tin V. (see § 130, note 24)
did not extend to the decrees of the 4th and 5th Sessions. Compare Apologiae,
P. II. c. 11 (1. c. p. 508).
«8 See MiiecB Sylvii Ep. 54, § 131, note 42, above.
â– â– " It was chiefly the Mendicant monks, who, attached of course to the cause of
the Pope by the connexion of their Orders with him, drew upon themselves such
censures. Thus the Dominican Johannes Sarrazin, A. D. 1429, was obliged to
retract the following assertions {(VJlrgentre collectio judicioruni de novis erroribus
I. II. p. 227) : Omnes potestates jurisdiclionis Ecclesi;e — sunt ah ipso Papa quan-
tum ad institutionem et collationem. Hujusmodi potestates non sunt de jure
divino, nee immediate instituta; a Deo. — Quandocumque in aliquo Concilio aliqua
instituuntur, tota auctoritas dans vigorem statutis in solo summo residet Pontificio.
— Summus Pontifex canonicam simoniam a jure positivo prohibitam non potest
committere. The Augustine monk, A^iculaus Quadrigariiis, 1442, the assertion
(1. c. p. 240) : sola Papas potestas in tota Ecclesiaiuunediate est a Christo. The Fran-
ciscan, Joannes Angeli, in Feb. 1483, the following assertions (1. c. p. 305) : Papa
posset totum jus canonicum destruere et novum consti-ucre. — Papa posset ab uno
Ecclesiastico tollere niedietatem redituum beneficiorum suorum et uni alteri dare,
non exprimendo aliquam causam. Quicumque contradicit voluntati Papa?, pagani-
zat, et sententian^ exconnnunicationis incui-rit ipso facto : et a nullo Papa repre-
hendi potest, nisi in materia haeresis.
2-* Thus an assembly of Theologians and Canonists, which was suinmoned by the
archbishop of Toledo, in Coniplutum, 1479, condcnnied, amongst othei- propositions
advanced by Petrus de Osma, a Fiench Doctor who taught in Salamanca, in a
libellus confessionis the following (Barth. Caranza Summa Concilioi'um, Duaci,
1659, 8vo. p. 660) : VII. quod Ecclesia ui-bis Rom;e errare potest. VIII. quod
Papa non potest dispensare in statutis universalis Ecclesiae (so also Gerson de modis
uniendi ac reformandi Ecclesiam, c. 9. See above, § 130, note 1. Jac. Almaini
expositio circa doctrinam M. Occami, c. 12. in Gersonii 0pp. ed. du Pin, II. p.
1055). In the bull confirming this sentence, by Sixtus IV. (see Paynald, 1479,
no. 32, coirq)lctc in de Jlguirre Concill. Ilispaiiia;, V. p. 355 seq.) the Piop. VII.
is not found : we know, however, that it was considered heretical in Spain. The
theological faculty in Vienna complained to Pope Iiniocent VIII. of one of their
number, Johannes Kaltenniurkttr, A. D. 1492, that he had taught: Concilium
esse supra Papain ; Papain non posse revocare per Concilium generale conclusiun ;
Romanum Pontificem non posse dare licentiam Parocliianis quibuscunque, ut alteri,
quam proprio sacerdoti Curato libere confiteantur; Papam non ])osse dare genera-
lein potestatem audiendi confessiones : Kaltenmarkler was sumirioned to Rome,
where he bad to do penance, and then in Vienna recall the objectionable |)roposi-
tions : see the extracts from the Acta jirinted A. D. 1493, in (Dietrich) Auctariuni
catalog! testium veritatis, p. 260. cf Mitterdorfferi conspectus hist. Univ. Vien-
Chui). I. Papacy. § ^ 35. General vieiv of. 369
demands were made on the Pope, Spain and Portugal found it for
their interest to receive from his hands their newly discovered terri-
tories,^'^ and thus concede to him his most arrogant pretensions. In
general, however, the Pope was powerful enough, as well through the
influence he could still exercise over the minds of the people, as by
his actual possessions in Italy, which country just at that time was the
object of universal desire, to make his friendship important to all, so
that even a king of France was led to sacrifice to that object the real
good of the national church.-'^ These political relations were now
the main support of the papal power â– ; -^ and it was the aim of the
nensis Saec. II. Viennas, 1724. 8vo. p. 54 seq. Hansizii Germ, sacra, T. I.
p. 597.
