LONDON : BOBSON AND SO.' S, POINTERS, PA>-'CIIAS KOAD, Cutl)0ltr Cljurcl) an& Christian A SERIES OF ESSAYS ON THE RELATION OF THE CHURCH TO THE CIVIL POWER. TRANSLATED, WITH THE PERMISSION Of THE AUTHOR, FROM THE GERMAN OF DR. JOSEPH HERGENROTHER, PROFESSOR OF CANON LAW AND CHURCH HISTORY AT THE UNIVERSITY OF WURZBURG. IN TWO VOLUMES. VOL. I. LONDON: BURNS AND OATES, Portman Street and Paternoster Row. 1876. CONTENTS. PAGE INTRODUCTION . . 1 ESSAY I. THE HOLY SEE AND CIVIL ALLEGIANCE. PART I. THE TEACHING OF THEOLOGIANS. SECT. 1. This teaching presupposes the union of Church and State . .11 2. Recognises for both the right of self-defence . . . .13 3. Does not deny the independence of the State . . . .14 4. And its freedom in its own sphere 15 5. In which, however, it is in many ways morally bound . .16 G. The power of the State is not without limits . . . .18 7. The power of the Church also has limits 21 8. The State has nothing to fear from the Church, but vice versa, since the Reformation 9. The Church especially threatened from two quarters . 10. Hindrances to the carrying out of the Church's principles . PART II. THE DECLARATIONS OP THE POPES GIVE NO CAUSE FOR APPREHENSION. 1. Nothing defined as to the power of the Church over temporal matters 30 2. The Bull ' Unam sanctam' 31 32 36 38 41 44 45 47 51 11. The Schema as to the Church that was laid before the Vatican Council 51 3. Further objections 4. Approbation of the Bull by the Fifth Council of the Lateran 5. Utterances on ecclesiastical immunities .... 6. The Bull ' Cum ex apostolatus officio' 7. Further objections 8. The Bull ' Cum quorumdam' 9. The Bull ' In coena Domini' 10. Other Bulls also irrelevant . vi Contents. 12. Canons in this Schema on the relation of Church and State . 53 13. The three last chapters of the Schema 55 14. Confusion of ideas among our opponents 56 PART III. THE POPES THEMSELVES SHOW THE GROUNDLESSNESS OF THE ALARM RAISED BY OUR OPPONENTS. 1 . Papal documents ignored by our opponents . . . .57 2. Alleged instruction of Pius VII 58 3. The Popes do not interfere in the internal affairs of nations . 59 4. They well recognise the difference between mediaeval and modern times 62 5. Declaration of Pius IX. on 20th July 1871 64 6. The Church limited to the purely ecclesiastical domain, and even there in many ways not free . . . . . .65 7. Nominations to bishoprics and abbacies 66 8. Concessions to rulers 70 9. Concordats 71 10. Rome maintains their inviolability 75 11. Rome unchanging, yet paying due regard to changes of times and circumstances 77 ESSAY II. DOCTKINE OF INFALLIBILITY/. PART I. WHAT is MEANT BY INFALLIBILITY. 1 . Its subject : the Pope discharging his office of universal teacher . 78 2. Its object : questions of faith or morals 80 3. Its cause : the assistance of the Holy Ghost . . . .82 4. Its connection with the infallibility of the united episcopate . 84 5. Tokens and limits of an ex-cathedra definition . . . .85 6. Infallibility in no wise irrational 87 PART II. ON THE EVIDENCES OF SCRIPTURE AND TRADITION. 1. Holy Scripture 87 2. St. Vincentius of Lerins 91 3. Testimony of the first six centuries 93 4. St. Irenasus 95 5. The formula of Hormisdas 99 6. Faith and obedience ' . . . . 103 7. The second Council of Lyons and the Council of Florence . 104 8. The Councils of Constance and Basle 107 9. Prohibition of appeal from the Pope 109 10. The fallibilist doctrine when new was only tolerated and often disapproved 110 Contents. vii PART III. POLITICAL EFFECT OF THE DOGMA. SECT. PAGE 1. That the dogma injures civil allegiance was asserted by the Jansenists and the opponents of the Vatican Council, but not proved 113 2. Conduces rather to the peace and prosperity of the State . .116 3. Why the doctrine not long ago recognised as daugerous ? . . 118 4. The change not in the Church but in the State . . . .119 ESSAY III. , . frlSt THE VATICAN COUNCIL. PART I. THE OPPONENTS OF THE COUNCIL ARE HERETICS. 1. Their inconsistency in rejecting the dogma of the Immaculate Conception 122 2. Their grounds and principles throughout heretical, Protestant . 123 3. Likewise their proceedings. Comparison with those of the Arians 126 4. Comparison with those of the Donatists 128 5. All heretics reproach the Church with being corrupt . . . 130 6. Connection with Jansenism ] 32 7. Their want of unity in contrast with the unity of the Church . 134 PART II. CHARGES AGAINST THE COUNCIL. 1. Pretended want of freedom of the Council .... 137 2. Letters on the Council and Friedrich's Journal . . . 139 3. Alleged pressure by the Pope and the Curia . . . 140 4. Right of proposal 140 5. Right of definition 143 G. Order of business 144 7. Lay diplomacy 147 8. Charges against the Bishops of the majority . . . 148 9. Composition of the Council 151 10. Principle of majority 152 11. Representation and consent of individual Churches . . 155 12. ' Theologians' and public opinion 157 PART III. THE HOPES OF OUR OPPONENTS. 1. A new and ' freer' Council . 158 2. Dollinger's proposal . 160 3. Pretended warfare of the Church against the State . 161 4. Excommunication . 162 5. The Council a test of States .... .163 6. The heathen State and State omnipotence . . . 165 viii Contents. ESSAY IV. THE POPE AND THE BISHOPS. PAET I. THE BISHOPS HAVE NOT BECOME MEKELY VICARS OF THE POPE. f the Holy See are pledged to justify all actions of the Popes.'"" Far from this being the case, most zealous defenders of the Holy See have shown that their zeal is no hindrance to boldly speak- ing out the plain historical truth. It has been long ago observedf that Cardinal Baronius, ever a foremost champion of the Holy See, not only collected with conscientious exactitude all the evil xeports about the Popes (especially of the tenth century) which he found in historical sources, but also was much too credulous in this matter, and in some cases held up Popes to censure where he ought rather to have unsheathed the sword of criticism against historical calumnies. And the Civiltd Cattolica, against which so many invectives are cast, in its notice of Yon Reumont's History of the City of Rome, \ praises the author because, with the free- dom of a Baronius or Pallavicino, he does not conceal the ill deeds of Popes, cardinals, and prelates, and preserves the mean between the exaggerations on the one side of ill-judged flattery, and on the other of venomous calumny. ' The latter, which infects the writings of so many Rationalists and Protestants at home and .abroad, robs history of all credibility, degrading it into a libel ; but not less injurious to history is that flattery which changes it into a panegyric, and professes to justify every action of the * Hefele, Beitriige zur Kirchengeschichte, 1864, vol. i. ; apud Mohler- Gams, Kii'chengeschichte, vol. ii. p. 188. t Civilta Cattolica, 1871, ser. viii. vol. ii. pp. 174, 175. J The statement of Bossuet (Defensio Declar. Cleri Gallic, p. i. 1. iii. c. i. p. 273, ed. Mog. 1788), that not all deeds of the Popes are justifiable, is disputed by no Ultramontane theologian. See Bianchi, Delia Potesta e Polizia della Chiesa, Roma, 1745, t. i. 1. i. 21, n. 1, pp. 183, 184. Introduction. Popes. This seems not to be understood by certain pious and zealous but unwise authors, who maintain certain views in the teeth of incontestable facts, and do not see that not merely their labour is in vain, but also that, being unable long to escape the- censure or the ridicule of criticism, they must end by having to confess that they have injured rather than advanced their cause. Eeumont is not one of these. He relates and blames in Alexander VI. as in Urban VI., in Leo X. as in Paul IV., in Clement VII. as in Urban VIII., their defects or excesses, their too great seve- rity or too great leniency ; while at the same time he shows all the good qualities with which they adorned the chair of St. Peter. He censures the abuses of Papal nepotism, whereby it became full of danger to the Church and the State ; but, on the other hand, he is fully mindful of the advantages which it often brought, of the distinguished qualities of many of the Papal nephews, and the services which, as cardinals, they rendered to Church and State. He relates and laments the wanton and frivolous life of many prelates and cardinals, especially in certain unhappy periods, to the dishonoxir of their lofty and sacred office; but at the same time he places in all its beauty before the eyes- of the reader the picture of the virtues and talents, of the meri- torious and magnificent works, by which the Sacred College and the Roman prelacy has in every age been distinguished, and has shown itself as the noblest and most glorious senate the world has ever seen.' A fourth misconception is to suppose that ' Ultramontanes' wish to bring back the Middle Ages. ' When I combated the crude and reckless assertions of " Janus," and defended to the best of my ability and with full sincerity institutions and indi- viduals of the Middle Ages, I never said, that all should be now again as it was then, and that all forms of that development should be retained or reintroduced. Kor had I any intention of rejecting modern civilisation altogether, though I could not con- ceal from myself that it contains elements of very doubtful value r and is very far from being purified from its dross ; that goods- of a lower order receive at the present day undue attention at the cost of goods of a far higher order ; and that many resenv Introduction. blances are to be seen to that condition of ancient Greece and Eome, where, as life grew more refined, morals grew more cor- rupt. Our civilisation, which sprang from Christianity, has he- come in many ways estranged from its origin, and has gone back instead of going forward.* It must develop, we are told, in- dependently of and in spite of, not the Papacy only, but Chris- tianity in general. Already many Jews, in heart alienated from their religion, boast to take the lead in modern civilisation. Al- ready much is cast aside as mediaeval rubbish which formerly was revered by all Christian denominations. The spirit of the Encyclopaedists is as powerful as it was a hundred years ago, and is far more widely spread. And yet no proof is brought that that great power, whether the Christian religion in general, or the venerable chair of the Prince of the Apostles, must have irrecoverably lost its civilising and ennobling force. Without the Papacy a fearful deficiency would arise for States, as well as for all cultivation and all law ; disorganisation in religious, social, and political life would gain the upper hand ; anarchy and the right of the stronger would everywhere triumph ; and in the Church there would only be the alternative between Byzantine or Eussian servitude on the one side, and the anarchy of unbridled private judgment on the other.' Lastly, there should be noticed an error, or rather a calumny, which primarily indeed concerns the Catholics of Germany, but which to a certain extent concerns those of England also, espe- cially since the recent charge of disloyalty brought against them. ' The chief effort of all the enemies of the Church is in these days to depict her as dangerous to the civil power, and under this pretext as far as possible to enslave her. This attempt is not new. The reproach of being dangerous to the State was cast against even the first Christians, and has been repeated a thousand times against the Holy See. But as the present time gives such slender support to such an accusation, the past is brought in to the rescue, and a search is made in the history of the Popes, in their letters and publications, for proofs that they * Hettinger, Apologie des Christenthums, 3d edit. vol. ii. part 3, xix. and xx. 8 Introduction. strove for the subjection or annihilation of the civil power in every country. In this search the distinction of different spheres is hopelessly confused. If the Holy See is not ready to con- demn as usurpations various acts of former Popes, which are denounced as such, he is unblushingly accused of intending to repeat these acts himself. If the ecclesiastical authority, to he better able to meet the storms of a revolutionary age, is strength- ened in its centre, this at once is held to weaken the civil autho- rity. The admonitions of the Church are spoken of as declara- tions of war. Encouragement and protection is given to revolt against her, under the pretext the common pretext of all heretics that her doctrine and constitution have been changed. Since the ghosts of the Middle Ages, especially " Hildebrand- ism," have been conjured up, the fear of the " Papal- Jesuit conspiracy" has so increased that the whole array of coercive measures, penal laws, courts and officers of justice, the police and the military force, have been held insufficient to meet it. And all these measures have been taken against a despised " sect," against a society whose head has been robbed of his possessions and of all external power, and who is surrounded by a thousand troubles. True, indeed, this much-troubled head is the lawful successor of Gregory VII. and Innocent III., as well as of the great Leo and of Cephas the Galilean fisherman. True, indeed, in spite of his foes, he possesses in the eyes of millions a dignity and majesty with which the splendour of no earthly throne can compare. True, indeed, moral power is often stronger than physical. But is, then, our enlightened age to fear this moral power? Is not its "science" stronger than this "de- crepit" authority 1 ? Can this authority have strength to fight when its doctrines are outlawed by " science," and when the demand is made (as a deputy in the German parliament de- manded) that in schools and universities " things" no longer shall be taught " which are in glaring contradiction with science" 1 Well may we say that the question : What is science 1 is like that other question : What is truth 1 and that more than one Pilate is to be found, who after asking this question turns away without awaiting an answer (John xviii. 38).' Introduction. HI. Finally, as to the structure and spirit of the following essays, Dr. Hergenrbther speaks as follows : ' Instead of a strictly me- thodical exposition, which would have deterred many readers, and which would have made it impossible to answer fitly the unmethodical works of my opponents, I have preferred the form of separate essays, which are in close connection with each other, and which allow me to treat the chief subjects from various points of view. In this I have had before me the " Polycraticus" of the learned John of Salisbury, who treated the most interest- ing questions of his tune with constant reference to Scripture, the Fathers, and classical authors, and who on every occasion declared his fidelity to the Church. " What," he wrote,* " is more dangerous or more detestable than civil war? Surely nothing except the rage of schismatics and the pestilence of heretics. It is hard to say which is worst of these two heresy or schism; if,. indeed, they are not rather to be considered as one. When Catholics are assailed by a heretic or schismatic it is a filial duty to support the truth and to serve the Popes de- votedly ; nor to delay when the schism is evident, since schis- matics often pretend to be Catholics. For who shall presume to judge the highest bishop, whose cause belongs to God's tri- bunal alone 1 And in fact, whoever is guilty of this presump- tion, strive how he may, will never gain success." Truly we may say of the schismatics of our time what St. Irenaeus says of those of his time,f that they strain out a gnat and swallow a camel, and that they can eifect no reform which is not out- balanced by the evil of their schism. Into further controversies * Polycrat. 1. viii. c. xxiii. (Migne, PP. lat. t. cxcix. p. 814). t S. Irenaeus, Adv.Haer.l.iv. c. xxxiii.n. 7 : 'Judicabit (spiritualis homo) et eos, qui schismata operantur, qui sunt inanes, non habentes Dei dilec- tionem suamque utilitatem j - otius considerantes, quam unitatem Ecclesiae, et propter modicas et quaslibet causas magnum et gloriosum corpus Christ! conscindunt et dividunt, et quantum in ipsis est interficiunt, pacem loquentes et bellum operantes, vere liquantes culicem et camelum trans- glutieutes. Nulla enim ab eis tanta potest fieri correctio, quanta est schis- matis pernicies.' i o Introduction. I have no intention of entering ; but I am fully ready to retract or amend -whatever, by the judgment of the Holy See or on ade- quate scientific grounds, may be shown in this work to be incor- rect. All for the truth, nothing against the truth ; all for the Church of God and in union with her this is my motto.' ESSAY I. THE HOLY SEE AXD CIVIL ALLEGIANCE. writers and some statesmen have expressed their lively apprehension lest the Church, whenever opportunity arose, should renew those encroachments on the authority of the State which they say occurred in the Middle Ages ; and they consider this danger has been increased hy the definition of Papal Infallibility. We might well lay aside the historical question of ' mediaeval Church encroachments,' and ask the reason for this apprehen- sion, when simultaneously we hear it said that the mediaeval notion of the supremacy of the Church has vanished for ever, that the sun of ecclesiastical power is fast setting, that the State has at its disposal greater intellectual forces than the Church , and that the political consciousness of the State is more effica- cious than the ' religious emotions' of the Church in preserving manly energy and mental freedom. But in fact neither the teaching of theologians nor the declarations of the Popes afford any just grounds for the aforesaid apprehension, but much rather make plain its groundlessness. PART I. THE TEACHING OF THEOLOGIANS. 1. This presupposes the union of Church and State. 2. Recognises, for both the right of self-defence. 3. Does not deny the independence of the State ; and 4. its freedom in its own sphere. 5. In which, however, it is in many ways morally bound. 6. The power of the State is not without limits. 7. The power of the Church also has limits. 8. The State has nothing to fear from the Church, but vice versa, since the Reformation. 9. The Church especially threatened from two quarters. 10. Hindrances to the carrying out oftheChurch'& principles. 1. The teaching of the theologians of the Middle Ages rested upon the supposition, justified then by facts and considered as a 1 2 The Holy See and Civil Allegiance. matter of course, that the temporal and spiritual authority would live under one roof, constituting an undivided Christendom, and that both would be equally guided and governed by Christian principles. 1 Whoever will look at the matter from the mediaeval point of view will perceive, as several eminent men of modern times for example, Leibnitz and Mendelssohn have done, that the widely-spread doctrine of the indirect power of the Church over temporal concerns is throughout consistent, and for those times an obvious conclusion. 2 We should not forget, as Phillips well says, that the commonwealth here spoken of does not include all States without distinction, but only the mediaeval Christian State ; that if we presuppose the separation of Church .and State, many things will appear in quite a different light ; .and also that the Christian State of those ages cannot in all respects be taken as the rule and model for our own time. 3 1 Bossuet, Def. p. i. 1. i. c. ii. p. 87 : ' Haec autem valere volunt (ad- versae partis 1}ieologiae),quandoutraquepotestas,civilisetspivit\i(ilis,pars ,est ejusdem reipublicae Christianae; tune enim spiritualem potestatem prae- esse civili ut spiritum carni.' Cf . Bellaiun. de Eom. Pont. v. c. vii. n. 2 : ' Reges et pontifices, clerici et laici, non faciunt duas republicas, sed unam, i.e. unam Ecclesiain. Sumus enim omnes unum corpus (Rom. xii. 5; 1 Cor. xii. 12 seq.) ; at in omni corpora membra sunt connexa et depend- entia unum ab alio. Non autem recte asseritur, spiritualia pendere a temporalibus ; ergo temporalia a spiritualibus pendent,' &c. See also Bianchi, t. iii. 1. i. c. i. 6, n. 1, pp. 47, 48. Molina, tract, ii. de Just et Jure, disp. 29, n. 24. 2 See the quotations in Beidtel, Das Canonische Recht, Regensburg, 1849, pp. 339, 341 seq. Besides the passages there given from Leibnitz (Pensees, vol. ii. pp. 406, 407), we should notice a letter to Pelisson, of March 18 (28), 1692. Here Leibnitz says: ' Quant au pouvoir de 1'Eglise ou du Concile oecumenique sur les matieres temporelles, je crois qidl Ic faut reconnaitre a Vegard d'une influence indirecte, que les matieres tem- porelles peuvent avoir sur le salut des ames. L'Eglise doit regler le cas de conscience encore a 1'egard de 1'obeissance due ou non aux sonverains. J'excepte seulement le pouvoir de rebeller ou la voye de fait, que 1'Eglise ne peut et ne doit point autoriser. Elle peut faire defense aux sujets d'obeir aux magistrats en certains cas, et ils sont obliges alors d'obeir plutut a 1'Eglise universelle qu'a leur souveraiu. Mais lorsque les sou- verains les maltraitent pour cela, ils ne doivent point etre rebelles' (Foucher de Careil, Oeuvres de Leibniz : Paris, 1859, vol. i. p. 264). Cf. .also Leibnitz's Reponse au Memoire de 1'Abbe Pirot touchant 1'Autho- rite du Concile de Trente (ibid. pp. 405-407). 3 Phillips, Kirchenrecht, vol. iii. 126, p. 188 seq. The Teaching of Theologians. 1 3 2. Even under the supposition of the union of Church and State it has heen admitted by theologians, 1 some of whom, lived in Rome, and wrote under the supervision of the authorities there, 2 that it would he allowable for civil princes to oppose the Pope in certain cases ; for example, if he were to put forth unjust laws relating to discipline, or were forcibly to seize the posses- sions of others. 1 The mutual independence of Pope and princes is thus preserved. When the necessity for self-preservation is real and obvious, the State may organise its resistance, which is easily done, especially in these days. But the Church also possesses a natural right of self-defence ; 3 and just as any king- dom may expect from its neighbours that they will not wilfully excite its subjects to revolt, nor be guilty of any injustice- towards it, and moreover may take up arms to protect its inter- ests, if its just complaints are disregarded ; so the spiritual kingdom of the Church, in cases of pressing need and for the preservation of its vital interests, may, when all representa- tions fail, have resort to any means of defence in its power. 4 Dbllinger, on this subject, makes Bossuet's words his own : 'When necessity calls for it the Pope can do evwytliirig of course with the reservation of observing God's laws.' He designates the Papal authority as one truly sovereign and free r ' necessarily endowed according to its nature and constitution with an extraordinary power for extraordinary cases and needs, whereby it may make all merely human rights bow before it, and appoint or allow exceptions to rules.' 3 Ever according to the requirements of different times the Pope under the guidance of Providence has to increase or relax the strictness of ecclesiastical law, and for new maladies to provide new remedies ; 6 and he must take special measures against the union of wickedness and power. 7 Thus the doctrine, that the Pope is to be compared to a free prince active throughout the entire Church, is no merely mediaeval doctrine, 8 but one that is implied by the nature and essence of the primacy. 