The history of the popes, from the close of the middle ages

VOLUME I. BOOK 2

CHAPTER IV

THE SYNODS OF PISA AND CONSTANCE,

1409-1417 (1418)

 

THE election of Gregory XII was due in great measure to the belief that he was earnestly bent on the restoration of unity to the Church, and, in the earlier days of his Pontificate, he certainly seemed full of enthusiasm for this great cause. He assured those around him that, notwithstanding his age, he was ready, for the sake of unity, to meet Benedict, even if he had to take the journey on foot with a staff in his hand, or to cross the sea in an open boat. In his Encyclical, as well as in other Briefs, he expressed himself in a manner which seemed to leave no doubt that the Schism would soon be at an end. He wrote to the Anti-Pope to the effect that the strife for their respective rights ought to cease, and that they should imitate the woman mentioned in Old Testament history, who preferred to give up her real claim to the child rather than consent to have it divided. Accordingly, when in his answer to this epistle Benedict XIII offered to abdicate on the same conditions as Gregory, the restoration of unity to the Church appeared to be certain. But the appearance was deceptive. The embassy which France sent to both Popes to inquire more closely into their intentions, soon made it plain that Gregory XII, who was greatly under the influence of his relations, was as little in earnest in his expressions as was Benedict. The rejoicing of Gerson I was premature. The meeting-place of the Popes was a subject of much dispute, and various proposals were made, but the meeting never took place, although Gregory XII and Benedict XIII came within a few miles of each other.

Contemporary writers and modern historians are agreed in laying on Gregory XII's nephews and the Archbishop Giovanni Dominici of Ragusa the chief blame for his conduct in not resigning. The hatred with which they consequently were regarded by the promoters of union is manifested in a satire preserved by Dietrich von Nieheim. It purposes to be a letter from Satan to Giovanni of Ragusa, and is full of ironical allusions to personal peculiarities, to various occurrences, and some revolting practices and manners. It is interesting also as an example of that medley of ecclesiastical, scriptural, and heathen ideas which was so popular at this period. This letter must have been written in March, 1408. It concludes by exhorting Giovanni Dominici to continue his opposition to Gregory's resignation, and tells him what he is to expect in another world. Satan, he is informed, has had the hottest place made ready for him in the lowest depths of eternal Chaos, between Arius and Mahomet, where other supporters of the Schism are most anxiously awaiting him. “Farewell, and be as happy as was our dear son Simon Magus”, are the last words of this curious document.

Gregory’s altered attitude in regard to the question of union naturally awakened the greatest uneasiness among his Cardinals, and a party adverse to him was formed in the Sacred College. In order to counterbalance their influence, Gregory, forgetful of the promise he had made in the Conclave, decided to create new Cardinals. There were stormy discussions at Lucca, but they did not deter the Pope from actually nominating four Cardinals. Seven of those belonging to his Court then withdrew to Pisa, and issued two proclamations, by which the breach with Gregory was rendered final. In the first an appeal was made from an ill-informed to a better-informed Pope, to Jesus Christ, to a General Council and to a future Pope.

The second called on the Princes of Christendom to give their support to the movement in favor of union.

The relations of Benedict XIII with France also underwent a considerable change at this time. The conviction that this Pope, who before his election had professed the greatest zeal for union, had no real desire for the termination of the Schism was gaining ground, and on the 12th January, 1408, the King informed him that France would make a declaration of neutrality, if unity were not restored by the Feast of the Ascension. Benedict replied by a simple reference to the ecclesiastical penalties incurred by disobedience to the Pope. In the end of May, France solemnly disowned the authority of Benedict, an example which was soon followed by Navarre, and also by Wenceslaus and Sigismund, the Kings of Bohemia and Hungary. A great national Synod was then held in France, and the principles, in accordance with which the affairs of the Church were to be administered during the period of neutrality, were determined. It was also decided that the benefices of those who should still acknowledge Benedict were to be forfeited.

These violent measures broke the power of Benedict, whose Cardinals came to an understanding with those who had deserted Gregory XII. As if the Holy See had really been vacant, they at once began to assume the position of lawful rulers of the Church, and formally sent out proclamations convening a Council, which was to be assembled at Pisa on the Feast of the Annunciation of our Lady, March 25, 1409. Both Popes now endeavored, by summoning Councils of their own, to counteract the rebellion of the Cardinals, but the Council of the latter, although its convocation was, according to the canonical decisions of the time, absolutely illegal, took place and became extremely important.