2* See J\'"icolas V.'s letter to Alphonso, king of Portugal, A. D. 1452 (Raynald,
ad. h. a. no. 11) : tibi Saracenos et Paganos, aliosque intideles et Christi inimicos
quoscumque, et ubicuinque constitutos, regna, diicatus, — aliaque doininia, terras,
— et quajcumque alia — bona mobilia et iinmobilia — per eosdeni — possessa —
invadendi — et subjngandi, illorum personas in perpetiiani Servituten! redigendi,
regna quoque, — aliaque dominia — et bona hujnsmodi tibi et successoribus tuis,
Regibus Portugallia', perpetuo applicandi — plenam et liberam auctoiitate aposto-
lica tenore praesentiuin concedimus facultatem. Referring to this letter Nicolas
invests the king, 1454, with the new discoveries on the west coast of Afi-ica (Ray-
nald, ad h. a. no. 9) : de apostolic« potestatis plenitudine literas facwltatis praefatas
— ad Ccptensem ei pra^'dicta et quascunque alia, etiam ante datum dictarum facul-
tatem literarum acquisita, et ea quaj in posterum nomine — Alfonsi Regis suorum-
que successorum in ipsis — et ulteiioribus — partibus de infidelium — manibus
acquiri poterunt, — sub ejusdem facultatis Uteris contineri pr:elibatis, — ipsamque
conquestam, quam a capitibus de Bonador et de Nam usque per totam Ghineam —
extendi harum sei-ie declararaus, eliam ad ipsos Alfonsum Regem, praedecessores
suos ac infantem — spectasse — et in perpetuum spectare, — decernimus et decla-
ramus : ac pro potioris juris et cautelaj sufhagio jam acquisita et qua3 in posterum
acquiri contigerit provincias — pra?dictis Alfonso Regi ac successoribus — perpetuo
donamus, concedimus, et appropriamus per prajsentes. In the same form Alexan-
der VI. dd. V. non. Maji, 1493 (see Raynald, h. a. no. 18) bestows the newly-
discovered regions in America on Ferdinand and Isabella, accompanying it with a
letter to them, dated the same day, in which he adds a more particular description
(1. c. no. 19) ; de nostra mera liberalitate, et ex certa scientia ac de apostolical
potestatis plenitudine omnes insulas et terras firmas inventas et inveniendas, —
fabricando et construendo unam lineam a polo arctico — ad polum antarcticum, —
quas linea distet a qualibet insularum, qua; vulgariter nuncupantur de los Azores y
cabo Verde, centum leucis versus occidentem et meridiem, ita quod omnes insulae
et terrse tirma; reperts et I'cperiendaB — a prajfata linea versus occidentem et meri-
diem, quae per alium Regem aut Principem Christianum non fuei'int actualiter
possess^, — auctoritate omnipotentis Dei nobis in b. Petro concessa, ac vicariatus
Jesu Christi, qua fungimur in terris, cum omnibus illarum dominus, civitatibus, —
juribusque et jurisdictionibus, ac pertinentiis universis vobis haeredibusque —
vestris — in perpetuum tenore praesentiuni donamus, concedimus, assignamus. As
early as 1494, however, Ferdinand agreed with the king of Portugal, that this line
should be taken 360 leagues from the Azores, instead of 100.
26 See § 134, notes 18 and 20.
^'^ See especially the view taken by Franc. Guicciardini (>f 1540) of the origin
of the Pope's temporal power in the fourth book of his Italian history, in the
various editions of that work omitted, but printed in Goldasti Monarchia III.
p. 17 seq., and in Conringii Opp. I. p. 113. At the close we find : His igitur
fundamentis et modis ad terrenam potentiam elati, ac sensim animarum salutis,
divinorumque prsceptorum obliti, atque ad mundana imperia omni cogitatione
conversi, nee divina auctoritate alio quam quasi telo et insti-umento I'erum fragilium.
abutentes, Principes potius gentium, quam rerum sacrarum Pontifices videri coepe-
270 Third Period. Div. V. A. D. 1409 — 1517.
pontiffs to secure for themselves the help of the temporal sovereigns
against the inroads of the aristocracy of the churcli.
The devotion of liie people at large to the Pope had now long
depended merely on habit ; still it would have been little disturbed by
all the theories of the time, had not the corruption of the papal court,
and especially its avarice and injustice, shocked their moral sense,
whilst it proved so seriously detrimental to their interests."^ The
runt. Horum curae et negotia non jam vitse sanctimonia, non religionis incrementa,