1 Anton. Cordubens. quaestion. 1. iv. q. 10, diet. 3 ; 1. iii. q. 13, reg. 3.- 14 The Holy See and Civil Allegiance. Sylvester in Summa v. Obedientia, n. 5, 6. Andradius in defens. Trid. Fid. 1. i. Paris, TT. pro Cone. Basil, (in Monarchia, ed. Haiminsfeldii, t, i.) contra Leonem, p. x. Cajetan. t. i. Opusc. Tract, i. depotest. Papae, c.xxvii. Victoria, Relect. 1, de potest. Eccles. q. tilt. n. 3. Sotus in 1. iv. dist. 25, .q. 2, a. 2. Driedo, 1. ii. de Libertate Christiana, c. ii. L. Molina, Tract, ii. de Justitia et Jure, disput. 31, n. 4, 5, p. 64. See also Turrecremata, Summa, 1. ii. c. cvi. pp. 246, 247. Bellarmin. de Rom. Pontif. 1. ii. c. xxix. de auctore Concil. 1. ii. c. ult. p. 51 ; Opp. t. ii. ed. 1721. Card. Sfondrat. Regale Sacerdot. 1. ii. c. xiv. n. 4, p. 416, ed. 1684. Cf. Caron, Remonstr. Hibern. p. i. c. v. n. 16-22, pp. 12, 13. 2 Biancbi, t. iii. 1. i. 5, n. 2, p. 43 seq. Mamachi, t. iv. p. 258. 3 L. iii. de Just, et Jure, ff. i. 1 ; c. iii. de Sent. Excom. v. 39. 4 The jus cavendi is therefore reciprocal. Phillips, Kirch'enrecht, Tol. ii. 109, pp. 524-530. 5 Dollinger, Kirche und Kirchen, pp. 39, 40. 8 Abbot Wibald, of Stablo and Corvey, wrote (Ep. 114, p. 1208) to Eugenius III. : ' Licuit semperque licebit Romano Pontifici pro rerum qualitate et temporum varietate rigorem canonum intendere vel remittere et nova remedia iiovis morbis adhibere.' Cf. Ep. 191, p. 1288 seq. 7 Bernard, de Consid. 1. iv. c. vii. n. 23 : ' Ubi malitiae juncta potentia est, aliquid tibi supra hominem praesumendum. Vultus tuus super faci- entes mala. Timeat spiritum irae tuae, qui hominum non veretur, gladium non formidat.' 8 Syllabus, prop. 34, taken from the apostolic letter of 22 August 1851, against J. N. Nuytz. 3. But though a preeminence of the Church over the State, an ideal superiority of the Church, is assumed, this doctrine con- tains in reality none of the dangers often attributed to it. It by no means ' annihilates' or ' destroys' the civil power. For the superiority of the Church over the civil power is only called forth practically when the latter is no longer within its own province, when the interests in question are not purely civil, but have also a religious character. In its own province the civil power is fully independent as long as it does no injury to reli- gion. 1 The Church does not demand a recognition of her superiority over the State for the promotion of the personal and temporal interests of her rulers, but only for the maintenance of the truth revealed by God, which is for the true interest of the State and the Christian people. She only requires that the re- cognition of God as the source of every right shall not merely be speculative and theoretical, but practically and truly acted The Teaching of Theologians. 15 upon by the State, or at least that it shall not be positively contravened, which ever will be and ever has been injurious to the State. We must also remember the incontrovertible theo- logical principle that Grace does not destroy Nature, that the supernatural order does not annul the natural order. 2 The Church could not possibly exercise everywhere the functions of the civil power, just as little as the civil power could exercise the functions of the Church. The Church needs the State as the State needs the Church. 3 The Popes have laid no less stress on the coordination of the two powers than on the superiority of the Church. Innocent III. in a letter to the princes of the German Empire an important document brings forward from Holy Scripture four images to illustrate the posi- tion of the two powers, 4 namely : the two Cherubim over the ark of the Covenant (Exodus xxxvii. 7 seq.), the two pillars in the porch of the Temple (3 Kings vii. 15), the two lights in the firmament of heaven (Genesis i. 14 seq.), and the two swords (St. Luke xxii. 38). Of these images, the two first are only applicable to a coordination of Church and State ; and, as the Pope uses it, the fourth also illustrates this coordination. 1 S. Thorn, in 1. ii. Sent. d. et q. nit. : ' In tantum saecnlaris potestas est sub spirituali, in quantum est ei a Deo supposita, sc. in his, quae ad animarum salutem pertinent ; et ideo in his magis est obediendum potestati spirituali quam saeculari. In his vero, quae ad jus civile pertinent, magis est obediendum potestati saeculari quam spirituali, secundum illud : Red- dite quae sunt Caesaris, Caesari,' &c. 2 S. Thorn. Sum. 2, 2, q. 10, a. 10: ' Jus divinnm, quod est ex gratia, non tollit jus humanum, quod est ex naturali ratione.' Cf. Suarez, de Legibus, 1. iii. c. vi. n. 9. 3 Petrus Dam. 1. iii. ep. 6, ad archiepisc. Colon. 4 Eeg. super negotio Rom. Imperii, Ep. 2. Migne, ccxvi. p. 997. The two powers are not independent of each other in such a way that the one should have no need of and pay no atten- tion to the other. On the contrary, each should always be ready to lend a willing ear to the representations of the other, and to redress all well-founded grievances. And in particular the State must obey the divine law committed to the Church. 1 6 The Holy See and Civil Allegiance. ' The independence of the two powers,' says Phillips, ' can only mean that both are free in their exertions to fulfil their natural end ; the Church has not to interfere in civil affairs, nor the State in. ecclesiastical. The spiritual power has not to busy itself with the affairs of republics and kingdoms, nor -with the temporal causes in the whole world ; for these the civil power has to care, and as regards them it is the highest power and in- dependent of the Church, provided these temporal matters do not themselves become opposed to the divine law.' 1 But for this limitation the liberty of conscience guaranteed to each Catholic citizen by modern constitutions 2 would be violated, a grave injustice would be done, and the well-being of the State itself endangered. The words of St. Bernard addressed to the French King Louis VII. are still true : ' When the rulers of the earth make no opposition to the divine law, then is it that they hold their kingdoms and their rights entire and with full power.' 3 1 Phillips, Kirchenrecht, vol. ii. 109, pp. 520, 521. 2 In this way modern Constitutions conform to those religious require- ments which are of a negative kind ; i. e. that the State must command- nothing which the Church must forbid, nor forbid what the Church must command. Cf. S. Thorn. 1, 2, q. 1, a. 4; q. 96, a. 2. 3 S. Bern. Ep. 256, c. i. p. 462. 5. Juridical independence is essential to the State. There should exist within it no right of independent individual re- dress. No opposition to the final decision of its supreme courts- should have any legal force. In the province which belongs to it no other power should issue commands. But this juridical independence does not exclude a wide moral dependence, which always exists and operates in various ways. 1 ' The legis- lator,' says Walter, 'must be conscious that he never stands upon a quite independent footing, from which he can proceed as he will ; for the actual circumstances, the customs, the spirit of the nation, limit his power in all directions.' 2 With regard to those sins which, being outwardly recognisable, can be made penal offences, it is not to be decided offhand whether they The Teaching of Theologians. ought to be made such ; but this depends on how far religion, morality, and law are merged together by the nation we may be regarding ; and this again depends on the degree of civilisation it has reached. 3 The exercise of the State authority to protect public morality is by no means to be gainsaid; 4 but it has ' a limit from the fact that outward force cannot reach the con- science and the dispositions of heart, on which morality ulti- mately depends. These dispositions are determined by our free will, led by the intellect, which apprehends morality. This apprehension is the result of the right use of our religious and moral faculties, and thus is the product of purely spiritual operations. Moreover to keep it alive and vigorous is the special care of the Church. Consequently the State has not to enjoin under pains and penalties the performance of moral actions unless they are also duties of justice ;* for if they are done under compulsion they lose their meritorious character.' 5 Every State is morally dependent to a great degree upon the circumstances in which it is placed : its climate and geo- graphical position; its commerce, industry, and scientific ac- quirements ; the peculiarities of its provinces and of the races under its dominion ; the development of the neighbouring coun- tries and its treaties with them ; lastly, public opinion and the state of civilisation in general. Who will deny that at least in equal measure it is morally dependent upon the religious ideas of its inhabitants, and upon ecclesiastical institutions ? 6 Religion has always exercised great influence upon nations, and through them upon governments. In proportion to its extent and activity every religious body has exercised an indirect authority over the government of the State. This influence, however great in ordinary times, does not, since it is purely moral and not juridical, make any change in the natural rights of the civil power, but only keeps it in check, and puts before it a certain * We may explain that moralists divide duties into duties of love (officia caritatis) and duties of justice (officia justitiae). The former, such as the duty of prayer, of gratitude, or of filial affection, are uncompulsory. The latter, such as the duty to pay our debts, or abstain from assaulting or insulting others, are compulsory. [Ts.] VOL. I. 1 8 The Holy See and Civil Allegiance. character which its entire course of action should assume. On her side the Church can only exercise a moral influence in so far as she gains the support of public opinion. This she can only do by moderation and by keeping her claims within the limits set by justice. She can only conquer when the goodwill of the faithful is on her side, and when they are borne up by the conviction of the justice of her cause. 7 This is really the foundation of the doctrine of the indirect power of the Church over temporal affairs. ' This power can exist, even if the civil rulers be unwilling, in the case when they are in contest with the Church and public opinion is against them.' 8 For that side conquers to which public opinion is favourable. So true is this that those States which pay no regard to the Church, but give themselves up to the dictates of Liberalism, only act thus because they believe that public opinion supports and requires such principles. In truth a direct and really despotic power is exercised in our modern States by rationalism or so-called free thought ; that is, by those men of science whose motto is : ' La science, c'est moi.' And the civil power is less averse to their influence, because they reject the immutable principles of reli- gion and morality, which are after all the only safeguards of liberty. 1 Beidtel, Das Canonische Recht, p. 23 seq. 55. 2 Walter, Naturrecht uud Politik, 390, p. 363. 3 Ibid. 415, p. 392. 4 Pignatelli, Consult, can. t. ii. cons. 56, pp. 112, 113, n. 11-21. 5 Walter, I.e. 447, pp. 428, 429. 6 Though not allowing religion to be the formal ground of any political rights, the State 'must always pay it regard as influencing the conduct of the citizens in their private legal relations, and as a source of social forms and social dignity; just as the State has to pay regard to money and credit.' Von Moy, in the Archiv fur Kathol. Kirchenrecht, vol. xii. pp.. 65, 66. 7 Beidtel, I.e. pp. 55, 584 seq. 356 seq. 8 Ibid. p. 350. 6. No State authority can claim to be absolutely boundless. False, then, is the 39th proposition condemned in the Syllabus ; T for it asserts that the State is the origin and the source of all The Teaching of Theologians. 1 9 rights (God alone is this), and that it possesses rights circum- scribed by no limits. The State is finite, and nothing finite is without limits. The State has external physical limits in its geographical boundaries; and internal moral limits in the nature and aim of its existence. ' In the very notion of the State,' says F. Walter, ' considered as an association of reasonable moral beings, is contained a moral limitation of its power. This must be recognised or rather presupposed by every form of government that is not to be unworthy of the human race. Power is not its own end, but is for the general good. Every constitution is bound to make this moral limitation actively felt throughout its whole organisation ; and this cannot be done merely by external forms. It is essential to the welfare of the State that this moral limitation of its power should be thus felt. Where it is want- ing, power becomes arbitrary and self-interested ; and govern- ment, as we can see, not in monarchies only, but also in republics, becomes despotism.' 2 But this brings us to more general considerations. 3 The great conservative* principle, in opposition to that of revolution- ists, is, that everywhere and under all circumstances the rights of all be respected the rights that in the particular State have gradually developed in accordance with revealed and natural law. The State that follows this principle does not cut itself off from its past history in favour of abstract theories : it builds not on new but on the old foundations. A Conservative can approve of no law that violates this principle. And as it is the civil power which has to protect, enforce, and develop the various rights and obligations of all its subjects, it would fail, according to the conservative principle, to fulfil this its proper end, if it deserted the path of organic legal development that is, if it made laws in doctrinaire fashion, without regard to the history of the com- munity. It can only fulfil its end if it regards its authority, not as a right that cancels all other rights existing among its sub- jects, but merely as one (though it may be the highest) among many other rights. Consequently (according to the conserva- tive principle) the right of the civil power is limited by various * On the terms ' Liberal' and ' Conservative,' see Introduction. [Ts.] 2,0 The Holy See and Civil Allegiance. rights existing in the community.* 4 The subjects can demand that the civil power respect their rights, while they are bound in their turn to respect the rights of the civil power that is, they are bound to be subject and obedient to it, so that it may be able to fulfil its mission, which is both its duty and its right. 5 This mutual relation of rights and duties between sovereign and subject is what St. Paul refers to (E,oin. xiii. 1-8, Eph. vi. 1-9), and wbich in German law is called 'Treue' (loyalty). When subject and sovereign both fulfil their obligations, then there is said to be ' Friede' (peace). From this point of view, disloyalty can occur on one side as well as on the other, and the sovereign just as much as the subject can be conceived as disloyal and dis- turbing the peace. Quite in contrast, the revolutionary prin- ciple develops the State on an abstract system, without regard to the history and traditions of the particular country. In con- sequence, all existing laws and institutions which will not square with the abstract principle of government that has been adopted are swept away, and no personal rights of the subjects, that the State is bound to respect, are any longer recognised : only shadows of rights and of the holders of rights remain shadows that disappear as soon as the State with its all-absorbing right ceases to regard them. Here all mutual relation of rights and duties between subject and sovereign is at an end : the State alone is active, the subject is passive, and he only becomes ac- tive in so far as, putting off the quality of subject, he becomes himself a part of the sovereign power. 6 1 The proposition is : ' Eeipublicae status, ut pote omnium' jurium origo et fons, jure quodum pollet nullis circumscripto limitibus. ' It is extracted from the Allocution ' Maxima,' of June 9, 1862, where we read: ' Omnia .... legitimae cuj usque proprietatis jura invadere, destruere contendunt, ac praeterea animo^et cogitatione confingunt jus quoddam nullis circum- * Here has been omitted the following passage : ' Subject eines Kechtes aber ist immer entweder eine Person oder ein zum Dienste der Person ste- hendes, dezhalb mit Personenrecht ausgestattetes Institut. Indem nun das Recht des Staates an dem Bechte der Person seine Schranke hat, hat es seine Schranke an der Person, am Unterthanen selbst.' The omission does not injure the text ; and to have made the passage intelligible, a lengthy note or lengthy paraphrase would have been needful. J.TR.] The Teaching of Theologians. scriptum limitibus, quo reipublicae statum pollere existimant, quern omnium jurium originem et fontem esse temere arbitrantur. ' This is the theory called by Liberatore (La Cbiesa e lo Stato, Napoli, 1871, c. i. p. 1 seq.) absolute Liberalism. 2 Walter, Naturrecht und Politik, 257, p. 234. 3 I am here following the excellent Catholic political writer, C. N. G. Hint el. Der Protestantismus als politisches Princip. Breslau, 1853, p. 15. * Guizot, de 1'Eglise, p. 167 : ' Le caractere essentiel de 1'esprit chre- tien est la respect de la regie et du droit, de tons les drolts, des droits de Dieu comrne des droits de 1 homme, des droits des gouvernements comme des droits des peuples, des droits du passe comme des droits de 1'avenir. Le caractere dominant et permanent de 1'esprit re volutionnaire est au con- traire la passion, tantot la passion de la licence, tantot la passion d'une idee fixe et exclusive, devant laquelle s'evanouissent tous les droits qui la genent et a laquelle tous les moyens sont bons pour se satisfaire.' * Eintel, I.e. p. 16. 6 Rintel, I.e. pp. 17, 18. 7. But the power of the Church is also limited, 1 and in such a way as to prevent her using it to the injury of the State. The Church cannot abolish free-will; she can devise no plan for forcing all men to obey her ; she cannot compel us to internal conviction or to external submission. ' The whole power of the Church,' says the Jesuit, M. Liberatore, 2 ' is moral ; she pos- sesses the means of coercion only virtually, in so far as she has the right to demand them from the civil power, which is subor- dinate to her. Hence there is an almost absolute impossibility of abuse, and for two reasons : first, because having herself need of the protection of the civil power against the violators of her laws and disturbers of her peace, she is lead by the nature of her situation to pay scrupulous regard to the rights of the civil power, and rather surrenders to it what is hers than takes from it what is not hers ; secondly, because the moral power with which alone the Church is formally endowed derives all its strength from the evidence of its justice. Consequently the Church always takes her stand on evident justice ; and she could never think of making claims which could be proved to be unjust. Thus all things which evidently belong to the State, as matters which are purely civil and political, are quite safe from any danger of invasion by the ecclesiastical power.' If in doubtful 22 The Holy See and Civil Allegiance. and disputed matters the question is about a general rule a question of principle it is clear to a Catholic that the Church, as teacher of truth and justice, cannot fall into error. If the question, however, is about the application of a principle, here the Church can claim no infallibility, and by her whole position is compelled to give full weight to the grounds adduced by the oppos- ing party; and here in fact she has always shown, salvis principiis, the most compliant disposition. 3 We must also remember that in these cases the State, on its side, can meet half-way the ad- vances of the Church, and that even supposing it has to put up with some grievance unredressed, this is a minor evil compared to a conflict with the Church, and the consequent scandal and disquiet among the faithful. 4 So stands the case where the State is founded on justice, and desires to deal justly with every single citizen. It is otherwise where a faction rules, which seeks at all hazards to trample down a Catholic minority ; for here, in spite of pompous protestations of liberty, the government is a sheer despotism. 1 Audisio, Droit public de 1'Eglise, traduit par Labis, Louvain, 1864, t. i. p. 307 : ' Dieu seul, a proprement parler, ne releve que de lui-meme. L'Eglise et 1'Etat, etant ees dependances, et comme deux provinces ou dcpartements de son gouvernement d'ici-bas, ri'ont qu'une autonomie non pas absolue, mais relative.'' 2 La Chiesa elo Stato, c. i. a. 8, pp. 113, 114. 3 Cardinal Gonsalvi, Note of Aug. 10, 1819. Cardinal Antonelli, Note of 29 Feb. 1860. 4 Liberatore, I.e. pp. 114, 115. 8- The Christian (Catholic) State, now indeed no longer existent, has, then, nothing to fear from the theological doctrine of the supe- riority of the Church, deduced from reason and the Fathers; while the States which give no preference to any form of Christianity, and still more those hostile to Christianity, have long taken good care that this doctrine shall in no form have any practical im- portance. ' The bond of union between Church and State,' says a recent theologian, 1 ' has so suffered through the unhappy divi- sion of faith in the sixteenth century, that a complete union of the two powers, such as their nature requires, is no longer to be The Teaching of Theologians. 23 thought of. The Church, indeed, true to her mission, can never alter her conduct towards the State ; but with the aforesaid divi- sion of faith, the position of the State to the Church must be changed. Whilst all the members of the State still honoured the Church as the guardian of the true faith and morality, the State itself was able to give to her doctrines of faith and morality a positive recognition, that is, to make them the base of its own conduct, especially of its legislation. This could not go on when in the same State several religions were recognised ; and now we must be content if the State gives a negative recognition to the doctrines of the Church, that is, if it keep from violating them, and thus give its support to the operations of the Church.' The natural and immediate end of the State is the protection of rights; its remoter end, the temporal felicity of its members. The civil government has no competitor in its office of protect- ing the whole society and its members both from internal and external attacks. 2 Von Moy well says : 3 ' Since Christianity has set a supernatural end to our life on earth, and Christ has founded the Church for this end, it inevitably follows, at least for those who recognise this end and this Church, that they are bound to bring the order of this earthly life into harmony with its supernatural end, and, at least in this, regard, not to place themselves in opposition to the Church. 