The increasing desire for the restoration of unity will not alone suffice to explain this astonishing fact. The Synod of Pisa (1409), according to Catholic principles, was, from the outset, an act of open revolt against the Pope. That such an essentially revolutionary assembly should decree itself competent to re-establish order, and was able to command so much consideration, was only rendered possible by the eclipse of the Catholic doctrine regarding the primacy of St. Peter and the monarchical constitution of the Church, occasioned by the Schism. The utter confusion in theological ideas and the dangerous nature of the anti-papal tendency, partly due to the teaching of Occam and Marsiglio, which prevailed in the principal countries of Christendom at this time, can only he fairly estimated by a comparison of the theories set forth with the doctrine of the Church.

It was the will of Christ that the whole Church should have a single, visible head, so that, by the mutual connection of all the members among themselves, and by the subjection of all these members under one head, the most perfect unity should subsist. Therefore, a short time before His Ascension, our Saviour, according to His promise (St. Matt. xvi., 17-18), appointed the Apostle Peter, after his threefold profession of love, to be His Vicar on earth, the foundation and centre of the Church, the shepherd of "the lambs and the sheep," that is to say, of the whole company of the redeemed on earth, as related by St. John (XXI., 15 et seq.).

The primacy conferred on St. Peter, according to the teaching of the Church, is not merely a primacy of precedence and honor, but one of supreme jurisdiction, of complete spiritual power and authority. Inasmuch as Christ committed this power immediately and directly to St. Peter, he holds it for the Church, but not from her; he is not her representative and delegate, but her divinely-appointed head.

Neither the Primacy nor the Church is a transitory institution. St. Peter was Bishop of Rome, there he died a martyr's death under Nero. It is an article of the Catholic Faith, that all his prerogatives and powers are by Divine appointment transmitted to his lawful successors in the See of Rome. This plenitude of power was from the first contained in the Papacy, but was, of course, manifested only in such measure as the needs of the Church and the circumstances of the time required. “Like every living thing, like the Church herself”, says a modern ecclesiastical historian, “the unique and incomparable institution of the Papacy has its historical development. But this takes place according to that law which underlies the very life of the Church herself, the law of evolution, of growth from within. The Papacy must share all the destinies of the Church, and take part in each phase of her progress”.

The Bishops of Rome, as direct successors of the Prince of the Apostles, according to Catholic teaching, possess by Divine appointment the plenitude of episcopal power over the Universal Church. Supreme, full, and lawful spiritual authority over all the faithful is theirs. In virtue of this supreme authority, all her members, including Bishops, are subject to the Pope; subject, whether we view them as isolated individuals, or as assembled in Council. Far from subjecting the Pope to a Council, the early Church held it as a principle that the supreme authority could be judged by no one. A General Council cannot exist without the Pope or in opposition to him, for, as head of the Church, he is the necessary and essential head of the General Council, whose decrees receive their ecumenical validity solely from his confirmation. As supreme legislator, the Pope can, in matters of discipline, revise and change the decrees of a General Council, as well as those of his predecessors. Former ecclesiastical legislation forms a precedent for his action, in so far as he, being the superior, is by his own example to show respect to the law. The power of the Primacy also contains, comprehended within itself, the supreme judicial power. Appeal may accordingly be made to him in all ecclesiastical matters; there is no appeal from his judgment to another tribunal; the plenitude of power over the Universal Church, conferred on the Holy See, is limited by nothing but Divine and natural law.

The Schism, attacking as it did the very centre of unity, brought discussion as to the position of the Pope in the Church into the foreground. In a period of such agitation, the discussion inevitably assumed a revolutionary character most dangerous to the Church. A multitude of theories, more or less openly opposed to her teaching, were brought forward, intensifying the confusion by their abandonment of the solid legal foundations. Many men, who were otherwise strongly attached to the Church, were carried away by these anti-papal tendencies.

Things had come to such a point that besides the new theory of the superiority of the Council over the Pope, views were asserted and maintained which completely denied the unity of the Church and the divine institution of the Primacy. It was said that it mattered little how many Popes there were, that there might be two or three or ten or twelve; or that each country might have its own independent Pope. Again, it was suggested that it might be the will of God that the Papacy should be for a time, or even permanently, divided, as the Kingdom of David had been, and after the example of human governments which are subject to change. Certainty regarding the will of God was deemed unattainable, but it was thought possible that the efforts to restore unity might really be in opposition to it.

