[Image]  [Hi-Res Image]

Page 55

the estates of deceased ecclesiastics. The Church persistently adhered to the Roman law until late in

the Middle Ages, but made an excepThe Claim tion in regard to the laws of property,

When, at least in later times, burial was refused to laymen who had bequeathed nothing to the Church (cf. E. Friedberg, De ftnium inter ecclesiam et civitatem regundorum judicio, p. 187, Leipsic, 1861), it is not strange that the Church considered itself heir of the clergy and as mother assumed the heritage of her own children, the priests. According to the older church laws the right of ecclesiastics to dispose of their possessions was not restricted; but bishops were early required to make a will, and they were subject to penalty if they did not devise in favor of the Church or of blood-relations. Theodosius II. (408-450) awarded to the Church all possessions of ecclesiastics which had not been disposed of by will. In course of time the obligation to make a will was extended from the bishops to all holders of benefices. But strong obstacles continually met the desire of the Church to become sole heir of clerical possessions. Ecclesiastics disregarded church ordinances and seized the possessions of deceased colleagues. Various councils and synods condemned the right of spoils and prescribed severe punishments, but without avail. Ecclesiastics at times did not wait for the death of a brother, and the right of spoils was extended even to the estate of the pope. To do away with these abuses, Charlemagne appointed cecbnomi for the administration of church possessions, but without 'I success. A capitulary of Charles the Bold issued in

The laity also tried to obtain a share in the estates of deceased churchmen. As long as the clergy lived according to Roman law, their right to dispose of their property by will was acknowledged by the

State; but when they were subjected Claims of to the law of the country, they could

no will, their property did not go to their relatives or to the Church, but the ma,norlords, later the church-patrons, claimed it; and after Frederick L, the German kings claimed the estates of the bishops. It is true, Frederick I. threatened with severe punishment all those who tried to curtail the liberty of ecclesiastics in making a will, but neither he nor his successors regarded their own laws and promises. Even after the emperors had renounced the right of spoils, it was maintained by the German princes. Conditions were not different in England, Scotland, Sicily, and France. The right of spoils was practised in France especially. The Church there complained that the rulers delayed to fill episcopal seats in order to enjoy their revenues so much the longer. Gradually the same abuse started anew within the Church itself. Abbots claimed the possessions of priors and regulars; bishops the estates of their canons, priests, and other clergy, even the estate of whole churches; priors and chapters the estate of bishops; and all this in spite of the continued prohibitions of councils and

popes. The liberty of making wills, which had been granted by the State to ecclesiastics, was now restricted anew by the bishops. And even after it had been granted again, there still remained of the right of spoils the Ferto (fourth of a mark), which the clergy had to leave to the bishop and this was customary in some German states as late as the nineteenth century (cf. E. Friedberg, Kirchercrecht, p. 562; Leipsic, 1903).

Even the popes, who had so zealously opposed the robbery of churches, claimed the right for which they had envied the bishops. In France the kings shared with the pope the spoil of churches and ecclesiastics. It was in vain that the Uni-

The Claim versity of Paris denounced such abuses. of the The leaders of the protesting party Popes. were thrown into prison, and fear and terror led others to keep silence. But when the consequences of t:zese abuses clearly showed themselves, when bishops were regarded as the worst debtors since their estates offered no security to creditors, Charles VI. ordered, in 1385, the abolishment of the papal right of spoils for monasteries and bishoprics. After a few years, however, the Council of Constance was forced to oppose the same abuses, also in vain; but in France at least the reintroduction of the right of spoils failed, owing to the rigid opposition of the French kings. In 1643 Louis XI. repeated the ordinances of Charles VI. and emphasized his edict by threats of severe punishment. But even the resistance of secular princes, which found the willing support of the Church, did not induce the popes to deprive the apostolic treasury of the lucrative spoils. As late as 1560 Pius IV. forbade all ecclesiastics to make a will without the permission of the apostolic seat, and did not hesitate to declare future donations invalid, while Pius V. (1567) and Gregory XIII. (1577) reasserted the old claims. It is true, however, that these were the last phenomena on a large scale of an abuse that had been practised for centuries by laymen and ecclesiastics with equal rapacity, which abuse in Italy even yet has not been abolished.

(E. FRIEDBERGf.)

BIBLIOGRAPHY: L. Thomassin, Ve;`.us et nova ecclesiee disciptinw, IM, ii., chaps. 51-57; Zeitschrift far Philosophic and katholische Theologie, parts 23-25; S. Sugenheim, SLaatsle6en des Klerus im Mittelalter, i. 267 sqq., Berlin, 1839; A. Friedberg, De fenium inter ecclesiam et civitatem regundorum judicio, pp. 220 sqq., Leipaic, 1861; E. Friedberg, Lehrbuch des . . . Kirchenrechts, § 179, Leipsie, 1903 (useful for references to lute literature); KL, xi. 657-661.

SPONDANUS, spon-dd'nus, HENRICUS (HENRI DE SPONDE): French Roman Catholic, convert, church historian and bishop of Pamiers; b. at Maul6on (25 m. s.w. of Pau), Gascony, Jan. 6, 1568; d. at Toulouse May 18, 1643. He was brought up in the Reformed faith and studied at the College at Orthez and the Academy of Geneva. He practised law at Tours and won such d istinction that Henry IV. appointed him maitre des reqztktes for Navarre. On Sept. 21, 1595, he renounced the Reformed tenets, and through the influence of Cardinal Jacques Davy du Perron (q.v.) he obtained a canonry. In 1600 he went to Rome, where he became a close friend of Caesar llaronius (q.v.), whose