4 This conclusion applies to all earthly aims and all earthly institutions ; and those who recognise the aforesaid supernatural end and supernatural Church are all, in whatsoever earthly situation they may be, bound by the aforesaid obligation. Christianity and the Church may or may not be recognised ; but the rational conclusion from a re- cognition of them cannot be controverted. As long, then, as the Christian faith universally prevailed, and the Church was uni- versally regarded as an institution founded by Christ for the salvation of men, disputes could indeed arise between the Pope and the Emperor, between bishops and civil princes, about par- ticular rights and obligations ; but the end of the State, as well as of all the things of earth, could not be opposed to the end of the Church : the temporal order of things could not be opposed to the ecclesiastical order of things, as altogether independent 24 The Holy See and Civil Allegiance. and simply an end in itself. Xor again, as had happened in- heathen times, could Church and State be merged into one ; hut they remained rationally united. The Church could no longer identify herself with any State or any civil order; hut every State found in her a source of elevation and consecration for its earthly efforts and institutions, and a healing balsam for the necessities from which they sprang. All this has been changed by the Eeformation, 5 which recognised, indeed, the supernatural end that had been given to our earthly life by Christianity, but re- jected the Divine institution of the Church, with her sacerdotal and teaching office. 6 The work of the Church was thus transferred to the State, and the Church made an institution of the State. Religion became at once a serviceable instrument in politics : and this occurred not merely in Protestant, but also in Catholic countries ; for the need of protection against the violence and encroachments of Protestantism gave such great prominence to the civil sword and State authority, and made the position of the rulers of the Church so difficult, that even in Catholic countries the State grievously encroached on the religious domain. 7 This abuse was formally erected into a system, and called in France^ Gallicanism ; in Germany, Febronianism or Josephism ; in Spain and Portugal, Pombalism. It was a system of hypocrisy and meanness, and its results were soon evident. In the Protestant States the Reformation continued its work of disintegration ; and the break up into a multitude of sects at length rendered it impossible for the governments to continue their ecclesiastical dominion : in the Catholic States the depreciation and misuse of all that was most holy, the insubordination of the powerful and the powerlessness of the clergy, shook the faith of the masses, and in a great measure wholly destroyed that of the upper classes. 8 This led to the French Revolution, which rejected Christianity and Church alike, and set up the State anew as an institution reposing simply on human wills, and existing simply for this life and for earthly ends. This is the "modern State," according to the pattern of which all other States of Europe have gradually transformed themselves, and made its constitution and principles their own. When it first arose it made a vigorous attempt to The Teaching of Theologians. 25 extirpate Christianity, and a weak attempt to create a heathen religion 9 as a support for itself. As both failed, it had to allow Christianity to exist, but only as a matter of personal taste and individual opinion 10 only as a form, in itself indifferent of reli- gious views, having no claim, whatever to political influence or recognised legal position. This is the modern principle of " free- dom of conscience" which is as necessarily and essentially con-- nected with the modern State as the idea of the finite with that of the infinite.' 1 Reinerding, ' Der Ursprung und die Granzen der St. Gewalt,' in the Archiv fiir Kath. Kirchenrecht, vol. xiv. pp. 191, 192. 2 Idem, Archiv, vol. xiii. p. 378 seq. 3 Der moderne Staat nnd die Kath. Kirche : Archiv, vol. xii. p. 62. 4 See Suarez, de Leg. vol. iii. p. 7. s Bluntschli, in Sybel's Histor. Zeitschrift, 1861, vol. i. p. 83, recalls the heretics from Arnold of Brescia to Wiclif and Huss, who represented the national idea. The national-political movement played a great part in the Reformation, though the Reformers were scarcely aware of it. 6 Blnntschli, I.e. pp. 83, 84, says : ' The Reformers did not indeed re- nounce the idea of a community of the faithful, but they willingly sub- ordinated to the State the external manifestation of the Church, and recog- nised in the State also a moral nature and end (but this had not been previously denied). To the State exclusively they attributed all power of compulsion, and consequently all legislation, government, and jurisdiction. The Protestant State was not yet fully emancipated from theological doc- trines, but fully from the rule of the Church. In its essence it was a first attempt, as yet indistinct, after the modern State, which finally has freed itself from denominational limitations and the authority of theology.' 7 The Catholic princes who had done good service to the Church at the time of the Reformation, and who had received from her in consequence great privileges, soon assumed the character of her guardians, and in this way pushed the power of the State beyond its former limits. 8 Though this state of things came about in most Catholic countries, its characteristic was abandonment and persecution of Catholicism. It is hard to understand the reproach directed (by Schulte, vol. ii. p. 16) against the Church and the Holy See, that the Revolution is permanently installed in Catholic countries. Decatholicised and dechristianised States are no longer Catholic. Under the revolutionary governments of Spain, Mexico, and Italy, the Pope and faithful Catholic^ have received only ill-treatment, and more of it than any one else. On August 10 and November 10, 1793. 10 This is the view of the Revue des Deux Mondes, Avril et Mai 1869, see espec. p. 701. 9- Two theories especially have gained prevalence outside the 2 6 The Holy See and Civil Allegiance. Church. One identifies or at least merges together Church and State, causing the former to be absorbed by the latter, and de- siring the State to be raised into a god and worshipped. The other theory desires the two to be separated, but only in such a manner that the Church may be subordinated to the State. The first theory has found especial support among the followers of Hegel. It is maintained by Laurent, who rejects the notion of the Church even as an independent spiritual power, and dis- . solves it into the State, which indeed he would have limited by the sovereignty of individuals and by private law. 1 The second theory, however, seems the most prevalent. According to 331untschli, 2 ' Our century aspires after the separation, not the mingling of the two provinces ;' and his formula is : External superiority of the State over the Church, and internal equality of these two moral persons. 3 It is not quite clear which of the two theories is to gain the upper hand in Germany ; perhaps Hegel's notion of the State will first become realised, and in- augurate a witches' Sabbath, out of which the second theory will be able to develop. However this may be, both theories are equally opposed to the Catholic Church ; she is universal, and thus cannot be identified with any single State ; her aim ex- tends far beyond earthly existence ; she knows that though she .is distinct from the State, it is not God's will for her to be sepa- rated from it ; she knows that she is a perfect society* with her own particular end and means and field of operations, and that she cannot subordinate to any earthly end her supernatural end. A perfect society is one which is neither part of another, nor from the nature of its end falling within the province of an- other. 5 Both the theories we have mentioned have sought to deny to the Church the character of a perfect society, of an in- dependent existence, or of a kingdom. Thus the Protestant jurist, Samuel Pufendorf, 6 held the following view : ' If we assume the independence of the Church a double sovereignty is introduced, since under the pretence of deciding disputes men can be held in subjection just as well as by commands relative to civil conduct ; since, further, a spiritual chief, unless he confine himself to imitating our Lord in preaching and doing works of The Teaching of Theologians. 27 mercy, and submits patiently to everything, 7 must be able to carry out the judgments he pronounces ; and this again entails a double sovereignty, or if the carrying out is transferred to the State, the latter is degraded into being the servant or bailiff of the Church ; s it follows that the Church should only be a sub- ordinate society within the State ; (a ' collegium' instead of a ' societas perfecta.') 9 Such views were elaborated in many works of the last century, 10 and the ecclesiastical authority became step by step so narrowed as to be reduced to a mere shadow. The State desired to be all in all. ' Since the Reformation,' says a modern jurist, 11 'the right of supremacy over ecclesiastical affairs (jus majestatis circa sacra) became an integral portion of the conception of the modern State. This brings about the enslavement of the Church, making constantly more firm the chain whereby the State holds her fast. Her constitution, her internal organisation, her power of jurisdiction, all that con- cerns the education of the clergy nay, even matters of science, of faith, and of ritual all these become subject not merely to the protestation or inspection (jus reprehendendi, cavendi, in- spiciendi, placetum), but also to the direction of the State (jus dirigendi). 12 Thus the positions of Church and State have been quite changed, and the words of the old writer Goffridus have come true : " If the Church is subjected to the civil power, she who was before a mistress will become a slave." 13 In truth, the absolutist doctrine of the State, making it not merely the highest but the only factor of all development, the one source of every right and every security, 14 leaves no room for the exist- ence of an independent Church, which would be incompatible with it, and only admits religious associations with the rights of corporations.' This rejection of all ecclesiastical independence is, indeed, here and there softened down in its practical applica- tion, and the Church can often be- content if her rights as a cor- poration are respected and protected ; but she can never regard as a true doctrine that which disregards her divine origin and divine rights. 1 Bluntschli, I.e. p. 85 seq. 2 Ibid. p. 87. 28 The Holy See and Civil Allegiance. 3 Ibid. p. 88. Bluntschli allows the similitude of marriage between the two, provided the State (1'etat rather than respublica, civitas, imperium the State in the modern rather than in the old sense) be taken as the hus- band, the Church as the wife. 4 Syllabus, prop. 19, from the Allocution of Dec. 9, 1854, Dec. 17, 1860, June 9, 1862. 5 S. Thorn. Sum. 1, 2, qtt. 90, a. 3, ad 3. 6 Samuel Pufendorf, de habitu religionis Christiana; ad vitam civilem, 11, p. 33, ed. Brem. 1687, will not allow that the Church is a status, a summo imperio civili separatus vel exemptus. By status he means a conjunctio pluriuni hominum, quae imperio per homines administrate sibi proprio et aliunde non dependente continetur. Cf. 32, p. 100 ; also Joh. Heineccius, Element, jur. natur. et gent. 1. ii. n. 183 seq. t. i. p. ii. Opp. 7 The proposition of M. A. de Dominis, de rep. Chiist. 1. i. c. i. n. 13 : ' What Christ on earth in mortal frame visibly practised, that, and that alone, did He commission men His servants to practise; and what in mortal body He did not practise visibly, that He did not intrust to mortals, and was bound not to intrust it, but to reserve it to Himself as head and master,' was styled in 1618 by the Cologne theological faculty the here- tical foundation of the heresy which De Dominis afterwards developed fur- ther (Du Plessis d'Argentre, Collect. Judic. t. iii. p. ii. p. 194), and which also ex negatione violentae dominationis deduces a negatio legitimae potestatis (ibid. p. 195). 8 Pufendorf, I.e. 35, p. 116 seq. Just the same language is now used against the Catholic Church. They say, for example, that Bavaria has two governments, one at Rome, the other at Munich. 9 Ibid. 39, p. 130 seq. This is further developed by Justus Henning Bb'hmer, Jnr. Parochial. i. c. i. ii. iii., and Jur. Eccles. Protest. 1. i. tit. 33, n. 8. 10 One of these was called: Principes sur 1'essence, la distinction et les limites des deux puissances, spirituelle et temporelle. Ouvrage posthume du Pere La Borde de 1'Oratoire. It was forbidden by the Roman Inqui- sition, August 5, 1753, and Benedict XIV. warned the bishops of Poland against it, as it was much spread there. Roscovauy, Mon. t. iii. pp. 154- 156, n. 473. 11 Hiibler, in Dove's Zeitschrift fur Kirchenrecht, 18(53, vol. iii. p. 418. 12 Hiibler here refers to Bluntschli, Allgem. Staatsrecht, vol. ii. p. 373 seq., and to the Church laws of Baden and Wiirtemberg in 1860 and 1862. 13 Goffrid. Opusc. iv. ; Sirmond. Opp. iii. 589 : ' Quando vero Ecclesia seculari potestati subjicitur, quae ante domina erat, ancilla efficitur.' 14 Hiibler here refers to Aegidi (Erlanger, Theol.Ztschr. N.F.vol. xxxvi.), and Hermann (Meszuer's Evang. K. Ztz. 1859). 10. Whore, however, modern States exist with ' freedom of con- science,' and several religious denominations with equal rights, it is impossible fully to carry out the principles of the Church. The Teaching of Theologians. 29 Rules for a society in good health cannot be "applied in a society that is sick. ' We may still hold,' says Von Moy, 1 'as unnatural and unreasonable the complete disregard by the modern State of every aim of life that goes beyond man's existence on earth, especially as it is really a practical denial of the immortality of the soul ; none the less, we must recognise it as a fact which we are not able to alter ; nay, we must even admit that in conse- quence of our- present religious divisions there is a certain neces- sity and justification for it, and for the consequent position of the State. For it is the position which, through the Reforma- tion in Germany, was prepared for the emperor and empire by the treaty of Westphalia, and which by the consequences of that treaty became common to all governments, and acted in favour of all creeds. The right of dissidents to migrate into a country where their own religion prevailed (jus eundi in partes) was a natural consequence. But further, the right which was claimed and maintained against the emperor by the German princes to determine at pleasure the creed of themselves and their subjects, can with equal reason be claimed by every father of a family or independent citizen against his own government; and in imme- diate connection with this is the right in matters of conscience to be independent of any vote of a majority in a political assem- bly.' A Catholic, as Von Moy shows, has a right in every State to 1. free intercourse with the Pope and the bishops as to ecclesiastical affairs ; 2. free profession of his faith by word or writing ; 3. free exercise of worship and satisfaction of his religious needs both within and without the sacred edifices; 4. free pursuit of Catholic moral teaching, especially as to mar- riage, education, works of charity, and religious associations ; 5. free disposition of property for ecclesiastical purposes. But the influence of the Church on temporal matters, as exercised in the Middle Ages, is impracticable in modern States, unless all dissidents were freely to embrace the Catholic faith, and the civil power itself were to desire the exercise of this influence. But there is not the least appearance of this happening. Nevertheless, we must always and everywhere hold fast the great truth inseparable from Christianity, that the salvation of 30 The Holy See and Civil Allegiance. the soul ranks far above all earthly goods; that the kingdom of God is above the kingdom, of the world the spiritual above the temporal. From Scripture and the early Church comes the truth that the supernatural end must take precedence of any other. 1 Der modeme Staat und die Katholische Kirche, pp. 63, 64. PART II. THE DECLARATIONS OP THE POPES GIVE NO CAUSE FOR APPREHENSION. 1. Nothing defined as to the power of the Church over temporal matters. 2. The Bull ' Unam sanctam.' 3. Further objections. 4. Ap- probation of the Bull by the Fifth Council of the Lateran. 5. Utter- ances on ecclesiastical immunities. 6. The Bull ' Cum ex apostolatus officio.' 7. Further objections. 8. The Bull 'Cum quorumdam/ 9. The Bull ' In coena Domini.' 10. Other Bulls also irrelevant, 11. The Schema as to the Church that was laid before the Vatican Council. 12. Canons in this Schema on the relation of Church and State. 13. The three last chapters of the Schema. 14. Confusion of ideas among our opponents. 1- The Church has never declared it to be an article of faith that temporal princes, as such, are in temporal matters subject to the Pope. 1 Individual theologians, as Bellarmine and Suarez r have indeed held it to be a dogma that in certain cases they are- subject;- but these theologians held Papal Infallibility to be also- a dogma ; and just as their opinion on the latter point does not prove that Papal Infallibility was a really defined dogma before the decision of July 18, 1870, so their opinion on the former point does not prove that the power of the Church over temporal matters is a dogma before a decision has been piiblished ; and this has not yet taken place. 3 1 Cardinal Du Pen-on, Eeplic. 1. iv. p. 745. Cf. Bossuet, Defens. Dis- sert. Praev. 89, p. 75. Natalis Alexander, Hist. Eccl. 13, 14, Diss. ix, a. 7, n. 4, t. xvi. p. 350, ed. Bing. Bossuet, Defensio Declar. 1. i. 1, c. xi. p. 108 : ' Placet autem hie in antecessum expromere .... Gregorium VII. aliosve Pontifices .... nunquam decreto ad omnem Ecclesiam edito docuisse, earn sententiam, quae ecclesiasticae potestati talia vindicaret, ad integritatem fidei Catholicae aut ecclesiastic! dogmatis pertinere. . . . Quare etiam ii, qui pontificiam infallibitatem vel maxime tuentur, ab hac sen- tentia abhorrere deque his, ut et de aliis pontificium gestis, libere disputare possunt.' Cf. 1. ifi. c. xxiv. p. 326 seq. , c. i. seq. p. 272 seq. Pey, De 1'Au- The Declarations of the Popes. 3 1 torite des deux Puissances, Strassbourg, 1780, vol. i. p. 91 : ' Les Papes- eux-memes dans les decrets, ou ils s'efforcaient d'etablir leur pretentious, - n'ont jamais rien defini expressement la-dessus.' Fleury, Hist. Eccles. t. xix. 1. 90, n. 18. Gosselin, op. cit. ii. p. 293 seq. Bianchi, t.i. 1. i. 21,. n. 1, p. 184. Mamachi, op. cit. t. iv. p. 244. John Trithemius, Chron. Hir- saug. ad annum 1106. Martin Gerbert, of St. Blase, de legitima Ecclesiae- potestate circa sacra et profana: typis monasterii S. Blasii, 1761, 1. iv. c. i. n. 12, p. 637 seq. Phillips, Kirchenrecht, vol. ii. 116, p. 627^ Beidtel, Das Canonische Recht, p. 360. Spalding, Archbishop of Baltimore, Lectures on the Evidences of Catholicity, 4th edit. 1866, pp. 377, 378. 2 Quoted by Dollinger, Erwagungen fiir die Bischb'fe des Concils, Miinchen, 1869, p. 13, 19. 3 So also Covaruvias, t. i. Relect. c. peccatum de R. J. in 6, p. ii. 9, n. 7, says: ' Hactenus nihil certum in hac controversia Ecclesia Catholica defini vit ; propterea disputation! locus est absque ulla haereseos suspicione. '' He then cites a number of older writers. Similarly Navarrus, in c. Novit. de Judic. vol. ii. p. 1, n. 3, &c., cited by Caron, Remonstrantia Hibernorum,. p. ii. c. ix. p. 91. 2. Great efforts indeed have been made to discover such a deci- sion, and the Bull ' Unam sanctam' of Boniface VIII. has been' brought forward as such. 1 But in this Bull it is only defined that all must give the due religious obedience to the Pope, not- obedience in purely temporal matters. 2 One sentence alone is marked out as a definition of the Church by the words : ' We declare, define, and proclaim.' All the rest of the Bull is no de- finition. And we must, as before observed, in every doctrinal decision of the Pope or General Council, distinguish between the definition itself, and the grounds or reasons alleged for it. Only the definition itself is infallible. This is no new dis- tinction, but one that has ever been well known to theologians and canonists, and also to the Eoman Court. 3 The reasons al- leged are doubtless often of great importance^for rightly under- standing the particular question, but they have not the same binding force. It is thus no contradiction to this view (as the Allgemeine Zeitung of May 6, 1871, asserted), that Bishop Fessler blamed Schulte's book for citing the decisions of the Vatican Council without the reasons prefixed by the Council ; for precisely these reasons serve to remove many misunder- standings about the decision itself. 1 By ' Janus,' Dollinger, Schulte, and others. 3 2 The Holy See and Civil Allegiance. 2 Pey, I.e. : ' Boniface VIII. termine sa Bulle " Unam sanctam" centre Philippe le Bel par la maxime, qu'aucun Catholique ne conteste, savoir que tous les fideles doivent etre soumis au Souverain Pontife de necessity de salut, mais sans d6finir, qu'on doive lui etre soumis meme sur les ma- tieres ternporelles.' See Walter, Kirchenrecht, 44, p. 81, n. 15, llth ed. Phillips, Kirchenrecht, vol. iii. p. 256. Eintel, Der Protestantismus als politische Princep. Breslau, 1853, pp. 105, 106. Merkle, in the Augsburg Pastoralblatt, 21 May 1870, who cites Fenelon, de Auct. Eom. Pont. c. xxvii. I have treated the Bull in detail in the work Ueher das Vaticanische Concil. Mainz, pp. 36-45. * In the work mentioned in the previous note I have cited the Domi- nican bishop Melchior Canus, Bellarmine, Suarez, the Franciscan Bianchi, the Capuchin J. A. Benettis, the canonist Berardi, Pope Gregory XVI. (as Maurus Cappellari), Francis Veronius, Montagne, De la Hogue, Carriere, Gosselin, Pey, Beidtel, Wieser truly a good number of important writers. We may add to them the Gallican Natalis Alexander, who says (H. E. 13, 14, Dissert, ix. art. 2, n. 16, t. xvi. p. 331, ed. Bing.) : ' Cujus (Bonif. VIII. in Bulla Unam sanctam) argumcntis assentiri non tenemnr, quamvis Ecclesiae Rom. ceterarum matri et inagistrae in decretis fidei et niorum non parere sit nefas. ' And more fully he says (ibid. a. 7, n. 3, p. 349) : ' Bonif. in prooemio ac prolusione, ut ita loquamur, definitionis euae ut homo ratiocinatur et Scripturam exponit; nihil humaiii ab ipso alienum putamus In fine diplomatis Porro pronunciat ut pontifex, doctrinam Scriptura sacra et traditione contentam, a Rom. et universal! Ecclesia semper assertam velut dogma fidei Christianis universis proponit. " Porro," inquit, "subesseRom. pontifici .... esse de necessitate salutis." Quod et nos ut dogma fidei recipimus, credimus, docemus, et praedicamus, de subjectione Christianorum omnium et singulorum, etiam regum et im- peratorum, summo Pontifici jure divino in spiritualibus dumtaxat intel- lectual. Atque propter istam conclusionem, quae sola vim definitionis et apostolici oraculi proprie habet, sartam tectam hujus constitutionis auc- toritatem voluit procul dubio Clemens V.' 3. It has been objected 1 that ' if this were so, it would follow that the doctrine of the power of the bishops as an ordinary and immediate power has not been dogmatically decided, since in the third canon this doctrine is only mentioned in the introduction to the real dogmatic decision. Would Bishop Fessler agree to this ?' We believe he would certainly agree ; for the doctrine of the power of the bishops needed no definition, being pre- viously doubted by no one. The decree only intended to treat of the head of the Church ; in so doing the doctrine of the episcopal power Avas also recognised, and this was sufficient for the purpose in hand. Secondly, it has been said : * From The Declarations of the Popes. 