This last opinion, which may be considered as a consequence of Occam's teaching, was strongly controverted by Heinrich von Langenstein in his “Proposition of Peace for the Union and Reformation of the Church by a General Council”, written in 1381. He looks on the Schism as a thing permitted by God, who, in His wisdom, which constantly brings good out of evil, had not prevented this great misfortune, but would have it bring about the right and necessary reform of the Church. For the accomplishment of this great work he considers that a General Council must be held.

The new and extravagant system which Langenstein put forth in this “Peace Proposal”, in order to furnish a theoretical justification for the Convocation of a General Council, is important from its bearing on future events. It is briefly as follows: No especial weight is to be attached to our Lord's institution of the Papacy. The Church would have had a right to appoint a Pope if He had not done so. If the Cardinals should have chosen a Pope who does not suit the Church, she had the right to revise the work of her agents, and even to deprive them of her commission. For the power to elect the Pope rests originally in the Episcopate, and reverts to it if the Cardinals cannot, or will not elect; or if they abuse their right of election. The criterion, by which all acts of Church and State are to be judged, is whether they do, or do not promote the general good. A prince who, instead of preserving the State, would ruin and betray it, is to be resisted as an enemy; the same course should be pursued in the Church. Necessity breaks the law; indeed, even renders its breach a duty. In the present instance of the Schism, however, Langenstein goes on to say, it is by no means necessary to resort to this expedient. Laws are given that human actions may be ordered and measured thereby, but as these actions are innumerable, they cannot be completely comprehended by any law, and therefore, if we would not run counter to the will of the lawgiver, we must look to the spirit rather than to the letter. In the interpretation of every law we must be mindful of the Aristotelian principle of equity. To apply these general notions to the present case, it is not of the essence of a General Council that it should be summoned by the Pope; in extraordinary cases this may be done by temporal princes. The authority of the Council stands higher than that of the Pope and the Sacred College, for of the Church alone is it said that the gates of hell should not prevail against her.

These theories, by which Langenstein broke with the whole existing system, soon became widely diffused. Henceforward this most dangerous doctrine of the natural right of necessity was the instrument used in all efforts to put an end to the Schism. Not very long after the appearance of the “Peace Proposal”, we find Langenstein’s view maintained by another German theologian, Conrad von Gelnhausen. His argument is chiefly directed against those “who are never weary of repeating that, even if all the Prelates of the Church came all together, without the authority of the Pope they would form no Council, but merely a Conventicle”. The Papacy, according to this writer, is an official position whose authority is derived from the unanimous will of the faithful. Infallibility resides in the whole Church. The individual Pope is fallible, whence it evidently follows that a Council may be lawfully assembled without his authority.

Langenstein’s principles had the greatest influence on the mind of Jean Gerson. This is shown in the remarkable New Year's Sermon which he preached at Tarascon, in 1404, before Pope Benedict XIII. The constitution of the Church, like every ecclesiastical law, has, he maintained, peace for its object. If a law no longer fulfills this purpose it is ipso facto repealed. Every means of putting an end to the Schism would be lawful, and the best means would be a General Council.

It is easy to understand that Benedict XIII was greatly offended by this discourse. An opposition to its principles also arose among the French theologians and was expressed in the Assembly held in Paris in 1406, where Guillaume Filastre, the future Cardinal, absolutely denied the right of a General Council to judge or condemn the Pope. Pierre d'Ailly lamented the manner in which certain members of the University of Paris spoke of the Pope, and declared it unlawful to renounce allegiance to Benedict, inasmuch as obedience is not to be refused even to a Pope suspected of heresy. It cannot, in fact, be denied that the theory which permitted such a course, made revolution permanent, for the Pope would be subject, not merely to the judgment of the Church, but to the subjective estimate of the individual.

In the meantime, objections to the new theories of Church government were little heeded; faith in the Divine right of the Primacy had been shaken to its foundations; the distress of the Church became more and more intolerable, and the general confusion greater. The attempt to decide between the claims of the different Popes was abandoned, and, as the proposals of abdication and of compromise had proved impracticable, the idea of an appeal to force gained ground; the great object was to find some way of getting rid of the Schism. Dignitaries of the Church, as, for example, Pierre Leroy, the Abbot of Mont St. Michel, openly proclaimed it lawful to disobey a Pope who misused his power. The Parisian Professor Plaoul declared both Popes to be obstinate schismatics, and consequently heretics, adding that all their adherents were to be looked upon as promoters of heresy and schism. The extreme urgency of the case, in his opinion, justified the King in summoning a Council, and even made it his duty to do so, and to use all possible means for the removal of the Schism; for, as Plaoul further explained, the obligation of peace, being based on divine and natural law, takes precedence of all constitutions, and annuls all contrary obligations, even oaths. If the Pope hinders peace it becomes necessary to separate from him.

