but the theory of its previous independence may well be called in question.[1] It seems to rest partly upon the long series of antipapal enactments which extended from the 35th of Edward I. to the 9th of Henry IV., and partly upon the weak and degenerate condition of the papacy during the Avignon 'captivity' and the subsequent schism. Of the latter it may at once be said that it is exactly an instance of what I have stated above, viz, of the variation which took place in the stress of papal power in all ages in direct ratio with the capacity and vigour of the individual Pope for the time being, and in inverse ratio to that of the King, and that it affected other countries equally with England. It is further to be remarked that, as Professor Creighton[2] well observes, the Popes at Avignon were partisans, if not dependants, of France; hence during Edward III.'s wars the feeling against them in England, With regard to the antipapal statutes, there is somewhat more to be said.
1. The period during which they were placed upon the statute book coincides almost exactly with the period of general papal depression to which I have just referred.
2. They were in a great measure the mere counters which the King of England used in playing his game for power with the barons, the clergy, or the people, or any of these who happened for the moment to be in alliance.
3. They were constantly broken, and as constantly
- ↑ Creighton's Papacy, vol. ii. p. 28, who remarks that 'Martin V. exercised a more direct authority over the machinery of the English Church than had been permitted to any pope since the days of Innocent III.,' and again that 'his successors had no reason to complain of the independent spirit of the English bishops.'
- ↑ Papacy, vol. i. p. 47.