33 Bishop Fessler's assertion it would result that a Pope sitting down to write a dogmatic Bull would in one line possess, in the next be without, the gift of infallibility, and we should never know which of the two had been the case in any given line.' But this we do know perfectly, simply from the wording of the im- perative (dispositive) clause. Any tyro in jurisprudence knows howto distinguish between the judicial judgment and the grounds for the decision, between the dispositivum and the motivum ar- resti, as the jurists of the French parliament used to express it. 2 The Popes have ever taken full care, even when they have not themselves drawn up the wording of the entire Bull, that the doctrine to be held fast (doctrina tenenda) be clearly expressed for every one, and they will be able to take the same care in future. If they do not, then they will have defined nothing. We must also remember that every doctrinal decision has its history, and that in the controversies preceding the decision the doctrine in question is made clear and prominent ; moreover, the freedom of theological opinions allowed by the Church is a sure token that this or that point has not yet been defimed. A third objection is that some bishops of the ' Opposition' have called this limitation of the definition absurd. But the authority of a minority of bishops eager to support their view can cer- tainly not decide the matter, unless that view has weighty rea- sons in its favour. Our opponents reply that this is the case. They say the Pope intended to assert the complete subordination in spiritual and temporal matters of the King of France to the Holy See, since no one assailed the Pope's spiritual power. We answer that history proves just the reverse, for the Pope in the Consistory aud the Cardinals in their letter to the French nobles expressly guard themselves against the misrepresentation of the French statesmen, and against the views they were falsely charged with holding. Surely w.e ought rather to believe the Pope, the Cardinals, and the theologians who followed, who had a constantly observed rule to guide them, rather than the in- triguing Peter de Flotte with his companions, and those who had an interest to exaggerate the import of the Pope's words. Outside France the Bull gave no offence, and it was for France VOL. i. D 34 The Holy See and Civil Allegiance. alone that the thoroughly French Pope, Clement V., in order to pacify and appease his countrymen, made the declaration that through the said Bull France and its king suffered no prejudice, and were not hound to greater ohedience to the Roman Church than before. It is, however, further objected that in two writings of the fourteenth century this Bull is regarded as defin- ing the complete subjection of temporal princes to the Pope. But the authors of the Defensor Pads, bitter enemies of the Holy See, are no authority, and moreover bring no proofs; while Alva- rus Pelagius is an illogical writer, 3 and moreover considers as de- cided merely the question relating to the two swords belonging, to the Church. 4 ' Still,' says Professor Huber, 'allowing Her- genrb'ther's softening down of the Bull, the fact that the Pope- is authorised to sit in judgment on the civil power as to matters of sin leaves a back door open for old theocratic absolutism to- come in ; for the Popes, who in a concrete case decide what is sin, have both in theory and practice asserted over sinful princes and magistrates the power of censure even so far as to depose- them ; and this was done not only before the time of Boni- face, but long after him.' 3 To this Ave answer : () By the same mode of argument we can say the principle that the State may interfere in religious matters whenever they at all touch on civil life brings with it State absolutism over the Church,, so that the latter is completely trodden under ; for in individual cases the State decides what has regard to civil life, and often even claims the entire external side of religious life as within its jurisdiction. (V) According to history and existing docu- ments the Popes have ' asserted over sinful princes and magis- trates the power of censure, even so far as to depose them,' only as long as they could presume the continuance of the public law which prevailed in Christian Europe throughout the Middle- Ages. It was only in the course of the sixteenth century that this public law was everywhere shattered : in the seventeenth and eighteenth it was altogether set aside. The Popes had still, as they must always have, a right to condemn any Catholic prince who was guilty of grave sins dangerous to religion, even though they could no longer inflict a punishment which brought The Declarations of tJie Popes. 35 with it the loss of temporal power, since this was no longer a consequence of excommunication. Even the portion of the Bull not constituting the definition does not say that the civil power in its own sphere, that is, in purely temporal matters, is dependent on the spiritual power. As long as the former remains purely within its sphere it is independent. But just as the modern State claims an influence in religious matters when- ever and so far as they touch the civil domain, so the Church can claim an influence, or at least a right of judging, on temporal matters, whenever they enter on the religious domain, and thus cease to be purely temporal. And this, in one form or another, she has always done. Boniface VIII. could quite well adduce in his Bull the doctrine universally taught in the schools with- out making it the subject of a dogmatic decision, (c) No mention is made of deposition in the whole Bull, but only of passing sentence, Avhich can be done simply by excommuni- cating. As a final objection reference is made to the Civilta Cattolica, which we are told, in the first number for February 1870, declared as heretical the doctrine that the State has its own province independent of the jurisdiction of the Church. But first of all, this Eoman periodical, though its zeal and re- ligious spirit have gained for it the praise and encouragement of the Holy Father, is not decisive as to doctrine, nor is anything more than the work of private individuals ; and secondly, it contains no such declaration as alleged. One of its articles treats of the proposals made in hostility to the Council, and especially considers the case of rulers passing laws against the definitions of General Councils. Such laws, according to the ancient doctrine of the Church, are not binding in conscience. They are violations of freedom of conscience. He who believes the doctrinal decisions of the Pope are infallible can be com- pelled by no law to believe they are fallible. The article pro- ceeds to speak of the superiority of the Church in the same sense as is used by the Fathers of the Church and the theo- logians of all centuries; at the same time it fully recognises that the civil power is from God. It moreover distinguishes that which Boniface VIII. defined (definisce), namely, that obedience 36 Tht. Holy Sec and Civil Allegiance. to the Pope is necessary to salvation, which without douht is an article of faith; and that which he proved (stahilisce), namely, the suhordination of the temporal to the spiritual power, which is the teaching of all theologians and canonists, and which no one can deny who understands the meaning of the words. 1 By Berchtold, Die Unvereinbarkeit, &c. p. 20, note *. 2 Every beginner in theology knows that in the Bull of Dec. 8, 1854, the words containing the definition are : ' Declaramus, pronunciamus et definimus, doctrinam, quae tenet, B.V. Mariam . . . . ab omni originalis culpae labe praeservatam immunem, esse a Deo revelatam, atque idcirco ab omnibus fidelibus firmiter constanterquecredendam;' and that the rest is only further explanation. No less clearfy marked is the definition of Boniface VIII. : ' Porro subesse Romano Pontifici omnem humanam cre- aturam (according to 1 Pet. ii. 13. Cf. Mark xvi. 15. Greg. M. horn. 29 in Evang. The fifth Lateran Council puts : Omnes Christi fideles) de- claramus, dicimus, definimus et prouunciamus oninino esse de necessitate salutis.' 3 Mamachi, I.e. p. 182, iiota. 4 De planctu Eccles. ii. 60 : ' Pono extravagantem Bonifacii VIII., quae istam determinat quaestionem.' 5 Huber, p. 39. 6 In two cases, says the article, a subject is not bound to obey his su- perior : 1. when there is an opposing command of a higher authority; and 2. when the superior commands things concerning which the subject owes him no obedience. St. Thomas, 2, 2, q. 104, a. 5, is cited: ' Subditi in iis tantummodo superioribus suis obedire tenentur, in quibus ipsi superiores sublimioris potestatis praccepto non adversantur, et in quibus ipsi suis superioribus subjiciuntur In his quae pertinent ad interiorem motum voluntatis homo non tenetur homini obedire, sed solum Deo. ' And refer- ence is njade to the words of St. Augustine, Serin. 6 de Verb. Dom. : ' If the proconsul commands one thing and the emperor another, \\ ho doubts that we must obey the emperor and disregard the proconsul? And thus, too, if the emperor commands one thing and God another, we must obey God and disregard the emperor.' Also to Seneca, de Benefic. iii. 4- The Bull ' Unam sanctam' was expressly renewed by the fifth Lateran Council. This confirmation is adduced by Schulte in proof of the dogmatic character of the Bull (denied indeed by no one). But if he and the other opponents of Papal Infallibility make use of this Bull against the infallibility of the Pope, they must make use of it also against the infallibility of General Councils, since one of these has approved the Bull. The fact is The Declarations of the Popes. 37 they no longer recognise any infallibility at all of the Church, though for long they maintained that as faithful Catholics they honoured her. What, however, the fifth Lateran Council does prove is that only the concluding sentence, on the necessity of giving due obedience to the Pope, was considered as a dogmatic decision ; to this sentence alone does the Council expressly refer. Yet even this sentence is unendurable to modern opponents of the Holy See, just as it was to M. A. de Dominis, who declared it contained an intolerable error. 1 His declaration was de- nounced as heretical by the Cologne theologians ; 2 and indeed even Gallicans 3 have long recognised that the submission due to the Pope is enjoined by the divine law. It is true that the error of the Manichaeans that there are two principles, one good and one bad, is called heretical by the Pope in this Bull. But this is only said Ijy the way obiter et incidenter and is no dogmatic decision ; 4 which indeed was un- necessary, since the Manichaean error had been condemned long before. Similarly from the contents of the Bull we can gather confirmation of other propositions, but cannot from this infer that they are defined. The Brief ' Multiplices inter' of 10th June 1851 is no dogmatic infallible decision, because it decides no more than that the book of Vigil is to be considered condemn- able and forbidden ; no doctrine of the Church is affirmed in the Brief, nor are any single determinate assertions of Vigil declared heretical. [See note at end of this volume.] 1 M. A. de Dominis, de Rep. Christ. 1. iv. c. x. n. 98. 2 Du Plessis, t. iii. p. ii. p. 227. 3 So the Sorbonne, in 1535, 1542, 1554, 1562, and at other times, de- clared : ' Nee minus certum est, unum esse jure divino summum in Ecclesia Christi militante Pontificem, cui omnes Christian! parere tenentur' (Du Plessis, t. i. P. ii. p. 414 ; t. ii. p. i. pp. 323-327 ; P. ii. p. 394). 4 What is said by the Pope obiter e.t incidenter deserves the highest respect, but cannot be considered as the matter of a doctrinal decision. So Canus, de loc ; Theol. 1. v. c. v. f. 170 : ' POITO quae in Conciliorum vel Pontificum decretis vel explicandi gratia inducuntur vel ut objection! respondeatur vel etiam obiter et in transcursu praeter institutum prae- cipnnm, de quo erat potissimum controversia, ea non pertinent ad fidem, h. e., non sunt catholicae fidei judicia.' Bellarmin. de Cler. i. 28. Tanner, de Fide, disp. 1, qu. 4, dub. 6. Alphons. Lig. Theol. Mor. 1. vi. n. 112. Merkle, 38 The Holy See and Civil Allegiance. Kritik des Gutachtens des Majoritat der Miinchener Theol. Facultat. Dillingen, 1869, p. 18 seq. nr. 7. 5. But it is said : ' Both Boniface VIII. and Leo X. (in the fifth Lateran Council) defined that clerical immunities exist by divine law, that the clergy are free from the civil power, and that in consequence they are not bound by the laws of the State. No modern State can be reconciled with such a doctrine.' 1 But in both documents the expressions regarding these points are only incidental and subordinate propositions f nor do they form in any way the subject of a dogmatic definition. Otherwise the theologians and canonists of later times would not have been able to discuss under the eyes of the Roman Curia whether and how far the clergy were subject to the laws of the State. 3 But also the words are incorrectly quoted. It is not said simply that churches and ecclesiastics are by divine law exempt from, the power of laymen, but that they are so both by divine and human law. The term ' divine law' (jus divinum) is often used simply for ecclesiastical law that is, for what is established by those who in virtue of divine law have authority in the Church. 4 Moreover, certain distinctions have to be made. As regards ex- emption from lay power in purely spiritual things, this im- munity of ecclesiastics is uncontested ; but as regards temporal matters it is universally admitted only in a certain sense. 5 Many theologians say that in these matters the Pope alone has im- munity by divine law, while for other ecclesiastics it exists only by human law ; and that it is for the Pope to regulate it accord- ing to times and circumstances. A sufficient proof that all immunities are not equally founded on divine law is presented by the many differences and modifications which the Popes themselves have sanctioned at different times with regard to personal, real, and local immunities. 7 Since the officers of the Church are also citizens of the State, it is needful that the privi- leges due to them through the eminence of their spiritual dignity be brought into harmony with the special circumstances of each nation, and be regulated so as to cause no danger to the The Declarations of the Popes. 39 civil order. These privileges have thus been frequently the subject of agreements between the Holy See and governments (concordats), 8 and in this way many limitations have been in- troduced. 9 What Boniface and Leo expressed by the words 'jure divino' (by divine law), the Council of Trent 10 expresses by the words ' Dei ordinatione' (by divine ordinance) ; but, as is clear from the proceedings of the Council, this by no means implies that immunities are immediately by divine law. 11 Theo- logians have ever in this question placed human and civil law side by side with divine and ecclesiastical law, and have not regarded the latter as the sole source of immunities. 12 1 Allgemeine Zeitung, 19 June 1870. - Bonif. VIII. (c. iv. Quamquam, iii. 20, de Censibus in 6) : ' Cum Ecclesiae ecclesiasticaeque personae ac res ipsarum non solumjure humano, quin imo et divino & saecularium personanim exactionibus sunt immunes,' Arc. (prohibition to exact pedagia and the like from the clergy). Leo X., Bulla reform. : ' Cum a jure tarn divino quam Immano laicis potestas nulla in ecclesiasticas personas attributa sit,' &c. (following Innocent III. c. x. de Const, i. 2). Bellann. de Cleric, i. 28: 'Non loquitur (Bonif.) per modum defmientis rem controversam, sed simpliciter et obiter id asserit. Ait enim : cum jure divino,' &c. 3 Bellann. I.e. i. xxvii. p. 161, ed. 1721 : ' Non snnt exempt! clerici ab obligatione legum civilium, quae non repugnant sacris canonibus vel officio lericali. Cf. Reiffenstuel, Jus Can. 1. i. tit. ii. 13 et 14, n. 290 seq. Mamachi, Orig. et Antiqu. t. iv. p. 75 seq. n. 3, p. 92, n. 4. Rigantius, Com. in Reg. Cancell. Apost. t. ii. in Reg. ix. p. 224. Pignatelli, Consult. Canon, t. vi. Consult. 86, p. 188 seq. : ' An et quatenus obligentur Eccle- siastici legibus et statutis laicorum ?' n. 2, p. 189 : ' Leges, quae non re- pugnant statui ecclesiastico et legibus canonicis, obligant Ecclesiasticos in conscientia in ordine ad communitatem civilem. Nam si Ecclesiastici iion servarent has leges, inverterent debitum ordinem politicum, quippe hae leges eo ipso, quod Bunt justae, sunt etiam necessariae pro conserva- tione communitatis cum debito ordine ; Ecclesiastici autem ratione exemp- tionis uon possunt invertere ordinem et gubernationem politicam. Prae- terea qui sunt de diversa communitate, tenentur servare leges illius com- munitatis, ubi est res, de qua agitur, aut.ubi fit contractus, ut proinde ibi sortiatur forum (c. Licet, ii. 2, de foro comp.). Quando igitur materia, de qua est lex, concemit publicuin ordinem politiae civilis aut requirit con- sortium aliorum, tenentur Ecclesiastici servare leges, quia agitur de eo, quod est sub dispositione civili,' &c. Cf. M. Gerbert, de Leg. Eccl. Pot. 1. iii. c. v. n. 3 seq. p. 452 seq. 4 So by Innocent IV. c. ii. de Privi, 1. v. 7, in 6. Cf. Gonzalez in c. iv. de Immun. n. 8. Often Old Testament precepts, which were approved and renewed, were called divine laws. M. Canus, de Locis Theol. 1. vi. c. viii. 4O The Holy See and Civil Allegiance. ad 5 f. 207: 'Pontifices et jurisperiti .... leges aliquot veteres (V. T.}' probatas rursum ac denuo restitutas abEcclesia divinas vocant.' * Molina, Tract, ii. de Just, et Jure, disp. 31, n. 2, 3, 11, pp. 64, 65, Concl. ii. : ' In causis mere ecclesiasticis clerici divino jure exempt! sunt a civili et laica potestate. ' Concl. iii. : 'Nan omnis exemptio clericorum est de jure divino' and for this lie cites St. Thomas, Cajetan, Driedo, Navar- rus, Soto, and Victoria; Concl. v. : ' Ecclesiastic! quoad bona sua exempt! sunt a tributis non jure divino, sed humano.' Cf. Schmalzgrueber, Jus Can. lib. ii. p. i. tit. 2, 6, n. 96 seq. ; also the memorial of the theological faculty of Wiirzburg, of 7 July 1869, fr. iii. 43-52. 6 Molina, I.e. n. 7, Concl. iv. : ' Summum Pontificem arbitror jure divino esse omnino exemptum ab oinni universim terrena potestate ; reliquae vero personae ecclesiasticae non jure divino, sed humano videntur exemptae a saecularibus potestatibus.' 7 As to local immunities, see Bened. XIV. Instit. eccles. Inst. 41, 3-6; de Syn. Dioec. xiii. c. xviii. n. 13. As to real immunities, c. iv. Non minus, c. vii. Adversus, iii. 49, de Immunit. ; Barbosa, de Off. et Pot. Ep. Alleg. xiii. n. 2 seq. p. 87; Phillips, Kirchenrecht, ii. 60, p. 667 seq. As to personal immunities, Bened. XIV. de Syn. Dioec. 1. ix. c. ix. n. 11 ; Barbosa, I.e. Alleg. xii. n. 2, 23, pp. 74, 78 seq. 8 Civilta Cattolica, ser. viii. vol. i. quad. 498, pp. 656, 657. Liberatore, La Chiesa e le Stato, c. iii. art. 12, 2, p. 388 seq. 9 Such limitations are numerous in the Concordats with Naples and Sardinia. 10 Trid. Sess. xxv. c. xx. de Reform. 11 When the appointment of the hierarchy was being discussed (Sess. xxiii. can. 6, de Ord. ) the words ' divina ordinatione' were put instead of ' ex institutione Christi,' so as to avoid deciding the question whether it was proximo a Deo or per ipsius vicarium. 12 Gregor. de Valentia, Comment, t. iv. disput. 9, q. 5, punct. 4, p. 2103 seq. ed. Ingolst. 1603, &c.,has the following propositions : ' I. Per- sonas clericorum non omnino esse exemptas a potestate saeculari quoad vim ejus directivam in legibus civilibus, quae couducunt ad bonum statum reipublicae et non repugnant ecclesiasticis canonibus aut ipsi statui cleri- corum. II. Quoad regimen personarum suamm directe atque adeo quoad vim coactivam, itemque quoad bona et causas politicas controversas cleri- cos recte esse omnino exemptos a saeculari potestate jure humano, cccle- siastico et civili. III. Clericos turn quoad personas turn quoad contro- versias politicas et bona exemptos esse a saeculari potestate non sohinc jure Jmmano ecclesiastico et civili, sed etiamjure divino.' But he admits that Francis Victoria, John Medina, Sotus, Ledesrna, Palatius, Barthol- Salon, Dominicus Bannez, and Covarruvias are against this view, and he himself maintains merely the jus mediatum. ' IV. Quoad causas quidem .... mere ecclesiasticas, cujusmodi sunt quaestiones de fide, &c., clericos potiori multo ratione exemptos esse a potestate saeculari non solum jure humano sed ctiam jure divinoS Bellarm. de Cler. i. xxviii. : ' Exceptio- clericorum in rebus politicis turn quoad personas turn quoad bona intro- ducta est jure humano pariter et divino.' The Declarations of the Popes. 41 6. Appeal is also made to the Bull of Paul IV., 'Cum ex apos- tolatus officio,' of 15th Feb. 1559, 1 to which our opponents are most eager to attach the character of a dogmatic ex-cathedra decision, 2 saying that if this Bull is not an universally binding doctrinal decree (on the point of the Papal authority), no single Papal decree can claim to be such. 3 But none of the exponents of dogmatic theology have as yet discovered this character in the Bull, 4 which has been universally regarded as an emanation of the spiritual penal authority, not a decision of the doctrinal authority. We see the tactics of the Church's opponents have been reversed : formerly the Jansenists and lawyers of the French parliament denied that the Bull ' Unigenitus' was dog- matic, though all Catholic theologians regarded it as such ; now the Janus party and jurists who protest against the Vatican Council assert that the Bull of Paul IV. is dogmatic, though all Catholic theologians deny it to be such. In truth neither the wording of this last-named Bull, nor its contents as a whole, nor the rules universally received among theologians, allow it to be regarded as a dogmatic decision. If there is to be a doc- trinal decree binding on all, it is requisite that a doctrine to be held or proposition to be rejected be placed before the faithful in terms implying obligation, and be prescribed by the full authority of the Church's teaching office. This is not the case with this Bull. True enough in the introduction the Papal power is spoken of, and in accordance with the new of it held universally in the Middle Ages. But here, as in every other Bull, the rule already spoken of holds good, that not the intro- duction and the reasons alleged, but simply and only the en- joining (dispositive) portion, the decision itself, has binding force. Introductions quite similar are to be found in laws relating purely to matters of discipline, as any one may see who- consults the Bullarium. As to the enjoining portion of the Bull in question, it only contains penal sanctions against heresy, which unquestionably belong to disciplinary laws alone. To deduce from the introduction a doctrinal decision on the Papal 42 The Holy See and Civil Allegiance. authority is simply ridiculous. This has been seen by other opponents, who have not therefore, like Janus and Huber, deduced a dogmatic definition from the Pope's introductory words, but have deduced from the enjoining portion a definition as to morals. Tor how a Catholic should behave towards heretics and heretical rulers, whether an action be theft or law- ful occupation, whether one is bound in conscience to recognise a claim for succession or other legal claims, these and similar questions must be reckoned as belonging to Christian morality even by the most milk-and-water infallibilist.' 