Theories of this revolutionary description were not confined to France. In Italy, the Republic of Florence, which, especially since the election of Gregory XII, had been most zealous in its endeavors to promote the “holy cause of peace”, decided, in 1408, that, under existing circumstances, neutrality or indifference in regard to both Popes was the best expedient. In Prague, a German Dominican Friar, Johann von Falkenberg, called Pope Gregory a heretic. He ascribed to the Cardinals the right of deposing their Lord, without admitting that the Pope might deprive them of their dignities. In like manner the celebrated Canonist, Zabarella, who afterwards became a Cardinal, sought to raise the Sacred College to the position of a standing governing committee in the Church, and thereby to secure for it the lion’s share in the contemplated changes. The treatise in which he put forward this idea is most important, as it gives us for the first time the Council theory in all its fullness. Zabarella ascribes the plenitude of power to the Church, and consequently to the General Council as her representative. The Pope, in his view, is only the highest servant of the Church, to whom the executive power is entrusted. Should he err, the Church must set him right; should he fall into heresy, or be an obstinate schismatic, or commit a notorious crime, the Council may depose him. The Church, or the General Council, cannot sit permanently, and therefore the Pope commonly wields the supreme power. He can, however, issue no decree binding on the whole Church without the consent of the Cardinals, and, if he should differ from them, the Council must decide the matter, It is to be summoned by the Pope, or, in the event of a schism, or of his refusal to summon it, notwithstanding urgent necessity, by the College of Cardinals. If this body is unable or unwilling to act, the duty devolves on the Emperor. The scope of the General Council was also widely extended. Learned Canonists, like Abbot Pierre Leroy, of Mont St. Michel, taught that the Pope can never alter its decisions, and is bound to acknowledge them, even if they should concern the faith or the general welfare of the Church.

Revolutionary views of this kind predominated in the Council of seditious Cardinals assembled at Pisa, but they were not allowed to pass uncontroverted. Among their most zealous opponents was the noble King Rupert. He saw that the path in which the Cardinals were engaged, could never lead to unity, but rather to a “threefold division, and to still greater discord and humiliation for the Church and Christendom”. To avert this fresh disaster, he sent a special embassy to Pisa to state his serious objections to the proceedings of the Cardinals. The Ambassadors argued that obedience might not be renounced for the sake of obtaining union, inasmuch as it is not lawful to do evil that good may come; that the Cardinals could not themselves depart from unity in order to unite others; that it belonged to the Pope alone to summon a General Council; that Pope Gregory had been acknowledged and presented to Christendom by the Cardinals as duly elected, but that if his election had been unlawful, their own position must be doubtful. They further contested the legality of a union of the two colleges, inasmuch as the Cardinals of one party could alone be recognized as lawful.

These and other considerations were, however, unheeded by the Assembly at Pisa. Delusive hopes of union held the better sort captive, and blinded them to the intrigues of Baldassare Cossa, who was leading the Council according to his own interests, and turned a deaf ear to all representations regarding the injustice of these proceedings towards both Popes. Since many Universities and learned men expressed their agreement with the new theories, the Synod of Pisa disregarded all canonical scruples, and boldly assumed authority over the two Popes, of whom one must necessarily have been the lawful head of the Church. In vain did Carlo Malatesta, the loyal adherent of Gregory XII, endeavor, even at the last moment, to bring about an understanding between him and the Synod. In vain did this Prince, who was distinguished for his Humanistic culture, and was the noblest of his race represent to the Cardinals, that their new way might indeed speedily lead to an end, but that the end would be a threefold division instead of unity. The Synod of Pisa having in its first session declared itself to be canonically summoned and ecumenical, representing the whole Catholic Church, then proceeded to the trial and deposition of Benedict XIII, and Gregory XII. No one seriously believed the assertion by which the Council supported its action. It was declared to be a matter of public notoriety that Benedict XIII and Gregory XII were not merely promoters of the Schism, but actually heretics in the fullest sense of the word, because by their conduct they had attacked and overturned the article of faith regarding the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church. Having thus invented a basis of operations, the Synod of Pisa proceeded with feverish haste to the most extreme measures, from which they might reasonably have been deterred by their knowledge that Gregory and Benedict had each an important body of followers, and that the forcible repression of both parties could not be deemed possible. Without further negotiations with the two Popes, neither of whom had appeared at Pisa, their deposition was decreed, and a new election ordered. The elevation on the 26th June, 1409, of the aged Cardinal Archbishop of Milan, Petros Filargis, a Greek, who took the name of Alexander V, was the result.

Instead of two Popes there were now three, for the sentence of the Synod of Pisa had in no way affected the allegiance of the States which recognized Gregory XII or Benedict XIII. The Assembly which was to have restored unity, had only increased the confusion. Such was the deplorable result of the removal of the established basis of unity. As Pierre d'Ailly had sadly foreseen, the Council of Cardinals added another and a far more dangerous evil to those which already existed; it created a second Schism, and showed itself absolutely incapable of accomplishing the much longed for reform of ecclesiastical affairs. Reform and union alike came to nothing at Pisa.

Alexander V died on the 3rd May, 14104. The Cardinals immediately elected as his successor Baldassare Cossa, who assumed the name of John XXIII (1410-1415). Of all the miserable consequences of the disastrous Synod of Pisa, this election was the worst. John XXIII was not, indeed, the moral monster his enemies afterwards endeavored to represent him, but he was utterly worldly-minded and completely engrossed by the temporal interests, an astute politician and courtier, not scrupulously conscientious, and more of a soldier than a Churchman.

No help for the distracted Church was to be hoped for from him. All eyes, therefore, turned to the powerful and right-minded Sigismund, the King of the Romans, who was necessarily most deeply interested in the termination of the Schism, inasmuch as his Coronation as Emperor in Rome could not take place until Western Christendom was again united under one spiritual head. He did not disappoint the hopes which were fixed upon him, for the termination of the Schism and the restoration of unity to the Church in the West were in great measure his work.

The mischief wrought by the Synod of Pisa could not, however, check the ever-increasing belief that peace could only be restored by a General Council. Its very fruitlessness drove the more ardent to extreme measures for the deliverance of the Church from the three-headed Papacy. A scandal so terrible made men long for union at any price. The belief that the Emperor, or the King of the Romans was bound, as Protector of the Church, to summon a General Council, came more and more prominently forward. It was forcibly expressed by Dietrich von Nieheim, the author of a work "On the ways of uniting and reforming the Church by means of a General Council" (1410), long falsely attributed to Gerson. Dietrich here distinguishes two Churches; the particular and private Apostolic Church, and the Universal Church which, as the Society of all the faithful, has received immediately from God the power of the keys. Her representative, the General Council, is therefore above the Pope, who is bound to obey her; she may limit his power, annul his rights, and depose him. If the existence of the Church is in danger, she is, according to Dietrich, dispensed from the moral law. The end of unity sanctifies all means: craft, deception, violence, bribery, imprisonment, and death. For all law is for the sake of the whole body, and the individual must give way to the general good. Dietrich founds his chief hopes on a powerful Roman Emperor or King. “Until there is”, he says, “a just, mighty, universal Roman Emperor or King, the Schism will not only continue, but will, we must fear, constantly grow worse”. And as, in his opinion, the removal of the Schism and the holding of a General Council cannot be expected without the King of the Romans, he is bound, under pain of grievous sin, to bring about its meeting.

Sigismund understood how to turn to account the temper of the time, which found expression in the remarkable work of Dietrich von Nieheim. He also knew how to overcome the great obstacles which stood in the way of the Council. Fortune favored him in a remarkable manner. The conquest of Rome by King Ladislaus (June, 1413) had compelled John XXIII to escape to Florence, where so dangerous a visitor had not been very cordially welcomed. As the Pope was in urgent need of protection and aid against his enemy, he gave his Cardinal-Legates, Challant and Zabarella, ample powers to come to an understanding with the King of the Romans, who was then at Como, as to the time and place of the Council. After lengthened resistance on their part, Sigismund succeeded in obtaining their consent to the selection of Constance, a German City, as the place of its assembly. This point settled, he hastened to complete the matter, and on the 30th October, 1413, informed all Christendom that, in agreement with Pope John, a General Council would be opened at Constance on the 1st November in the following year, and solemnly invited all Prelates, Princes, Lords, and Doctors of Christendom to attend. John XXIII, who was completely powerless, had no choice but to submit to Sigismund's will; on the 9th December he signed the Bull which convened a General Council at Constance, and promised himself to be present. As soon as this decisive step had been taken by the Pisan Pope, Sigismund wrote to Gregory XII and Benedict XIII, inviting them to come to the Council, and also to the Kings of France and Aragon, calling upon them to do everything in their power to ensure the accomplishment of the important object it had in view.