7 Such a state- ment in any one who has really read the Bull leaves us little hope that he understands at all what he is speaking about. Paul IV. renews the earlier censures and penal laws, which his predecessors, acting in concert with the emperors, had issued against various heresies ; he desires that they be observed everywhere, and put in force where they have been unenforced. 8 The point, then, is about the practical execution of previous penal laws, which by their nature are disciplinary, and proceed not from divine revelation, but from the ecclesiastical and civil penal authority. Besides the renewal of old there is an addi- tion of new punishments, 9 which equally belongs to the sphere of discipline. Many sentences are entirely modelled on civil laws, e.g. those of Frederick II. (1220). 10 The Pope does not here speak as teacher (ex cathedra), but as the watchful shepherd eager to keep the wolves from the sheep, 11 and in a time when the actual or imminent falling away even of bishops and car- dinals 12 demanded the greatest watchfulness and the strongest measures. The Bull of Paul IV. may be perhaps considered too severe, injudicious, and immoderate in its punishments, but it certainly cannot be considered an ex-cathedra doctrinal de- cision. No Catholic theologian has considered it as such, or placed it in a collection of dogmatic decisions ; and to have done so would have only deserved ridicule ; for if this Bull is to be considered as a doctrinal decision, so must every ecclesi- astical penal law. Papal Infallibility, it is most true, excludes any error as to moral teaching, so that the Pope can never declare anything morally bad to be good, and vice versa. ; but The Declarations of the Popes. 43 infallibility only relates to moral precepts, to the general prin- ciples which the Pope prescribes to all Christians as a rule of conduct, not to the application of these principles to individual cases, 13 and thus by no means excludes the possibility of the Pope making mistakes in his government by too great severity or otherwise. His infallibility, which is his only as teacher, preserves him indeed from falsifying the doctrines of the Church as to faith and morals, but is no security that he will always rightly apply these doctrines, and never personally com- mit any offence against them. 1 Lib. Sept. c. ix. de Haeret. v. 3. Raynald. a. 1559, n. 14, M. Ball, i. 840. Sentis, Lib. Septimus, v. 5, 23, p. 164. 2 Janus, p. 405 seq. Schulte, ii. 12. The Bull was adduced in the Sorbonne, 1627-1629, as decisive for those who, like the Dominican Teste- fort, would reckon Papal Decretals as Holy Scripture (Du Plessis, t. ii. p. ii. pp. 248, 289). 3 Huber, p. 47. 4 Professor Denzinger has collected all dogmatic decisions in his Enchiridion Definitionum, which has gone since 1853 through four edi- tions, been recommended by many bishops, and been much praised by the Holy Father. No theological reviewer in all Christendom has complained of the omission of the Bull in question ; all would much rather have con- sidered a demand for its insertion ridiculous. 5 Dr. Fessler, p. 44. Cf . Anti- Janus, p. 168 seq. Votum on the Vati- can Council, Mainz, 1871, p. 45 seq. d E.g. Urban VIII. Const. 12, d. 7, Mart. 1624 (Bull. ed. Lux. t. v. p. 40) : ' Eomanus pontifex, in quo dispositione incommutabili divina pro- videntia universalis Ecclesiae constituit priucipatum, auctoritatem a Christo per B. Petrum Apostolorum culmen sibi traditam intelligens, ut noxia evellat, et destruat, utiliaque plantet et aedificet,' &c. The entire Bull relates to the Constitutions of the Fratres Reformat! strictioris observan- tiae Ordinis S. Francisci. Similarly, Const. 64 d. 6 Feb. 1626, relating to the abolition of a congregation of Franciscans (ib. p. 119, 1). 7 Allgemeine Zeitung, 12 April 1871, Supplement. 8 Omnes et singulas excommunicationis, suspensionis, et interdicti ac privationis et quasvis alias sententias, censuras, et poenas .... contra haereticos aut schismaticos quomodolibet latas et promulgatas apostolica auctoritate approbamus et innovamus ac perpetuo observari et in viridi observantia, si forsan in ea non sint, reponi et esse debere, nee non quos- cunque .... (haereticos cujiiscunque status) censuras et poenas praedictas incurrere volumus atque decemimus. 9 E.g. loss ipso facto of all offices and dignities, incapacity to hold others, confiscation of goods, &c. 44 The Holy See and Civil Allegiance. 10 Frider. II. Const, a. 1220 Pauli IV. Constit. Cum ex Apos- (Walter, Fontes, pp. 84, 85, 6) : tolatus officio: Sit enirn intestabilis,ut nee testa- Sint etiam intestabiles nee ad menti liberam habeat factionem, haereditatis successionem acce- nec ad haereditatis successionem dant ; nullus praeterea cogatur eis- accedat. Nullus praeterea ei super super aliquo negotio respondere. quocumque negotio. sed ipsi alii Quodsi forsan judices exstiterint, respondere cogatur. Quod si forte eorum sententiae nnllam obtineant judex extiterit, ejus sententia nul- firmitatem nee aliquae causae ad lam obtineat firmitatem, nee causae eorum audientiam deducantur; et aliquae ad ejus audientiam perfer- si fuerint advocati, eorum patro- antur. Si fuerit advocatus, ejus pa- cinium nullatenus recipiatur; si trocinium nullatenus admittatur. Si vero tabelliones exstiterint, instru- tabellio, instrumenta confecta per menta confecta per eos nullius ipsum nullius penitus sint momenti. sint penitus roboris vel momenti. Let any one show even a single instance of a similar conformity to civil laws in a really dogmatic Bull. 11 Paul IV. nowhere in the Bull calls himself ' doctor ;' he acts * more vigilis pastoris,' ' pro munere pastoral! vulpes vineam Domini demoliri satagentes capere et lupos ah ovibus arcere' ( 1). 12 As Bishop Victor of Bergamo (Raynald. a. 1558, n. 20), Bishop Jacob of Nevers (ib. a. 1559, n. 13), Archbishop Bartholomew (ib. a. 1560, n. 22), the Bishop of Nantes (ib. n. 35), Cardinal Chatillon Bishop of Beauvais (ib. a. 1561, n. 86), &c. Cf. the Brief of Paul IV. against the bishops suspected of heresy, ib. a. 1559, n. 19 : ' Cum sicut nuper.' 13 Cf. Suarez, de Fide, disp. 5, 8, n. 7. Also Schaetzler, Die Pa'pst- liche Unfehlbarkeit, Freiburg, 1870, p. 197 ; and Merkle in the Augsburg Pastoralblatt, 11 Feb. 1871, pp. 47-50. < But it is said : ' This Bull is directed to the whole Church, is subscribed by the Cardinals, and thus has been published in the most solemn form, and is certainly ex cathedra.' 1 These characteristics, however, do not suffice for a dogmatic doctrinal decision. Universally binding laws as to discipline have also- been subscribed by the Cardinals, and solemnly proclaimed. Even the Bull ' Cum divina' of Alexander VII. (26th March 1661), which imposed on all ecclesiastical property in Italy certain tithes to help the Venetians in their struggle against the Turks, was subscribed by the Cardinals. 2 And other Papal disciplin- ary laws have been issued ' out of the fulness of power' (de plenitudine potestatis) ; 3 the word ' define' is used in other places also of judicial judgments f and laws designated as to be The Declarations of the Popes. 45 in force for ever (constitutio in perpetuum valitura) have been soon afterwards repealed, because they were found to be of no service to the Church. 5 The sort of proofs our opponents bring forward in this matter show an entire ignorance of Papal Bulls. 6 Compare, for example, another Bull of the same Pope directed against the ambitious endeavours of those who coveted the Papal dignity ;" this Bull has equally the agreement of the Cardinals, is published out of the plenitude of the Papal power, is declared to be for ever in force, threatens equally all spiritual and tem- poral dignitaries without exception, &c. And yet it is un- doubtedly not in the least a dogmatic Bull. If it were, there would be scarcely any recent ecclesiastical laws (as opposed to dogmas) for canonists to discuss ; while dogmatic theologians would have been all in strange ignorance of their province. 1 Schulte, i. p. 34, n. 1. 2 Bull. ed. Lux. t. vi. p. 142 seq. 1 Cf. Bened. XI. 1304, c. iii. de Elect, i. 3. Job. XXII. a. 1319, c. xi. de Praebend. iii. 2, in Xvagg. com. Clem. X. 1671, Const. 52. Romanus Pontifex, Bullar. ed. Lux. vi. 376 seq. Const. Creditae Nobis, 1670, ib. p. 321 (Indult for the residence of the Papal Court). Innocent XII. Const. Speculators, 1694, 3 (Cone. Trid. ed. Ricbter, p. 531). Pius IX. 26 Aug. 1852 (Acta Pii IX. vol. i. p. 376, Indult for the Congr. Laure- tana), &c. 4 Innoc. III. 1. vi. ep. 90, 104, 109, 189, 202, 203, pp. 96, 111, 114, 208, 227 seq. ; 1. viii. ep. 60, 61, 106, 155, p. 626 seq. 675, 734, and elsewhere. Thus 1. ix. ep. 88, p. 905 : ' Quod est a nobis sententialiter definitum ;' 1. vii. ep. 29, p. 311: ' Lis ante judicem debet contestari et causa per judicem definiri.' 5 So also the Emperor Frederic II. says of his law against the heretics (1220): 'Hoc edicto in perpetuum valituro' (Walter, Fontes, p. 84, 6). Cf. Pius V. Const. Cnm nil magis, c. un v. 14, de Monet. Tonsor. Const. 2, 3, de Ambitu, v. 10, in libro sept. Const. Romanus Pontifex, 1568 (Cone. Trid. ed. Richter, p. 502) : 'De apostolicae potestatis plenitudine hac per- petua valitura constitutione. ' In like manner, Alex. VII. Const. 25, In sublimi ; Clem. X. Const. 21, In gravissimis (Bull. vi. 42 seq. 328 seq. ed. Luxemb.), in which for the States of the Church the revocation of exemp- tions from certain taxes is declared, and in numberless other Bulls. 8 See my review of Schulte in the Archiv fur Kirchenrecht, 1871. vol. xxv. p. cxxix. 17; also Fessler, I.e. p. 82 seq. 7 Cap. i. Cnm secundnm Apostolum. 1. v. 10, de Ambitu in lib. vii. Decret. 8. Here should be considered another Bull of the same Pope, 46 The Holy See and Civil Allegiance. ' Quum quorumdam' of 7th Aug. 1555, 1 which has been even called a transformation of previous doctrine. ' Up to the year 1555,' says the Attgemeine Zeitung? 'it was the Papal doctrine 5 that only those who persisted in holding a doctrine contrary to that of the Church, and those who having recanted again fell into the same or another heresy, were to be 4 given over to be burnt at the stake. In that year, however, Paul IV. laid down the new principle that certain doctrines, even though held for the first time and at once recanted, were forthwith to be punished with death ; to wit, whoever rejected any of the decisions of the Church as to the Trinity, or denied the perpetual virginity of Mary, was to be placed on a par with relapsed heretics, and to be put to death even though he recanted.' And Schulte adds : ' The spiritual judge brought the heretic to the funeral pile, but the temporal judge gave the order to kindle it. In this way the clergy could say : " We do not pronounce the penalty of death." There is not to be found a grosser example of hypocrisy.' 5 And Huber considers that in this the temporal power was degraded, since it did hangman's duty for the spiritual power, and thus recognised its own subordination. 6 To all this we answer : First, this Bidl is certainly no ex-cathedra decision of the Pope in his office of teacher. There are no rational grounds for such an assertion, which much rather violates all the rules that have on such matters to be observed. The question was not about controversies, but about articles of faith settled long before by the Church. 7 This penal law may be blamed for its severity ; only let it be remembered that it was published less than two years after Calvin had caused Servetus to be put to death for denying the doctrine of the Trinity ; that it was held as a wholesome remedy to check the fearful progress of error, and to terrify those who led the people astray ; and that it was altogether in harmony with the spirit of the sixteenth century. Secondly, the Church truly enough forbids ecclesiastics to cooperate immediately and actively in the killing of a fellow-man, even though it be done with perfect justice. She considers it unfit and unseemly that he Avho ex- ercises the sacred functions of the priesthood should take part The Declarations of the Popes. 47 in putting, however justly, another man to death ; and the right feeling of the Christian people will ever make them take the same view. But for all this the Church has never considered that to pass sentence of death was altogether unlawful. Even for an ecclesiastic to pass a just sentence of death was in itself no guilt, no sin ; only he was forbidden to do so by the Church, because this, like many other actions, was unseemly for him because of his sacred office. What ground is there here for the charge of hypocrisy] 8 Thirdly, the criminal legislation of Catholic countries, as Italy, Spain, and France, had at that time not undergone the essential alteration that occurred later. The State, from the point of view then prevailing, felt it no degradation to execute the punishment fixed by law for heretics. 1 Bullar. Kom. ed. Coquelin. t. iv. p. i. p. 322. Sentis, I.e. c. xxii. 2 19 June 1870. 3 This ' doctrine' (Lehre) is, however, to he found in no definition. Huher (p. 48) says more correctly : ' Till then it had heen the rule 1 (Regel). 4 ' Were to be' (sollten) is also given by Huber, I.e.; but Schulte, vol. i. p. 49, 40, gives ' might be' (kb'nnten). 5 Schulte, vol. i. p. 50. Huber, p. 24. 7 Huber indeed (p. 48) says that it is to this day a controversy whether the leading scholastics, as St. Thomas and others, did not hold erroneous views as to the dogma of the Trinity. But one or two learned men, with tritheistic opinions, whose bill of indictment was censured by the Church, and has attracted little attention, do not constitute a controversy, or every singular opinion of any individual would constitute one, and everything would be controverted. The dogmas as to the Trinity here cited are held by almost every sect except the Socinians and those akin to them. Den- zinger, Enchir. pp. 301, 302, n. 880, brings against the Socinians only the part of the Bull containing these dogmas. 8 Fessler, pp. 62, 63 (Eng. transl. pp. 97, 98). 9- Especial attention has been called to the Bull ' In coena Domini,' which has been styled a ' classical example of the ex- orbitant claims of dominion and of the intolerant fanaticism of the Papacy ; a and Janus says that if any Bull bears the stamp of an ex-cathedra decision it must surely be this one, which was confirmed again and again by so many Popes. 2 But here again 4^ The Holy See and Civil Allegiance. there is quite absent any doctrinal decision ex cathedra, for which alone the Vatican Council claims infallibility. A dog- matic doctrinal decision is unalterable and irrevocable ; and precisely the history of the Bull ' In coena Domini' 3 shows how absurd is the assertion that it contains such a decision. What it does contain is a collection of the censures reserved to the Pope, and it was enlarged and altered according to times and circumstances. It originated in the fourteenth century. 4 It was revised by Martin V., 5 Paul II., 6 Julius II. , ? Paul III., 8 and their successors. Under Urban V. it contained seven cases, under Martin V. ten, under Paul III. (1536) seventeen, under Gregory XIII. (1583), twenty-one. Before Pius V. its binding force was only known by its yearly proclamation ; this Pope in 1568 raised it to a permanent Church law, till any fresh deter- minations should be announced. 9 Urban VIII. revised it again in 1627, after which time it remained in essentials unchanged. 10 It imposes ecclesiastical penalties on all formal heretics 11 and schismatics, on apostates, on those who without permission read heretical books, on those who appeal from the Pope to a future General Council, on the falsifiers of apostolic writings, on pirates and plunderers of shipwrecked goods, on waylayers and plunderers of pilgrims ; on those Avho imposed in their dominions new tolls and taxes in cases where neither the law nor special Papal permission allowed, or who increased the former taxes j 1 '- 011 those who with arms or other means gave support to the enemies of the Christian religion, especially the Turks ; on those who did violence to bishops and ecclesiastical dignitaries, or who hindered the exportation of food and other commodities to the seat of the Eoman Court, or who appealed from the spiritual courts to the civil power, issued decrees or statutes to the injury of the Church, seized on ecclesiastical property, &c. almost all things which had already been condemned separately in previous Decretals and Bulls, and among which no one can find a dogma. The whole collection rested on the ground of the mediaeval law, and so it is not to be wondered at if the Bull caused no little offence at many courts. 13 'Whoever will judge this Bull, not after a mere cursory perusal, but by the light of The Declarations of the Popes. 4 9 history, must confess that it is the result not of Papal ambition, but of the needs of the Church in those times, and that the [reserved] cases, far from being a burden and a molestation, were rather priceless benefits to Christendom.' 14 Formerly this Bull was published every year at Home on Holy Thursday (in coena Domini). 15 This ceased to be done under Clement XIV. in 1770 ; 16 and though the Bull itself was not abrogated, it was pretty generally admitted in the present century that many of its enactments had lost their applicability. 17 Quite recently Pius IX., by the Constitution ' Apostolicae Sedis moderation!' of 12th Oct. 1869, has introduced a thorough change. 18 This Con- stitution, though the Janus party may call it the great Bull of excommunication, and Friedrich may see in it only a new edi- tion of the Bull ' In coena Domini,' gives proof that the Holy See Avell knows how to pay due regard to changes of times and circumstances. 19 Hereby the Bull ' In coena Domini' has, like other disciplinary laws of former times, altogether lost its bind- ing force. 20 It has been attempted from this Constitution of Pius IX. to draw the conclusion that in Bavaria, kings, judges, and deputies by 'hundreds have fallen under the greater excommunication. But in this attempt there has been a total disregard of" the dis- tinctions and juridical principles which must be kept in view in judging each individual case. For the commission of a sin, whereof the absolution is reserved to the Pope, there must be in every case a mortal sin that is certain and completed in external act, and though the ignorance of the person concerned does not remove the reservation, i.e. does not empower the ordinary confessor to grant absolution, it prevents the censure being in- curred. 21 It would be well if the domain of moral theology were let alone by those who are insufficiently acquainted with it. 1 Huber, p. 42. 2 Janus, p. 408. 3 Hausmann, Geschichte der Papstliche Reservatfalle, Regensberg, 1868, p. 89 seq. 4 The first compilation known of was under Urban V. in 1364. Walter, Kirchenrecht, 191, p. 346, n. 13. Hausmann, p. 95. s Apud S. Antonin. Sum. Theol. P. iii. tit. 24, c. xxvii. p. 452, ed. Venet. VOL. I. E 50 The Holy See and Civil Allegiance. 6 C. iii. Et si Dominici, v. 9, de Poenit. et Remiss, in Xvagg. com. 7 Jul. II. Const. 25, Consueverunt, 1511 (Bull. M. i. 507). 8 Paul III. Const. 10, Bull. M. iii. t. i. p. 718. 9 Hausmann, pp. 95-97, 101. 10 Schulte, i. p. 40, uses the copy published by Paul V. on 8 April 1610 (Bullar. ed. Coquel. t. v. P. iii. p. 393). Reiffenstuel, in 1. v.Decret. tit. 39, 4, n. 124, t. iv. p. 549 seq. ed. Monach. 1710 seq. gives the copy published by Clement X. on 26 March 1671, ' Pastoralis Roman! Pontificis vigilantia' (Bull. ed. Lux. vi. p. 341 seq.). 11 That in consequence of this enactment and the clauses added bishops are not empowered without special license to absolve from heresy, is shown bj r Benedict XVI. de Syn. Dioec. 1. ix. c. iv. n. 5-10 ; and by Liguori, Theol. Moral. 1. vii. n. 82 seq., with special reference to the third proposition condemned on 24 Sept. 1665 by Alexander VII. 12 During the whole period of the Middle Ages it was held that a king could only impose taxes on his subjects when in certain definite cases and for pressing necessities his revenues were insufficient. Cf. Raumur, Ge- schichte der Hohenstaufen, vol. v. p. 445. As late as 1586 this was the view of the Spanish jurist, Alphonso Alvarez Guerrerus, councillor of his Catholic Majesty ; Op. cit. cap. liv. n. 20-22, pp. 711, 712. The Bull has here especially in view the levying of tolls and payments for convoy, which were used as a means of extortion (Hausmann, p. 131 seq.), and usurped by private individuals, especially by the robber-knights. Cf. Innoc. III. 1. xiv. ep. 39, p. 411. So canon 40 of the synod of Wiirzburg in 1287 (Himmelstein, Synod. Heibipol. Wiirzburg, 1855, p. 59. Mansi, xxiv. 865) : ' Cum impouentes et exigentes nova passagia, vel antiqua seu con- cessa augmentantes, singulis annis surnnms Pontifex in coena Domini anathematis vinculo denunciet subjacere, statuimus,' &c. 13 As we see in the libellous work by Le Bret, styled Pragmatische Geschichte der so berufenen Bulle in Coena Domini, Frankfurt, 1769 Beq., in four parts. On the remonstrances of courts, see Hausmann, p. 375 seq. 14 Hausmann, p. 102, 13. He treats the twenty cases in detail, p. 107 seq. Cf. also Historisch-polit. Blatter, 1848, vii. p. 75 seq. 15 Similarly in the Greek Church on the Sunday of Orthodoxy (1st Sunday in Lent), a list of heresies and ecelesiastical offences punished with excommunication was given out. Cf. Schrockl, Kirchen- Geschichte seit der Reformation, vol. ix. pp. 18, 19. 16 Hereon see Theiner, Histoire du Pontifical de Clement XIV. vol. i. pp. 480, 481, 525, 552. 17 Because the principles on which they rested had become modified by renunciations and other valid acts on the part of the Church; or because, through causes applying to the whole community, the motive justifying them had ceased ; or because it can reasonably be presumed that the lawgiver under certain circumstances permits a law to be no longer in force, as being injurious or too difficult to be carried out. See Denzinger's article, ' Ueber die dermalige Geltung der Bulla Coenae,' in the Wiirzburg Katholische Worhenschrift, 5 May 1855, n. 18, p. 275. 18 No new censures are to be found in it, while many former ones are T lie Declarations of the Popes. 51 ntirely removed, viz. the censures against appropriating stranded goods, against piracy, against supplying the Saracens with weapons, and also the censure against nova pedagia et gahellas, which was so objectionable to statesmen. 19 Cf. the words of the Constitution : ' Cum animo Nostro jam pridem revolveremus .... quasdam (ecclesiasticas censuras) etiam, tcmporibits moribusque mutatis, a fine atque causis, ob quas impositae fuerant, vel a pristina ntilitate atque opportnnitate excidisse. ' 20 Fessler, p. 55 ; English transl. pp. 87, 88. 11 8. Lig. Theol. Mor. n. 580-582. Gary, Theol. Mor. ii. p. 550, ed. Ratisbon, 1862. 