When John XXIII, in his extremity, made up his mind to consent to the convocation of the Council at Constance, he hoped by this act to establish a certain right to direct it, with the assistance of his numerous Italian prelates, more or less in accordance with his own views. Any such hopes, however, proved utterly fallacious, and, if we may believe the Chronicler Ulrich von Richental, who tells us that at the sight of the Lake of Constance John exclaimed “This is how foxes are caught!” even before he set foot in the city, where the Council was to be held, he had become fully aware of the danger which threatened him. There was, indeed, ample ground for his apprehensions; a feeling most unfavorable to him had become general, and the complete failure of the Council of Pisa had at the same time driven the leaders of the party of union to the adoption of revolutionary opinions. The important treatise of Dietrich von Nieheim “On the ways of uniting and reforming the Church by means of a General Council”, which we have mentioned, had already given expression to the prevailing sentiment. The author attacks the worldly-minded Popes and their Courts in the most ruthless manner. Their sins are painted in the darkest colours, while he hardly alludes to those of the rest of the clergy. If his work does not contain the full and perfect truth, it nevertheless bears important testimony to the predominant tone of mind at the period. Few contemporary writings as clearly show how low the first dignity of Christendom had fallen in the eyes of the friends of reform, and how its bearers had come to be despised. The hostility of the party adverse to John XXIII soon manifested itself at Constance in the most unmistakable manner. It gained new strength from the arrival of Sigismund, and its first great result was the new mode of voting by nations, carried through in opposition to the Italians by the Germans, English, and French. Events unfolded themselves with marvelous rapidity after the arrival of the King of the Romans, and John's prospects became more and more gloomy. An anonymous memorial, addressed to the Fathers of the Council and containing most serious charges against the Pisan Pope, produced great effects. His bearing from the beginning of the Council had been irresolute, and now he lost heart altogether. In dread of judicial proceedings, he solemnly promised to give peace to the Church by an absolute surrender of the papal power, if Gregory XII and Benedict XIII would likewise abdicate. But this step was not taken freely or in good faith. Meanwhile the language of the party of reform became more and more decided. John, who was kept well informed of all that passed by his spies, at last came to the conclusion that nothing but bold and sudden action could save him, and on March 19th, 1415, with the connivance of Duke Frederick of Austria, he fled "on a little horse" to Schaffhausen, disguised as a messenger.

The deed was one of desperation, and occasioned the greatest confusion and alarm amongst those assembled at Constance. The Italians and Austrians left the city and gathered round their Princes; merchants, fearing a riot, packed up their wares, and the Burghermaster called the citizens to arms.

During this stormy episode, the party which looked on a definite limitation of Papal rights as the only means of suppressing the Schism and reforming the Church discipline, gained the upper hand. The General Council was to effect this limitation, and accordingly it was held that the Pope must be subject to its jurisdiction; many, indeed, would have rendered this subjection permanent. With characteristic precipitation it was decided in the third, fourth, and fifth Sessions that a General Council could not be dissolved nor prorogued by the Pope without its own consent; that the present Council continued in full force after the flight of the Pope; that everyone, even the Pope, must obey the Council in matters concerning the faith and the extirpation of the Schism, and that it had authority over the Pope as well as over all Christians.

By these decrees a power which had not been instituted by Christ was constituted supreme over the Church, and this was done in order to provide the Assembly of Constance with a theoretical basis on which to act independently of the Pope. But, although defended by d'Ailly and Gerson, they never received the force of law. They proceeded from a headless Assembly, which could not be an (Ecumenical Council since it was not acknowledged by any Pope, while one of the three must certainly have been the lawful head of the Church. Moreover, the method of procedure, by a majority of votes, had no precedent in the ancient Councils, and these decrees were carried against the Cardinals by a majority composed in large part of unauthorized persons. It was evident, then, that they could only be regarded as an act of violence, an expedient to put an end to the existing confusion. It was possible, indeed, to interpret the words, asserting the supremacy of the Council over the Pope, in a sense which limited their application to the Schism of the day, and they were thus understood by many, both at the time and afterwards. But, in the intention of their authors, their signification was general and dogmatic, and amounted to the introduction of a new system, subversive of the old Catholic doctrine. No dogmatic importance, however, can possibly be attached to them. The Assembly of Constance was no General, or representative, Council of the Church, and they never received Papal confirmation. The great mistake of those assembled at Constance was to take that which may have seemed a matter of necessity under extraordinary circumstances, as a general rule for all times, and to consider it possible that a General Council could be held without the Pope, and in opposition to him, an idea as extravagant as would be the supposition that a body without a head could be a living organism. The necessary consequence of this attempt to carry out reforms by means of the Episcopate alone was, as a modern Canonist well observes, that in the next century many denied the authority of both Pope and Bishops.

The firmness and prudence of Sigismund had been the chief means of frustrating the attempt made by John XXIII to disperse the Assembly at Constance, and the fate of this Pope was soon decided. He had already been arrested and confined in Radolfzell, and, after a trial, was, on the 29th May, solemnly and formally deposed; utterly broken in spirit, he submitted without remonstrance to the sentence of the Synod.

The deposition of John XXIII nullified the work of the Synod of Pisa, and brought things back to the position they had occupied, before it had decreed the deposition of Gregory XII and Benedict XIII. The election of a new Pope ought logically, therefore, to have taken place, but such a measure would not have advanced matters a step, and accordingly the Synod was in an untenable position when Gregory XII solved its difficulties by his magnanimous resolution to abdicate. The way in which this was done is of the highest significance, and must by no means be viewed as a concession in non-essentials to the assembled Bishops. Gregory XII, the one legitimate Pope, sent his plenipotentiary, Malatesta, to Constance, where the prelates of his obedience had already arrived, and now summoned the Bishops to a Council. His Cardinal-Legate, who had made his entry into the city as such, read Gregory's Bull of Convention to the assembled Bishops, who solemnly acknowledged it. Malatesta then informed this Synod, which Gregory XII had constituted, of his abdication (4th July, 1415). His summons had given the Synod a legal basis; the Bishops of the third obedience gradually joined it, while Benedict XIII, with but three Cardinals, fled to the fortress of Peñiscola, thus proclaiming himself a schismatic before the whole Church. The Holy See was, therefore, now acknowledged and declared to be vacant, and it became possible to proceed to the election of a successor to Gregory XII.

“If even we admit the proposition”, observes the Canonist from whom we have taken the above account, “that Gregory XII’s fresh convocation and authorization of the Council were a mere matter of form, this form was the price to which he attached his abdication; and it meant nothing less than that the Assembly should formally acknowledge him as the lawful Pope, and accordingly confess that its own authority dated only from that moment, and that all its previous acts - in particular those of the fourth and fifth Sessions - were devoid of all ecumenical character. The recognition of Gregory XII’s legitimacy necessarily included a similar recognition of Innocent VII, Boniface IX, and Urban VI, and the rejection of Clement VII and Benedict XIII”.

In gratitude for the concession which he had made, the Council conferred upon Gregory XII the Cardinal Bishopric of Porto, with the permanent Legation of the March of Ancona, and rank second only to that of the Pope; he did not, however, long enjoy these dignities, as he died on the 18th October, 1417. His last words were, “I have not understood the world, and the world has not understood me”.

From the resignation of Gregory XII till the election of Martin V the Apostolic See was vacant, and the Church was ruled by the Council to which the Cardinals belonged. The Council, during this period, undertook the administration and temporal government of the States of the Church,  a remarkable fact, which clearly proves them to be the property of the whole Church.

After the burning of John Huss (July 6th, 1415) matters regarding the third point of the great programme of the Council - the reform of the Church in her head and members - principally occupied its attention. The great majority of the Assembly were of one mind as to the need of reform. “The whole world, the clergy, all Christian people, know that a reform of the Church militant is both necessary and expedient”, exclaims a theologian of the day. “Heaven and the elements demand it; it is called for by the Sacrifice of the Precious Blood mounting up to heaven. The very stones will soon be constrained to join in the cry”. But while this necessity was generally recognized, the members of the Council were neither clear nor unanimous in their views as to the scope and nature of the reform. Various measures were proposed, especially for the amendment of the Papal Court, but few of them were practicable. When the details came to be considered the countless difficulties which ultimately rendered the labours of the Council in this matter so ineffectual became more and more apparent.