10. Similarly no difficulty is presented by other Bulls brought forward by our opponents and containing penal judgments. 1 It is easy, indeed, to style the explanations given of these Bulls ' simple Jesuitical sophistry,' ' theological vapour,' ' scholastic distinctions,' ' mere trifling,' 2 and so on the heretics also of former times were adepts in similar racy phrases and vulgar abuse but what has not been done and what cannot be done is to prove that these Bulls really define what our opponents would like to make out that they define. 3 1 Cf. Fessler, p. 42 seq. ; English transl. p. 70 seq. 2 Schulte, ii. pp. 62, 64, 66. 3 The ' protesting Catholic's' mode of interpretation applied to civil law would force us to renounce all the careful distinctions of the Corpus Juris, in short that renowned juridical penetration which in similar cases acts exactly in a similar way to that denounced by these protesting Catholics. 11. Lastly, appeal has been made to the Schema concerning the Church in fifteen chapters and twenty-one canons laid before the Fathers of the Vatican Council, but which did not come on for discussion, much less was passed, yet caused so much stir among the representatives of the civil power. The entire pro- ject contains nothing that is new to theologians, and any one betrays great ignorance of the literature on dogmatic theology and canon law who asserts that it contains anything new and unheard of. 1 It establishes the following propositions : i. The Church is the mystic body of Christ, ii. The Christian religion can only be observed and held fast in the Church ; the Church 52 The Holy See and Civil Allegiance. is the external manifestation, the realisation and the expression of the Christian religion in an independent organism. 2 iii. The Church is a true society, with a determinate constitution given her by Christ, not left to human changes and revolutions ; she is not part of another society nor mingled Avith another, hut is perfect in herself, spiritual, and belonging to the supernatural order, iv. She is an external visible society and has a visible unity, so that the religious bodies separated from her in faith and in communion cannot be regarded as members or portions of her. v. She is absolutely needful for the attainment of sal- vation, and outside her there is no salvation, vi. She is inde- structible and infallible in the preservation of the deposit of faith, the final and the highest institution (economy) for the attainment of salvation, so that no newer or fuller outpouring of the Holy Ghost is to be looked for. vii. The Church is a society with inequalities, all her members not having equal rights ; in her is the distinction between clergy and laity ; in her is a legislative, judicial, and executive authority, as in a complete society, which is not a simple collegium, nor subjected to the civil power, viii. This true Church of Christ is the Eoman Catholic. In her St. Peter and his successors have the primacy of honour and of jurisdiction, not a simple office of superin- tendence and direction, ix. Through the operation of Divine Providence the Popes, for securing the independent exercise of their office, received a temporal dominion which they rightly de- fend. To be rejected is the heretical doctrine 3 that the union of the temporal princedom with the spiritual power is contrary to the divine law, as well as the perverse opinion that it is not within the province of the Church to decide authoritatively any- thing as to the relation which this temporal dominion bears to the general welfare of Christendom. 4 1 This is pointed out by Cardinal Antonelli in his letter to Prince Chigi, on the 19th March 1870. 2 This has been recognised by recent thoughtful Protestants. See Ullmann, Das Wesen des Christenthums, Hamburg, 1849, pp. 122-124. Schulte (ii.p. 9), on the other hand, objects to the confusion or identifica- tion of religion with the Church. But in Catholicism religion and the Church stand to each other as abstract to concrete. Nor is there anything The Declarations of the Popes. 53 4 disturbing' (verwirrend) in the expression ' religio romana ;' the Fathers of the Church use the expression ' religio' and ' fides romana' as well as 4 religio' and ' fides Catholica,' as Schrader (de Unit. Rom. Com. 1. i. p. 7 seq.) shows, giving many citations. 3 Joh. XXII. Const. 1318, contra Fraticellos. Articnli Wicleff. damn. a. Cone. Constant. 32, 33, 36, 39, art. Hus. 13. Art. 34, 36, ex propositis a Alartino V. (Denzinger, Enchir. p. 188 seq.). 4 This is in complete harmony with the declarations of the episcopate and of the Catholic world frequently expressed since 1860. See Schro'dl's Votum des Katholicismus, Freiburg, 1867. 12- Only the last three chapters and the last three canons re- gard the relations between Church and State. Let us first look at the canons. Here is condemned above all the assertion that the independent ecclesiastical authority, which is claimed by the Catholic Church as given her by Christ, cannot coexist with a .supreme civil power, without the rights of both being injured. If this assertion were true, it would be false that we could give to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's ; no concord, such as has in fact often existed, could exist between the priesthood and the empire (concordia sacerdotii et irnperii) ; there would' be an antagonism between two orders coming from God, which would reflect on God Him- self a collision between the duties of a Christian and a citizen, which would make impossible the well-being of human society and would rend the unity of the individual ; the disputes be- tween the two powers would flow from their own nature, and not from the failings and misunderstandings of men. But in reality no true peace can exist if the liberty of the bride of Christ is trampled on, if the fulfilment of her mission is hindered, if earthly interests are set before eternal salvation. There is nothing in this canon which can cause offence ; nor is there in the one following, which condemns those who deny that the origin of the civil power is from God, or that obedience is due to it by divine law, or who assert that this power is in opposition with natural liberty. Far from opposing the civil power, this canon takes up its defence. But just as the Church must condemn one extreme the defectus so must she con- 54 The Holy See and Civil Allegiance. demn the other extreme the excessus while she maintains the true mean. Just as she cannot allow the right of the civil power to be contested, so she cannot allow that right to be- exaggerated, as is done by those who deduce all rights existing among men from the State, and who recognise no authority that is not granted by the State. So the Church must reject the proposition that in the law of the State or in public opinion is to be found the highest rule of conscience for public and social actions ; for neither public opinion, which is easily mis- led, nor the political law, which is often brought about by chance majorities, and maybe contrary to justice, 1 can form the highest rule, which absolutely requires a divine sanction. So, too, the Church must condemn the assertion that her judgments as to lawfulness and unlawfulness do not extend to such political and social actions ; for this is to misjudge her whole nature and essence, to deny her divine mission, to suppose a different code of morality to prevail for public life than for private life, and to reject the validity of the divine law. So, too, the Church must condemn the assertion that by virtue of the civil law that be- comes lawful 2 which is condemned by divine or ecclesiastical law; for this is to put in "unchristian fashion the law of man above and before the law of God. Never can the civil law make lawful in conscience what God and the Church forbid, e.g. the denial of the Christian faith demanded by heathen laws or the dissolution of a marriage valid ecclesiastically. Here the Church has to combat principles which are completely heathen. The last canon rejects the assertion that the laws of the Church have no binding force unless they are confirmed by the sanction of the civil power, and that it belongs to the civil power to judge and to decide in matters of religion. Here the Church merely defends her own independent province against encroach- ments from without, and in no way herself encroaches on the province of the State. Such assertions can only be made by those who refuse to recognise any independent religious province at all. 1 Cf. the speech of Von Mallinkrodt in the Prussian parliament on The Declarations of the Popes, 55 Feb. 10, given by the Germania, 11 Feb. 1872 ; also Frhr. v. Ketteler, 1st das Gesetz das 6'ffentliche Gewissen ? Mainz, 1866. 2 To say : ' Something is allowed (left unpunishable) by the civil law, which is declaimed forbidden by the law of the Church' which is to state a /act is not the same as to say : ' By virtue of the civil law that becomes allowed which is forbidden by divine or ecclesiastical law' (vi juris civilis fieri licitum, &c.) which is to enunciate a quite false principle. Cf. Histor. Polit. Blat. vol. Ixvi. pp. 38, 39. 13. In the doctrinal chapters the necessity is specially emphasised of concord between the two powers, which both, though in a different manner, are derived from God, and are of mutual ad- vantage to each other. Then is inculcated the duty of rulers towards God and the Church, and the separation of Church and State is condemned. The right and the exercise of the civil power are set forth according to the doctrine of the Catholic Church. The civil power as well as every lawful power conies from God ; all are bound to render it obedience, and no revolu- tion is allowed ; on the other hand, princes are bound to hearken to the admonitions of the Church, since they cannot have God for their father if they have not the Church for their mother. Finally, certain particular rights of the Church are brought forward, and their violation is censured. Among such viola- tions are the exclusion of the Church from schools, and the subjection of these to the lay power alone ; the restriction of the liberty of the Church in the education of the clergy, and the subjection of this education to the direction of the State ; the rejection and suppression of the religious orders ; the hindering the Church from acquiring temporal possessions. These are matters to which the bishops on all sides have called attention, especially since 1848, 1 and as regards which the Church in no way oversteps the limits of her powers. The right of freely acquiring property must belong to the Church even if regarded simply as a society or corporation ; but it belongs to her also as a gift of Christ and at all times ; for she has a right to the means necessary for the fulfilment of her end, and she has it from Him, from whom she has the right of existence, as an original and legitimate power 2 implied in the duty of support- 56 The Holy See and Civil Allegiance. ing her existence and permanently fulfilling her end. In regard to the actual acquisition of temporal goods she has always fol- lowed the civil laws of the particular country ; but the right of acquisition in general is a right natural to her, and not originally coming from the grant of the particular State. 3 1 Cf. the memorial of Wiirzburg, Nov. 1848; that of the Bavarian episcopate, 20 Oct. 1850; that of the Archbishop of Freiburg, 1853 and 1863 ; and others. - Syllab. prop. 26 : ' Nativum ac legitimum jus acquirendi ac possi- dendi. ' 1 Schulte, Lehrbuch des Kirchenrechts, 2d ed. 180, n. 1-3, p. 488 seq. U. Thus idly our opponents seek out documents which alto- gether fail to prove what they wish to make them prove. They confine their attention to the Middle Ages, and to a few misin- terpreted documents of quite recent times. They put away the ancient and approved rules of interpretation, and mix up general doctrines of faith and morals with particular penal judgments, principles of justice with police regulations, permanent laws with temporary orders, judicial judgments with the reasons assigned for them. And while proceeding thus they boast that science is on their side alone. Moreover they ignore all those documents Avhich afford a confutation of their view, and to which we now will give attention. PART III. THE POPES THEMSELVES SHOW THE GROUNDLESSNESS OF THE ALARM RAISED BY OUR OPPONENTS. : 1. Papal documents ignored by our opponents. 2. Alleged instruction of Pius VII. 3. The Popes do not interfere in the internal affairs of nations. 4. They well recognise the difference between mediaeval and modern times. 5. Declaration of Pius IX. on 20 July 1871. 6. The Church limited to the purely ecclesiastical domain, and even there in many ways not free. 7. Nominations to bishoprics and abbacies. 8. Concessions to rulers. 9. Concordats. 10. Rome maintains their inviolability. 11. Rome unchanging, yet paying due regard to changes of times and circumstances. Alarm raised by our Opponents groundless. 57 1- The Popes have energetically disclaimed the views attributed to them by their opponents. Thus Pius VI., in his detailed condemnation of the French ' Civil Constitution of the Clergy' of 10th March 1791, protested that he did not wish to bring all times back to the former political condition, as calumniators said, in order to make religion hated ; and that he did not wish to combat new civil laws, to which, as far as they had reference to his civil government, King Louis XVI. could give his assent. 1 In the same year, Cardinal Antonelli, as prefect of the Propa- ganda, declared to the Irish bishops as follows : ' We must care- fully distinguish between the true rights of the Apostolic See and the claims attributed to her with malicious intent by modern innovators. The Roman See has never taught that faith is not to be kept with non-Catholics, or that an oath may be violated which has been sworn to a king separated from the Catholic communion, or that the Popes may attack the civil rights and possessions of kings.' 2 In accordance with this the Irish epis- copate, without being reproved, could make on 25th Jan. 1826 the declaration that the Pope as regards civil matters had no power in the British Empire. 3 * In the same year the French episcopate could in the same way declare the full and inde- pendent authority of the monarch in temporal matters f and the North- American bishops at the fifth Provincial Council of Balti- more in 1843 rejected the imputation that in civil and political matters they stood under the dominion of the Pope. 5 The Popes themselves have stated clearly and determinately that they had no wish whatever to attack the rights of the civil power. Pius VII., in the Allocution of 24th May 1802, in which he complains of the organic articles published in France, speaks as follows : ' May God never permit that we, or the pastors placed by Christ under our authority, should ever strive after earthly advantage, or desire to draw to ourselves what does not belong to the Church. We wish ever to have before us the divine in- junction to render to Caesar the things that are Csesar's, and to God the things that are God's. In this we shall ever give an 58 The Holy See and Civil Allegiance. example to all, and have a care that the bishops and the other labourers in the vineyard of the Lord by word and deed strive simply for the salvation of the souls intrusted to them, and be full of zeal for this end, and do not mix themselves up in matters that concern them not, which might give opportunity to the enemies of religion to calumniate its ministers. We will ad- monish them with all zeal, that they strictly follow the precepts of the Apostles, who are our teachers, and that not only by their preaching, but by their example, they inculcate the obedience due to the civil power, by rendering which obedience the Christians from the very outset of the Church became known as models of submission and fidelity to their superiors.' 6 1 Verumtainen quae de obedientia legitimis potestatibus debita asseru- imus, nolumus eo accipi sensu, ut a nobis dicta fuerint ammo oppugnandi novas civiles leges, quibus rex ipse praestare potuit assensum, utpote ad illius profanum regimen pertinentes, ac si per nos eo consilio allata sint, ut omnia ad pristiuum civileni statum redintegrentur juxta quorundam ca- Inmniatorum evulgatas interprctationes, adconflandam religioni invidiam, cum revera nos vosque ipsi id unum quaeramus atque urgeamus, ut sacra jura Ecclesiae et Apostolicae Sedis illaesa serventur (Const. ' Quod ali- quantuin,' 10 Mart. 1791 a. Pont. xvii.). 2 Ami de la Religion, t. xviii. p. 198. Afire, Essai sur la Suprematie temporelle du Pape, Paris, 1829, p. 508. Also apud Dollinger, Kirche und Kirchen, p. 46; and Pichler, Gesch. der Kirchl. Trennung, ii. p. 736 seq. 3 Afire, I.e. p. 504. Pichler, ii. p. 737. Dollinger, I.e. p. 48. Portions of the preceding declarations before the parliamentary committee of 1825 are given by Archbishop P. R. Kenrick of St. Louis, in the second appendix to his Coiicio in Concilio Yaticano habenda, at uon habita, Neapoli, 1870 (a work theologically indeed highly unsatisfactory). 4 Afire, I.e. p. 505. Dollinger, I.e. pp. 47, 48. s Kenrick, the Primacy of the Apostolic See vindicated, Philadelphia, 1845, p. 434. Dollinger, I.e. p. 47. 6 Bull. Rom. Contin. t. xi. pp. 335-339, n. 131. Roscovany, Monurn. Cath. t. iii. pp. 529-535, n. 562, Avertat Deus. 2. On the other hand, Janus and his defender appeal to an Instruction of Pius VII. in 1805 to the nuncio at Vienna, pub- lished by Daunou. But to appeal to written testimony without being able to prove its existence, without even taking the least trouble to refute the charge of falsification, is a proceeding which the whole scientific world recognises as disgraceful. The Cheva- Alarm raised by our Opponents groundless. 59- Her Artaud de Montor, the biographer and for many years the ambassador of Pius VII. and Leo XII., declared that this alleged Instruction was wholly untrustworthy, and composed or falsified by private persons. 1 It belongs, without doubt, to the spurious documents, of which Pius VII. in his Brief of 31st August 1806 to Cardinal Caprara says, that these letters are neither from him nor from his ministers. ' If his Majesty [Napoleon] has the originals he can put us to shame. We know not who can have written such foolish, false, and culpable things, and we cannot be answerable for them.' 2 ..No original of the Instruction was ever laid before the Pope, and Daunou could give neither the place where it was kept, nor the composer, nor the exact date. It was precisely under Napoleon I. that the falsification of Papal and in general of Roman documents, to suit all sorts of purposes, was frequently practised. 3 Other French writers, 4 fdled like Daunou 5 with passionate hatred to the Papal Chair, have adopted the Napoleonic falsification, but have never confuted the objec- tions early raised against it by Picot and others, nor met the de- mand to produce the originals, or at least to state where they could be found. 6 1 Histoire de Pie VII. t. i. c. xxxi. ; t. ii. c. v. Histoire de L6on XII. t. i. c. i. * Ami de la Religion, t. xxi. p. 116. 3 E.g. even Pacca speaks of such falsifications, and in particular of an apocryphal Brief of the Pope, according to which Napoleon had asked the Papal approbation for the marriage law of his code (Card. Pacca, Me- morie Storiche, p. ii. c. iii. p. 190, ed. Parma, 1830) ; also of another Brief inciting the Spaniards to the forcible expulsion of the French (ibid. p. i. c. vi. p. 69 nota). 4 E.g. Origine, Progres, et timites de la Puissance des Papes, 1821, p. 229 (Daunou's work appeared in 1818). For other writers, see Ami de la Religion, t. xviii. p. 200; c. x. pp. 251, 298, 426. 5 On Daunou, see Ami de la Religion, t. xxviii. pp. 1, 193, 196, 369 ; t. xix. p. 357; t. cv. p. 602; t. ex. p. 33. 8 Ibid. t. xviii. I.e.; t. xix. I.e.; t. xxi. p. 116. Picot, Mcmoires pour servir a 1'Hist. Eccles. du xviii Siecle, t. iii. p^ 441 seq. 3. Long ago has Ferdinand Walter observed that ' the place of legitimacy and the principle of justice has been occupied (in 66 The Holy See and Civil Allegiance. modern States) by actual power, and whoever knows how to seize this power, and maintain it for a certain time, is sure of the speedy recognition of the other powers. In consequence even the Roman See has had to give up interference in the internal affairs of nations for the preservation of law and justice, and has had to adopt the principle of recognising every actually existing power, as far as is needful for the good order of the ecclesiastical affairs of the country.' 1 The adoption of this principle, it should be noticed, is not very recent ; for Gre- gory XVI., in the Bull published 7th August 183 1 2 on occasion of the disputed succession in Portugal, approves and renews a number of publications by his predecessors. Among these are : (a) The decretals published by Clement V., where it is declared that the title by which a prince is addressed does not prejudice the rights of any other claimant, nor constitute a recognition of the former f (&) the letter of John XXII. to Robert Bruce the ruler of Scotland, who was at war with England, and whom, owing to the doubtfulness of his right and the claims of Edward II. of England, the Pope did not at first address by the royal title; 4 (r) the publication of Pius II. in 1459 as to the dispute between Frederic III. and Matthias for the throne of Hungary, declaring that he simply called him king who was in possession of the kingdom, without injury to any other right ;! (d) the general declaration of Sixtus IV. in the same sense f (e) the discourse of Clement XI. in the Consistory of 14th October 1709 about the war of the Spanish succession, when the Pope spoke of Archduke Charles as the Catholic king, at which Philip V. was very indignant. 7 Gregory XVI. in the introduction of the Bull says as follows : ' The care for the Churches, which ever occupies the Roman Pontiffs in virtue of the office intrusted to them by God of guardians of the Christian flock, impels them to seek out with all diligence whatsoever over the whole earth and among all peoples brings greater advantage to the right administration of religious affairs and to the salva- tion of souls. But the situation of the times, the changes and revolutions in the governments and conditions of States, are such that the Popes have often been prevented from meeting Alarm raised by our Opponents groundless. 61 with fitting speed and liberty the spiritual needs of the nations. In particular, their authority is liable to be attacked by worldly men, on the plea that they pronounce judgment through party spirit on the rights of persons, when all they do is in cases of civil strife to enter into agreements Avith the actual holders of power about the ecclesiastical affairs of the country, especially about the appointment of bishops. The Popes have at almost all times combated this hostile and injurious suspicion, and have been eager to show its untruth, so that they should not be delayed or hindered in the fit measures for the salvation of souls.' After citing the Papal publications mentioned above, Gregory XVI. continues : ' As it has always been the practice and principle of the Apostolic See to take care for the fit ad- ministration of religious affairs under the conditions mentioned, without thereby implying on the part of the said See any ex- amination or decision as to the rights of the rulers, 8 we are now especially bound in these times, when political changes and revolutions are so frequent, to avoid all appearance of at all neglecting the affairs of the Church through human considera- tions.' The Pope proceeds to say that in future the condition shall be considered attached to all such acts, that no injury be done thereby to the rights of the contending parties ; 9 and he expressly declares that the Apostolic See was here only seeking after the things of Christ, that might more easily conduct the nations to spiritual and eternal salvation. 