Contemporary writings clearly show the existence of a widespread dislike of the higher clergy, not only amongst the laity, but also amongst the inferior ecclesiastics. An immense number of absolutely revolutionary discourses preached at Constance by monks and clergy of the lower ranks, bear witness to this feeling. The Cardinals were detested by the majority of those who formed the Assembly at Constance, and they had repeatedly to complain of grievous slights put upon them. The treatment which they had to expect may be gathered from the singular fact that on the t7th April, 1415, a Prelate brought forward a proposal for their exclusion from all deliberations regarding Union and Reform. It was not indeed carried, but it showed the Cardinals the greatness of the danger which threatened them. They dexterously met it by an effort to get the matter into their own hands, and in the end of July moved that a Committee should be appointed to deliberate on the reform of the Church. The opposition aroused by this step was overcome by the eloquence of d'Ailly. The Cardinals' motion was passed, and the first Committee was appointed, between the 26th July and the 1st of August. It consisted of eight deputies from each nation, and three Cardinals. The conflict of various interests made it impossible to come to any agreement on the most important questions. In the autumn of 1416 negotiations came to a complete standstill. Some powerful impulse was wanted to keep up the interest in the Council, which flagged more and more, wearied out by the monotony of interminable discussions.

In regard to the smallness of the results achieved by it, a Protestant writer has justly observed: “Few perhaps lacked goodwill, but all lacked courage to begin the conflict against the network of interests which covered all the ground. If the work were once seriously undertaken, it was hard to see where it might end”.

The resistance naturally offered by the Conservative element to any change in the constitution of the Church, exercised a great influence on the cause of reform. This struggle absorbed all energies, and divided the Council into two camps at a time when united action alone could have led to success. Another circumstance also came into play.

The Constitution of the Church is an organic body, and a reform of one part must necessarily react on the whole. The chief aim of by far the greater number at Constance was the removal of special pressing abuses, and the protection of special concerns. Considerations of the general good were postponed to those regarding particular interests. No party would begin by reforming itself; each wished for reform in the first place at the cost of another. Unanimous action was out of the question in this conflict of parties.

We must also give due weight to the influence of national and political interests. Church and State, in the views of that time, were by no means unconcerned with each other. Civil and ecclesiastical life were most closely bound together, and, as a necessary consequence, every effort to reform the Church awakened national and political opposition. The removal of abuses by reverting to a simple principle, was, under these circumstances, impossible; relations were so entangled that every change was like a Revolution. “Church Reform”, to quote the words of a modern historian, “was the Tower of Babel; every imaginable language was spoken in the Assembly, and opinions were as numerous and as conflicting as the nationalities gathered together at Constance”.

The conflict of interests was intensified by the system of division into nations adopted in the Council, which opened the door to party spirit and national jealousy. This new organization of the Assembly, though framed with the sole purpose of counteracting the preponderance of the Italian prelates, was in great measure responsible for the failure of the work of reform. Even those, who looked with sympathy on the introduction of new modes of deliberation and voting, acknowledge this fact. “The reform which one nation desires, another rejects”, wrote Peter von Pulka, the Envoy of the University of Vienna. Under these circumstances, it was impossible to foresee how long the Church would remain without a head, if, according to the wishes of Sigismund and the German nation, the election of a new Pope was to be deferred until the reform had been accomplished. Discussions of a most violent nature soon arose on this question. The struggle was at last concluded by a compromise, which the aged Bishop of Winchester, the uncle of the King of England, brought about. According to its terms, a Synodal Decree was to give assurance that, after the election, the reform of the Church should really be taken in hand; those Decrees of reform, to which all the different nations had already given their consent, were to be published before the election, and the mode of the election was to be determined by deputies.

Accordingly, on the 9th of October, 1417, in the thirty-ninth General Session, five Decrees of reform, on which the nations had agreed, were published. The first concerned the holding of General Councils, which were henceforth to be of more frequent occurrence; the next was to be held in five years; the following one, ten years later; and after that, one every ten years. The second Decree enacted precautionary measures against the outbreak of a fresh Schism; the third required every newly-elected Pope, before the proclamation of his election, to lay before his electors a profession of his faith. The remaining Decrees limited the translation of Bishops and Prelates, and abolished the Papal rights of spolia and procuration. Regarding the election of a new Pope, it was agreed on the 28th of October that, for this time, thirty other Prelates and Doctors, six from each nation, should be associated with the Cardinals present at Constance. This decision, as well as the Decree for securing reform, was immediately published in the fortieth General Session, on the 30th October. The Decree was to the effect that, before the dissolution of the Council, the new Pope was, with its cooperation, or with that of deputies of the nations, to take measures for ecclesiastical reform, especially in reference to the Supreme head of the Church and the Roman Court.

The Conclave began on the evening of the 8th November, 1417, in the Merchants’ Hall at Constance, which is still visited by every traveller, and on St. Martin's Day the Cardinal Deacon Oddone Colonna came forth as Pope Martin V.