10 Quite in accordance with these principles was the conduct of Gregory in the time of the civil war between the Carlists and Isabellists in Spain, 11 and the conduct of Pius IX. as regards the numerous changes of government that have occurred in his pontificate, as far as they did not touch the territory of the Church, which he was bound by a special oath to defend. 1 Walter, Kirchenrecht, bk. viii. 343, p. 609, llth edit. z Const. 38, Sollicitudo, Bull. Rom. Cont. t. xix. pp. 38-40. Walter, Fontes, pp. 479-482. The Pope declares : ' Quod si quis a Nobis vel suc- cessoribus nostris ad spiritualis ecclesiarum fideliumque regiminis negotia componenda titulo cujuslibet dignitatis, etiam regalis, ex certa scientia, verbo, constitutione Tel literis, ant legatis quoque hinc inde oratoribus nominetur, honoretur, sen quovis alio modo actuve, quo talis in eo dignitas 6 2 The Holy See and Civil Allegiance. facto agnoscatur, aut si easdem ob causas cum iis, qui alio quocumque giibernationis genere reipublicae praesunt, tractari aut sanciil aliquid cou- tigerit, nullum ex actibus, ordinationibus, et conventionibus id generis jus iisdem attributum, acquisitum, probatumque sit, ac nullum adversus cete- rorumjura et privilegia ac patronatus discrimen jacturaeque et immuta- tionis argumentuin illatum censeri possit ac debeat.' . 3 Clem. c. iv. Si summus Pontifex, v. 10, de sent, excom. 4 Cf. the two letters to the king of England. Raynald. Ann. a. 1320, 11. 40-42. Eobert Bruce was unwilling to receive the Papal legates, because the first letter of the Pope had not given him the royal title, but had written : ' Verum quia dissensionis negotio inter te ac praefatum regem super Scotiae regno pendente decenter non possumus tibi regii tituli nomen adscribere ; prudentia tua moleste non ferat, si te regem Scotiae in eisdem literis omisimus nominare' (Pauli, Geschichte Engl. vol. iv. p. 259, n. 3). When subsequently the Pope, for the sake of peace, wrote to Robert ' sub regia intitulatione,' he expressly declared that no gain or loss should result therefrom to either of the contending parties. 5 Pius II. ap. Raynald. a. 1459, n. 13. 6 Sixtus IV. Const. Hac in perpetuum, Kal. Feh. a. 1475. 7 Cf. Archiv fur Kirchenrecht, 1863, vol. x. p. 185 seq. 8 Quin ilia inde pro cognoscendis decernendisve dominantium juribus sancita censeretur dispositio. 9 Quam quidem de jurium partium incolumitate conditionem pro ad- jecta actibus hujusmodi hahendam semper esse edicimus, decernimus, et mandamus. 10 In hujusmodi temporum, locoruni, personarumque circumstantiis ea tantum quaeri, quae Christi sunt, atque unice, veluti susceptoruin consili- ornm finem, ea ob oculos versari, quae ad spiritualem aeternamque popu- lorum felicitatem facilius conducant. 11 Archiv fiir Kirchenrecht, 1864, vol. xii. p. 385 seq. H- Indeed from all the acts of the Holy See in recent times can be seen that it well knows the diiference between mediaeval and modern States and political relations, and that in modern times excommunication no longer has deposition as its consequence. When Pius VII., the noble-hearted -victim of so many deeds of violence, solemnly excommunicated Napoleon I., the author of these deeds, he at the same time issued for the subjects of the States of the Church, as well as to all Catholic nations, a pro- hibition against making the excommunication a reason or pretext for doing to those laid under it any injury whatsoever, whether to their persons, property, or rights. ' For,' continues the Pope, ' while we inflict on those whom we condemn the kind Alarm raised by our Opponents groundless. 63 of punishment which God has placed in our power, and while we chastise the many and heavy wrongs done to God and His holy Church, we have as our main end that those who now cause us to suffer he converted and suffer with us, if God make them penitent so as to know the truth.' 1 Just in the same way Pius IX. pronounced excommunication, and nothing further, on the usurpers of the States of the Church, 2 It was known at Home as well as elsewhere that modern States and Govern- ments no longer recognise any civil and political consequences as attached to excommunication. Nay, more ; Pius IX. declared in plain and precise words to the deputation of the Academia of the Catholic religion on 21st July 1871, 3 that of the various misrepresentations of the doctrine of Papal Infallibility, the most malicious was the assertion that in the doctrine was included the right of deposing sovereigns and releasing nations from the duty of obedience. This right, his Holiness went on to say, had at times been exercised by the Popes in extreme cases, but had nothing to do with Papal Infallibility. Its source was not the infallibility [belonging to the teaching office], but the [judicial] authority of the Popes. This latter, according to the public law then in force, and by the agreement of the Christian nations, who reverenced in the Pope the supreme judge of Christendom, extended to passing judgment even civiliter on princes and on individual States. 4 Altogether different is the present condition of affairs, and only malice can confound things and times so different. 5 1 Const. Quam memoranda ilia, 10 Jun. 1809 : ' Dum vero Ecclesiae severitatis gladium evaginare cogimur, minime tamen obliviscimur, tenere nos, licet immerentes, ejus locum in terris, qui cum etiam exserit, justitiam suam, lion obliviscitur misereri. Quare subditis imprimis nostris, turn universis populis christianis in virtute sanctae obedientiae praecepimus ac jubemus, nequis iis, quos respiciunt praesentes literae, vel eorum bonis, juribus, praerogativis damnum, injuriam, praejudicium, aut nocumentum aliquod earumdem literarum occasioue aut praetextu praesuinat afferre. Nos enim in ipsos eo poenarum genere, quod Deus in potestate nostra con- stituit, animadvertentes atque tot tamque graves injurias Deo ejusque Ecclesiae sanctae illatas ulciscentes, id potissimum proponimus uobis, ut, qui nos modo exercent, convertantur et nobiscum exerceantur (S. Aug. in Ps. liv. n. 1), si forte Deus det illis poenitentiam ad cognoscendam veri- tatem (2 Tim. ii. 25).' 2 Encycl. Cum Catholica Ecclesia, 26 Mart. 1860 ; Respicientes, 1 Nov. 1870. 64 The Holy See and Civil Allegiance. 3 Given in the Voce della Verita, N. 85, d.d. Rome, 22 July 1871, then in the Civilta Cattolica, 19 Aug. quad. 508 (ser. viii. vol. iii.), p. 485. Translated into German in the Munich Pastoralblatt, 1871, No. 31 ; also Archiv fur Kath. Kirchenrecht, vol. xxvi. No. 5, p. Ixxx. ; and Periodische Blatter iiber das Vatican. Concil. vol. iii. No. 8, pp. 327, 328. The same view is expressed in the memorial of the opposition bishops given by Schulte (i. p. 5) and Friedrich (Doc. ii. p. 389). 4 The report in the Civilta Cattolica of this last sentence is : ' Questa [1'autorita pontificia] secondo il diritto pubblico allora vigente, e per 1' ac- cordo delle nazioni cristiane, che nel Papa reverivano il supremo giudice- della cristianitil, stendersi a giudicare anche civilmente dei Principi e del singoli Stati. ' This or a similar version has been followed by Dr. Hergen- rb'ther, and by the French translator of Fessler's True and False Infalli- bility (English transl. p. 128, note). A different version is given in the- Discorsi del Sommo Pontifice Pio IX. Roma. 1872, p. 203 : ' L' esercizio, poi, diquesto diritto, in quei secoli di fede che respettavano nel Papa quel che &, vale a dire II Giudice Supremo della Christianita, e riconoscevano- i vantaggi del suo Tribunale nelle grandi contese dei Popoli et dei Sovrani, liberamente si estendeva (aiutato auche, com' eradovere, dal Diritto Pub- blico e dal commune consenso dei Popoli) ai pin gravi interessi degli Stati e dei loro Reggitori. ' [Tn.] s The Pope continues (I borrow the translation given by the English translator of Fessler, I.e.) : ' As if an infallible judgment delivered upon some revealed truth had any analogy with a prerogative which the Popes,, solicited by the desire of the people, have had to exercise when the public weal demanded it.' In the Civilta Cattolica, I.e. : ' Quasi che 1'infallibile giudizio intorno ad un principle di rivelazione abbia alcuna affinita con un diritto che i Papi, chiamati dal voto dei popoli, dovettero esercitare quando- il comun bene lo domandava.' In the version given in the ' Discorsi r above named this passage is absent. [Ta.] 5- This declaration is clear and simple. It teaches : First, that the source of that former right of deposing was not the infallible teaching office, "but the judicial authority of the Popes. Deposi- tion was a punishment ; to pronounce punishments is the pro- vince of the judicial power ; and only in virtue of such power have the Popes acted in these cases. Secondly, that the ground of the just exercise of this judicial power lay in the public law of those times, which recognised in the Pope the highest judge of princes and peoples, a recognition in some sense the result of the desire of self-preservation against the threatening barbarous- rule of brute force. Thirdly, that a renewal of the religious and political relations of those former times is not to be thought of. Alarm raised by our Opponents groundless. 65 The unity of the Christian family of nations has been destroyed, and governments only decide their disputes by arms ; it is no longer easy, as formerly, for princes to be tyrants ; they are restrained by democratic elements, by constitutions and repre- sentative assemblies ; the reverence attached to monarchy has to a great extent disappeared, and the Church is far from desir- ing to diminish the little that remains. No one, least of all the Pope, thinks of resuscitating the old deposing power. 1 It is only the Eevolution which threatens sovereigns, precisely that new power which no one by word and deed has more con- demned than the Pope has.- Of the many princes dethroned in the last eighty years, not one has been dethroned by the Pope, but all by the Eevolution, all by principles unceasingly combated by the Holy See. 1 Cf. Civilta Cattolica, ser. viii. vol. iv. quad. 511, pp. 12-16. 2 Syllabus, prop. 63. 6. Thus in these days the Church is confined to the purely ecclesiastical domain, and her whole endeavour must be directed to preserve here her necessary freedom, or if she does not possess it, to win it back. In most countries, far from possessing this freedom, she is loaded with a heavy yoke, and instead of being able to exercise indirect influence on earthly affairs by instruct- ing and elevating men, she is in many ways fettered and op- pressed by the ' jus potestatis civilis in or circa sacra' (the ' right' of the civil power in religious matters), partly positive, partly negative, partly indirect, partly even direct. More and more she is driven away from public life, and confined within the four walls of places of worship. Even here she is watched with Argus eyes, subject to the espionage of the police, and threatened with punishment for occasionally venturing on some freedom of expression. Eobbed to a great extent of her former well-earned property, deprived of a number of influential institutions, exposed without protection to the mockery of an unbridled press, suspected by the mighty ones of the earth under numberless pretences, and accused of cherishing vast schemes of dominion, she seems to be VOL. I. p 66 The Holy See and Civil Allegiance. on the way back to the times before Constantino the Great. Yet even in those times she was in one way better off ; for while- externally persecuted she was free internally, her teaching and discipline were subjected *to no State approval, and she freely chose her officers and ministers without State interference. Very strange is the charge made in several quarters against the Popes, that they Avho in the struggle about investitures had so energetically fought for the freedom of the Church, ' them- selves gave up again the rights of the Church to the civil rulers, to whom they finally conceded the nomination to bishoprics and abbacies a greater concession than the right of investiture.' 1 But we must carefully distinguish different times, circumstances,, and persons. These concessions were derived from a time when the civil power had acquired a de facto supremacy over the Church ; and the latter, to avoid worse evils, was compelled as far as she could to yield to the menacing demands of the princes. The concessions were at first very limited and of various charac- ters, being more extensive in the case of clmrches and prelacies that were newly erected and endowed by the princes ; and less extensive in the case of those that were older and long in exist- ence. 2 As late as the time of Gregory XIII. (1577) three kinds of privileges in these matters conceded to different sovereigns weie considered distinct at Rome : (1) the right of presentation in virtue of a legitimate right of patronage ; (2) the right of nomination in virtue of an apostolic privilege ; and (3) simple right of supplication. 3 At that time also there were many churches, without as well as within Germany, possessing free right of election ; in many others the civil ruler recom- mended to the Pope ecclesiastics who seemed fit, and the Pope as far as possible paid regard to this recommendation. 4 But the courts of Europe soon sought to set aside all limits, and to convert the right of supplication into that of nomination and presentation. The kings of Portugal had an extensive right of patronage in their transmarine dominions, but in Europe, excepting the Alarm raised by our Opponents groundless. 67 see of Lisbon and two bishoprics, only the right of supplication, until in 1740 Benedict XIV. conceded to them the complete right of nomination. 5 The Papal reservation of vacancies in curia was formerly only set aside for individual cases by special Papal indult. 6 Also in Poland the kings had rights of suppli- cation and of presentation, except as to vacancies in curia ; as late as 1713, on occasion of such a vacancy, Clement XI. filled up the archbishopric of Lemberg." The concessions made in 1451 to the Duke of Savoy were likewise understood at Rome only in the sense of a right of supplication, and as limited to the duchy ; but Benedict XIII. conceded the right of nomination, extending it to all the possessions of the duke, even the island of Sardinia ; and Benedict XIV. and Pius VII. made further concessions. 8 The Spanish kings had in the fifteenth century partly rights of supplication, partly of presentation ; rights which were considerably extended by Hadrian VI., Clement VII., and Paul III.; but it was not till 1753 that they ac- quired by the Concordat with Benedict XIV. the general right of patronage. 9 The kings of Hungary had an extended right of patronage ; 10 the emperors had by special Papal Indults a right of nomination to the bishoprics of the German- Austrian territories. 11 In the kingdom of the Two Sicilies the privileges of the kings as to bishoprics were first only granted for the lifetime of the monarchs, and -were not everywhere equal ; 12 but after the Concordat of 1818 a lasting Indult was granted for all churches. 1:> The Duke of Milan and the Republic of Venice had received in the sixteenth century Indults granting the right of nomination for individual churches ; u further conces- sions were made to Venice in the eighteenth century. 15 !N"ot till 1754 did the senate of Lucca obtain the right of nominating the archbishop of their city. 16 In the year 1559 Philip II. received from Paul IV. the right of nomination for the bishop- rics of the Netherlands; 17 while Charles V. had as early as 1515 received an Indult, often afterwards confirmed, that without his consent no abbots or conventual superiors were to be appointed. 18 In France, in virtue of the Concordat between Leo X. and Francis I., the king had a very extended right of nomination 68 The Holy See and Civil Allegiance. in the old provinces. The attempt (after 1532) to extend this to Brittany 19 was resisted by Paul III. 20 But the kings, especi- ally Louis XIV., managed to obtain special Indults for all the newly acquired provinces as well as for all the bishoprics not yet in their nomination ; 21 so in 1664 for Metz, Toul, and Verdun ; in 1668 for Arras and Tournay ; in 1678 for the archbishopric of Alby ; 22 in 1695 for the archbishopric of Cambray ; 23 and lastly, on 14th March 1770, from Clement XIV. for the island of Corsica. 24 Up till 2d Jan. 1765 the sees vacant by a natural death in curia were reserved to the Pope ; 25 but then even this reservation was given up in favour of the king. 26 By looking at each of these documents one after the other can be seen how much and how long the Popes resisted the invasions of the various courts, and yet how at last they were always compelled to make fresh concessions, while the influence of the civil ruler continually increased. The Popes themselves felt how much the liberty of the Church in this way was weak- ened. Pius V. confirmed and proclaimed on 19th Jan. 1566 the resolution passed by the Cardinals in conclave that rights of presentation and nomination to bishoprics and consistorial bene- fices should in future only be granted with the consent of two- thirds of the Cardinals ; 27 he even recalled, on account of grave misuse thereof, a privilege granted to the Duke of Mantua. But the force of circumstances was too strong ; many new con- cessions had to be granted ; and all the Popes could do was to admonish the princes to make a fitting use of these privileges, and to guard and regulate the investigation of candidates so as to prevent the elevation to prelacies of those who were altogether unfit. 29 In the present century the Bavarian Concordat in the original ninth article gave the king the right of nomination for the sees of Munich, Eatisbon, and Wiirzburg, and as to the other sees ordered the chapters to propose four fitting ecclesiastical persons to the king. But the Bavarian Government, 7th Sept. 1817, demanded (according to the draft of 1807) the direct royal nomination to all the bishoprics ; and the Holy See felt itself obliged to yield so as not to cause the ruin of the reorganisation Alarm raised by our Opponents groundless. 69 of the Church in Bavaria. 30 These facts are certainly sufficient to show the groundlessness of the reproach made against the Apostolic See of having ' surrendered the rights of the Church to the civil rulers,' a reproach which sounds strangely in the mouths of those who are so zealous for the right and the might of the State. It is neither just nor worthy of historical science to make a burdensome necessity imposed from without a matter of reproach to the person who suffers under it, and to mix up in confusion times quite different from each other. 1 Hnber, p. 3. 2 Cf. Chr. Lupus. Diss. de regia Antistitum Nominatione, Opp. t. iv. p. 115 seq. 3 Rigantius, in Regul. Cancell. apost. Romae, 1744, t. i. p. 208, in Reg. ii. 1, n. 12. 4 Engen. IV. ap. Raynald. a. 1440, n. 2 : ' Supplicant nobis reges Franciae, Angliae et Hispaniae ceterique pro praelatorum promotionibus nobisque commendant, quos utiles et idoneos credunt. Nos exaudimus, quantum cum Domino possumus et honore nostro preces eorum. Ubi vero aliter videtur nobis pro commodo et bono regimine ecclesiarum, reges et principes acqniescunt.' 5 Rigantius, I.e. n. 124-127, p. 227. Fargna, Com. de Jure Patronatus, t. iii. p. 312, p. iv. c. xiv. xv. 6 Rigantius, I.e. in Reg. i. 1, n. 296, p. 81. 7 Ibid, in Reg. ii. 1, n. 121, in Reg. i. 1, n. 297, 298, p. 81. 8 Ibid, in Reg. ii. 1, n. 39 seq. 46 seq. p. 211 seq. 214, 215. Carutti, Storia di Vittorio Amadeo II. c. xii. p. 179. Bened. XIV. Bull. t. ii. p. 243, Const. 23 Dec. 1748. Pius VII. Const. 23 Jul. 1819, Bull. Rom. Const. t. xv. p. 228 seq. Cf. also the document of 5 March 1816, apud Theiner, Sammlung, p. 19 seq. 9 PiiTus, de Elect, praesulum, 10, p. 58 (Graev. Thes. ant. t. ii.). Mariana, de Reb. Hisp. 1. xxvi. c. ii. Archiv fur Kath. Kirchenrecht, vol. x. p. 8 seq. xi. p. 257. 10 Rigantius, in Reg. ii. Cane. 1, n. 72, p. 185. 11 Ibid. n. 78, 79, p. 220. Constit. Pii VI. et VII. Bull. Rom. Cont. t. vi. p. 414; t. viii. p. 132; t. xiv. p. 389; t. xv. pp. 249, 429, 573. 12 Rigantius, I.e. p. 208 seq. n. 12 seq. Vivianus, de Jure Patron. 1. iii. c. i. n. 38 seq. 13 Bull. Rom. Cont. t. xv. pp. 7, 15. Munch, Concordate, i. 721. 14 Rigantius, I.e. p. 210, n. 23, 25, 27, 28. 15 Bull. t. iv. ed. Romae, 1762, pp. 20-25, 49, 50. 18 Ibid. pp. 91, 92. Roscovany, Mon. i. pp. 272-274. Properly the senate had to propose three ecclesiastics for this metropolitan see. 17 Raynald. a. 1559, n. 33. Rigantius, I.e. n. 116, p. 226. 18 Pinson, Trait6 des Regales, t. ii. p. 1140. Rigantius, I.e. p. 242, n. 85. 70 The Holy See and Civil Allegiance. 19 Cf. in general Thomassin, P. ii. 1. i. c. xlv. xlvi. w Rigaiitius, in Reg. ix. Proom. t. ii. p. 4, n. 6 seq. ; p. i. 3, n. 274 seq. p. 111. 21 Rigantius, in Reg. ii. 1, p. 220 seq. 224 seq. Reg. ix. p. i. 3, p. 102. Bull. Rom. ed. Romae, 1767, t. vi. p. vi. pp. 45, 248, 282 ; viii. p. 61. Rigantius, in Reg. ix. p. i. 3, n. 208, t. ii. p. 102. Bull. Rom. Contin. t. iv. pp. 144, 146. Rigant. in Reg. i. 1, n. 203, 204. 26 Bull. Rom. Cont. t. iii. pp. 34, 35. Const. 4, Pro debito justitiae, Bull. ed. Taur. vii. pp. 427, 428. Rigantius, t. i. p. 211, n. 33. 29 Greg. XIV. Const. Onus apostolicae, 1591. Clem. VIII. Const. Magna dona, 1599. Urban VIII. Inst. a. 1627 (Bullar. ed. Taur. t. ix. 419; x. 478; xiii. 581 seq.). Bened. XIV. Const. Gravissimum, 18 Jan. 1757. 30 Concordat und Constitutionseid der Katholiken inBayern, Augsburg, 1847, pp. 70, 87-89. Cf. p. 31. The Popes have more and more surrendered in favour of the civil rulers, and also of the bishops, their rights of collation, which were made the subject of many exaggerated and unjust complaints. Yet in the time of the Council of Constance, and at the Council itself, it was recognised that the Popes in their nomination to benefices had always paid the greatest regard to the claims of learning. 1 The complaint made nowadays that men of learning are excluded, especially in Germany, from the episcopate, cannot be laid to the charge of the Pope, who has the free disposal of not one single German bishopric, but must confirm the candidate nominated or elected, unless there be any impediment in regard to his faith and morals. As a fact it was for some time a maxim at one of the German courts to raise to the episcopate no learned theologian or canonist, and elsewhere learned men have frequently been struck off the list of candi- dates. The concessions mentioned above have brought advantage in strengthening the monarchical power and facilitating agree- ment between Church and State ; but they have also brought disadvantages. Certainly in recent Concordats the Church has given up more than she has gained, if we do not regard the en- Alarm raised by O2ir Opponents groundless. 71 dowments of bishoprics and chapters ; and even these are a small compensation for the Church property secularised since 1803. Most oppressive has she found the great privileges of the civil princes as to the nomination of bishops, 2 and the civil veto in their election. 1 Hefele, Cone. vii. pp. 123, 234, 317. 2 On the French Concordat of 1516 and 1517 Charles du Plessis d'Ar- gentre remarks (t. i. P. ii. p. 357) : ' Extraordinaria dispensatio (qua ad Regem translata est Episcoporum electio) non in perpetnum durare debet, si libertatem Ecclesiae et splendorem imminuat.' As early as 1560, when there was the question of summoning the Council of Trent, the Faculty of Paris declared in its Postulate : ' Nominationes Regis sunt occasion! ruinae ecclesiasticae' (ib. t. ii. p. ii. p. 290). 9. It has also been asserted that, according to the doctrine prevailing at Rome, Concordats are not real contracts, but grants of the Pope privileges, whose continuance depends on his good pleasure. Yet the Popes conclude such agreements with the civil power in the form of a contract, 1 establish complete reciprocity and obligation on successors of both parties,- declare that they will not violate nor change the said agreements, 3 and even designate their violation as a formal breach of contract. 4 It cannot, then, be doubted that the Popes regard them as real contracts ; and this is the real point, not what this or that in- dividual canonist may teach. But even those canonists who call Concordats privileges do not teach that their continuance depends on the good pleasure of the Pope, but that they are privilegia ex causa onerosa which cannot be set aside by one of the parties. 5 Opposed to them are canonists of high repute, even in the Papal Court. The view that Concordats are pri- vileges has also been held by German canonists without arousing complaint, or causing injury to the Concordats with the German nation. Thus, e. g. Schmalzgrueber" says of the Concordats with the German nation, that the Pope in the plenitude of his power can act contrary to them, 8 since the tacit condition is always to be understood : ' provided there does not arise an ex- traordinary reason in virtue of which the welfare of the Church demands another course ;' for Concordats, though having some- 72 The Holy See and Civil Allegiance. what the force of a contract (aliquam vim pacti), are much rather privileges granted by the Pope, as may he inferred from the fact that spiritual matters cannot fall under a contract properly so called, and that the Pope in these contracts has rather sur- rendered or imparted some portion of his own rights than ac- quired any fresh right. 9 It is universally admitted that things purely spiritual cannot he the object of a contract, 10 and that in them the Pope alone is competent ; but Concordats as a rule- refer not to things purely spiritual, but mostly to things mixed ; some writers, indeed, make the latter an essential feature. 11 The former class of Concordats treated of collation to benefices, and contained an express limitation. Eecent Concordats, from the year 1801, are in many points different from earlier ones. Truly enough privileges and favours granted by the Church are to be found in them, for example, the nomination of bishops, digni- taries, and canons granted to the temporal sovereign. Still these Concordats, as to their entire substance and also as to their form, are by no means simply privileges. It is idle to cite the Brief of Pius IX. to Maurice de Bonald,, 19th June 1871, which neither intends to give nor does give a decision on the nature of Concordats. Here they are called ' Contracts or Indults' (pacta seu indulta) ; the latter in so far as- the Church by these agreements (per haec conventa) does not endeavour to obtain a cession of rights, but makes a grant from her own, and thus founds special rights different from those according to common law (jus commune). The Brief praised the author of a work defending the principles of the Church, 1 - and discussing two questions : whether the government of Na- tional Defence had succeeded to the privilege granted by the Concordat of 1801 of presenting to vacant sees; and if so, whether this privilege, in consequence of the abuse made of it during seventy years, could be recalled. 13 Here the question is primarily about an Indult in the full sense of the word, as the Indult of presentation or nomination. In general all are agreed that where, in consequence of altered circumstances, a Concordat is injurious and the needs of the Church require an alteration, the Pope can alter it, and act Alarm raised by our Opponents groimdless. 73 in opposition to it. Quite a similar claim is made by jurists for the civil power. 14 Such cases, however, are exceptional, and do not justify a goundless and arbitrary revocation. Also Con- cordats are in no case mere draft agreements (Punktationen),. a simple expression of identity of views, receiving their binding force only from the civil power, and for so long only as the civil power pleases. 15 1 Schulte, Kirchenrecht, i. p. 441 seq. argues from the form. 2 Bavarian Concordat, 1817, art. 17, 18. Neapolitan, 1818, art. 30. Austrian, 1855, art. 35. Spanish, 11 Jan. 1753 (Munch, i. p. 461). In the French Concordat of 1516 it is expressly said : ' Illam (Concordiam) con- tractus et obligationis .... vim et robur obtinere' (Munch, i. p. 244). 3 ' Paulus V. Const. Ex pastoralis declarat, nee suae unquam mentis fuisse nee praedecessoris sui concordatis derogare. Et jam antea Gre- gorius XIII. Const. 6 Junii 1572, edita contestatus est, se, sub quacumque forma scripserit concordata noluisse laedere.' Bouix, de Princip. Jur. Can. p. i. sect. iii. c. i. 3, ex Bineri Apparatu Jurisprud. Canon, p. vi. c. iii. a. 8, 6. And before this, Jul. III. in Breri ap. Raynald. a. 1554, n. 19: ' Nos attendentes, Concordata praefata vim pacti inter partes habere, et quae ex pacto constant, absque partium consensu abrogari non consue- visse neque debere,' &c. Cf. Urban VIII. apud Lacroix, de Benefic. EccL n. 519. * Pius IX. Allocution of 1 Nov. 1850 and 22 Jan. 1855, as to Sardinia, (Acta Pii IX. vol. i. p. 254, vol. ii. p. 5) ; of 17 Dec. 1860, as to Baden. Cf. Syllabus, prop. 43. * Pignatelli, t. ix. Cons. 58, p. 109, n. 3 : ' Privilegium ex causa one- rosa .... non potest a principe revocari .... Censetur hoc casu orta mutua obligatio ex consensu utriusque partis, quae altera renuente et in- vitatolli non potest.' N.4: ' Contraction a principe initum, etiam cum sub- ditis, esse irrevocaMlem, probat textus in c. i. Ex epistolae (ii. 19) de probat. atque communis opinio .... Quod adeo verum est, ut nee etiam de plenitudine potestatia posset Imperatorvel Papa con tra venire contractui.' N. 5 : ' Et idem juris est in successore, qui iiec ipse potest resilire a con- tractu per praedecessorem inito, etiam de plenitudine potestatis, ut scrip- sit Paulus de Castro in d. 1. Digna vox 4 Cod. (i. 14) de leg. .....' N. 7 : ' Nihil est, quod lumine clariori praefulgeat, quam recta fides in principe. Si esset in sola principis voluntate, contractum, quern cum subdito facit, infringere, nullus verisimiliter contraheret cum ipso et sic hominum com- mercio careret in contrahendo. Esset autem absurdum, ut qui princeps est hominum, careret commercio hominum. Inter majores enim poenas revocatur, inter homines esse et hominum carere commercio, 1. iii. cod. i. 7, de apost. Princeps, etiam Imperator ac Papa, contrahendo obligatur,/u?'e naturali, a quo surgit aequitas obligationis, 1. i. Dig. (ii. 14) de pactis~ Quod autem habet subsistentiam a jure naturali, a principe tolli non po- test, 1. fin. (6) Cod. (i. 22) si contra jus vel utilitatem publicam. Iderque princeps obligatur ex contractu ratione consensus, qui est de jure naturali^ 74 The Holy See and Civil Allegiance. cut etiam Imperator et Papa subjiciuntur clem. (2) Pastoralis (ii. 11) aA.es, in this sense. 2- But let us ask would the minds now so sorely troubled be at rest if the Pope were fallible instead of infallible 1 As Head of the Church he could, in the former case, bind the faithful to obedience as well as in the latter case ; but Catholics could not with equal tranquillity of mind submit to his decisions. It con- duces far more to the welfare and peace of the State that any disputes which may arise between Catholics should be forth- with and once for all settled than that a decision of the supreme teacher of the Church could be met from one year's end to another with objections of material error. A Church not under Political Effect of the Do%ma. 1 1 7 the direct guidance of God might cause anxiety to the State ; the definition of the 18th July 1870, far from occasioning such anxiety, dispels it. Had the Pope been declared fallible, then indeed cause would have existed for apprehension of an abuse of the power which, in his office of supreme teacher, he would still have possessed. Since, however, it was denned by the Church that whenever he exercises his office of supreme teacher he is directly assisted by the Holy Ghost, any apprehension of this kind is excluded. The Church can never break with her past history. She can never define a dogma in opposition to what she has always believed. Otherwise all our Lord's promises to her would be unfulfilled, and she would be lost. ' The same Holy Spirit,' wrote Bossuet to Leibnitz, 'who prevents the Church from diminishing the faith, guards her also from adding to it (any- thing heterogeneous) ; therefore she must have been preserved as well from useless as from erroneous definitions.' By the definition of Papal Infallibility the Church has given its deathblow to Gallicanism, and has brought fresh proof of her own wonderful vitality and unity in conflict with the few opponents who have appeared now as on all similar occasions. Civil authority, as ordained by God, has nothing to fear and much to hope from such a Church. True Catholics make no revolutions ; they are the victims of revolutions which others excite. They yield a faithful and inviolable obedience to authority, not from fear or favour of men, but because such is the will of God, who has ordained it. If, however, anything is required of them contrary to their creed or their conscience which cannot be lawfully done, especially not by a government pledged to allow liberty of conscience, then, relying upon the words ' We must obey God rather than men,' they offer, and must offer, a passive resistance,, but even then nothing more. Popes would rather lose their throne than dispossess a lawful prince ; their deeds and words have never been revolutionary, but are always directed to the maintenance of order. ' The enemies of the Church,' the Pope said in a speech in 1871, ' are afraid of the priesthood, are afraid of good Catholics, are afraid of the preach- 1 1 8 Doctrine of Papal Infallibility. ing of the Word of God, but they have no fear of the sects which are eating away the heart of society, subverting thrones, and destroying social order.' They seek to conceal dangers which are close at hand from other sources, and designate the Church, with its Papacy, orders, and priesthood, as inimical to the State. They impute all manner of pretensions to the Popes, and assert it to be probable that at some future period these pretensions will be ' made dogmatic ;' hence they conclude that the dogma of infallibility is dangerous to the State, and that those who believe it cannot be good subjects. But in truth not merely the infallible teaching office of the Pope, but the whole of positive Christianity, is incompatible with that liberal State absolutism which acknowledges no right save its own. Did the Church lose her identity by the definitions of the Council of Trent or of any earlier Council ? Has she not the right to declare that a doctrine not always expressly held to be so is part of the revealed truth? Was this her right only during the first ages of Christianity ? Has she lost the right to decide any dispute or question which may arise upon the truths of revelation 1 Yet she is said now to have lost her identity because, retaining all former articles of faith, she has brought forward another which is new not in substance but only in form, because she has drawn the logical conclusion from long- existing decrees, because she has decided a dispute of long standing, and issued a positive decision about the bearer of that infallibility which has always belonged to her. Why was not this doctrine considered dangerous to the State in old times '] It was not found to be so either by the Kings of Spain and Portugal, or by the Emperors of Germany ; not by the dukes and electors of Bavaria, nor by the ecclesiastical princes of Germany, although it was maintained before them openly, both verbally and in writing ; nay rather they took it for granted, since they besought the Holy See for dogmatic definitions, and styled the Pope interpreter of the decisions of God and in- Political Effect of the Dogma. 119 fallible teacher ; x they never put a stop to the use of catechisms in which this doctrine was taught. The united Church of the Palatinate is an instance of a Church which may truly be said to have ' changed,' for in its new Protestant catechism it discards the fundamental doctrine of the Trinity. This has met with no opposition, and though scarcely now entitled to the name of Christian in the old sense of the word, no one has called this Church a ' new Church,' 'which has not, therefore, yet "been recognised by the State.' Yet this has been said of the Catholic Church, although the Church which the State recognised as Catholic had the Pope at her head and the bishops in union with him for her pastors. This is the one Catholic Church. Whosoever casts himself from the rock of the Church separates himself from his lawful pastors, and refusing obedience to the Church, is no longer a Catholic. He may call himself Jansenist, or Dollingerite, or what he will ; but Catholic he is not, neither old Catholic nor new, for that is a contradiction in terms. Catholic means universal, in time as well as in place. Was the Church recog- nised as the Catholic Church ever separated from the Pope and the lawful bishops ? Was the Jansenist sect, to which the new opponents of the Church have joined themselves, ever recognised as the Catholic Church? 1 Vide a letter of the converted Duke Rudolph Max of Saxony, the 27th May 1628 (Hortus Pastorum Auctore J. Marchontio, Colon. Agr. 1699, p. 193). 4. Xo, the Church has not changed ; it is the State which has changed, for it now contests and denies to the Church the rights it once recognised as hers ; it foments and favours schism and makes new laws to her disadvantage, until by grasping more and more at theological jurisdiction, and by usurping the office of supreme judge in matters of faith, it is pressed onwards to a denial of Christianity. But the Church is said to have become dangerous to the State because she has now declared theoretically as an article of faith that which in practice has long been acknowledged. But is 1 2 o Doctrine of Papal Infallibility. she to be denied all further development, 1 whilst the State is to follow out to their remotest consequence the principles contained in itself? The Pope, unfettered from without, has always in all ages guarded the rights of the Universal Church from encroach- ment from the various States. Why should the doctrine be thus feared if the practice has not proved dangerous to the State 1 The fact is people argue upon a misconception. They talk of Papal omnipotence and a deified Pope instead of an infallible teacher invested with full powers. From this distorted doctrine they draw inferences even more strange. The misrepresenta- tions have been already exposed. The false suppositions and inferences will be examined in detail in the following essays. 1 Even the Paris theologians had in 1324 declared that it hekmged to the Church of Rome to decide what things were to be held as of faith, she heing the universal rule of Catholic truth (Du Plessis, t. i. p. i. p. 222) : they had petitioned John XXII. in 1333 for a definition on the controversy about the ' visio beatifica' (ib. p. 318) ; and in 1388 one of its members attributed to the bishops in matters of faith an auctoritas inferior et subor- dinata binding only secundum quid ; but to the Pope, the sumrna simpliciter et absoluta (ib. p. ii. pp. 76, 84-86). John of Paris (died A.D. 1304) described the Pope as the ' superior in spiritualibus, per cujus sententiam controversiae terminentur' (de Pot. Reg. et Pap. c. iii.), and declared himself ready to retract, if anything contrary to his doctrine were shown to be determinatum per sacrum canonem aut per Ecclesiam aut per generale Concilium aut per Papam, qui virtute contenet totam Ecclesiam (Du Plessis, . i. P. i. p. 264). ESSAY III. THE VATICAN COUNCIL. CATHOLICS have ever held to be infallible a General Council lawfully convoked that is, that a Council representing the whole Church, and dealing with decisions on doctrines of faith and morals, cannot err. Every catechism teaches this ; it is con- tained in the thirty-nine articles published by Martin V., treat- ing of the followers of Wickliff and Huss, 1 as well as in the creed of Pius IV., which is in universal use. 2 Any one who opposes the decrees of such a Council has cut himself off from the Catho- lic Church. Moreover, as has been already shown, though no Council had been held, the dogma of the infallibility of the Pope in his office of teacher would still be certain, even according to Gallican teaching, from the fact that the Pope and bishops agree in proposing this dogma to the faithful as a doctrine of faith, thus proving the agreement of the whole teaching Church. For it is the universal Catholic doctrine that the faithful are bound to believe all that is taught and proposed to their belief by the Pope and the bishops. Let us now see (1) who are the adversaries of the Vatican Council ; (2) what they allege against it ; (3) what they propose in its stead. PART I. THE OPPONENTS OP THE COUNCIL HERETICS. 1. Their inconsistency in rejecting the dogma of the Immaculate Con- ception. 2. Their grounds and principles throughout heretical, Protestant. 3. Likewise their proceedings. Comparison with those of the Arians. 4. Comparison with those of the Donatists. 5. All heretics reproach the Church with being corrupt. 6. Connection with Jansenism. 7. Their want of unity in contrast with the unity of the Church. 122 The Vatican Council. 1. The opponents of the Vatican Council reject also the dogma of the Immaculate Conception ; but the dogma of the Immacu- late Conception was defined in 1854, sixteen years earlier, and was only rejected by the Janus party in 1 870. Either it was not known until then that this dogma ought to be rejected, or this was known, and silence was still maintained. The first suppo- sition does small honour to the penetration and theological know- ledge of the party, while the last represents it as hypocritical, and unfit rightly to instruct its contemporaries. Moreover, the Immaculate Conception had been already defined at the Council of Basle, 3 whose decisions concerning the Papal rights are re- vered by this party. Why, then, are not its decisions on the pri- vileges of the Mother of God to be equally revered 1 In this case no Pope ' imposed' the dogma ; the members of the Coun- cil alone proclaimed it. Had the Council of Basle been a Gene- ral Council, the definition of Pius IX. in 1854 would not have been needed. . Those who in 1870 for the first time suddenly rise up against this definition, and declare it to have been brought about ' by means of fabrications and falsehoods,' involve them- selves in an endless contradiction, for whilst in the one case they take their stand upon the Council of Basle, in the other they are forced to reject it. In either case they do away with the whole authority of the Council of Basle by maintaining that it defined as an article of faith a doctrine founded on fabrications and falsehoods. If this be so, the Council of Basle should be more severely censured than the Popes, who waited more than four hundred years before making a decision. Moreover, before the definition, Pius IX. obtained in writing the opinion of the bishops and religious bodies, which was not done at Basle ; and yet the Council of Basle is loaded with praise, and those decrees alone are rejected which are not found to be agreeable. By such conduct the true character of the new Protestants is made known. With Luther they overthrow all authority of Councils ; 4 they believe only so much as pleases them ; they believe not God and the Church, but their own judgment and Opponents of the Council Heretics. 123 their own self-will. 5 They will be forced at last, as a layman expressed it at the new Protestant meeting at Munich in 1871, to go back as far as, or even farther than, the refor i:ers of the sixteenth century, ' to primitive Christianity, not to Councils, but to the time of Christ and the Apostles.' 1 Denzinger, Enchir. p. 194, n. 551-553. 2 Ib. p. 294, n. 867. 3 Sess. 36. * Vide Luther's proposition condemned by Leo X. , 1520 (Denzinger, Enchir. p. 223, n. 65H) : ' Via nobis facta est enervandi auctoritatem Con- ciliomm,' &c. ; designated also by the Sorbonne as ' prop, schismatica et haeretica, si velit Scriptor licitum esse cuipiam Concilii legitimi auctori- tati contradicere in iis, quae fidem et mores concernunt' (Da Plessis, t. L p. ii. p. 372). s S. Thorn. 2, 2, q. 5, a. 3 : ' Ille qui inhaeret doctrinae Ecclesiae tam- quani infallibili regulae, omnibus assentit, quae Ecclesia docet ; alioquin si de bis, quae Ecclesia docet, quae vult tenet, et quae non vult non tenet, non jam inhaeret Ecclesiae doctrinae, sed propriae voluntati.' Aug. c. Faust, xiii. 3 : ' Quod volunt, credunt, quod nolunt, non credunt, sibique potius quam divino Evangelio credunt.' 2. The opponents of the Council are completely Protestant in their point of view. In all their utterances may be traced the Protestant principle, which puts the subjective interpretation of the Word of God by individuals in the place of the living teacher, outwardly visible to all men. The ' Protesting Catho- lics' of to-day set against the definitions of a General Council their own subjective examination of its decrees; these they de- clare to be contrary to Scripture and tradition, and they revile the most glorious Council the world has ever seen as ' a false, flattering, and dishonest Synod, a godless Council,' and so forth. 1 The Protestants of the sixteenth century brought precisely the same charges against the Council of Trent, and often with less violence. But how would disputes ever come to an end if each indi- vidual was free to set aside the decrees of the Church on the plea of following Holy Scripture, in other words, his own fancies about Holy Scripture 1 If a Council be confirmed by the Head of the Church, this fact alone is sufficing proof that it is a gather- 124 The Vatican Council. ing of the rightful Church, the pillar and groundwork of truth (1 Tim. iii. 15). It is true that we are to prove spirits, whether they be of God (1 St. John iv. 1), and Christ teaches us the same when He warns us to beware of false prophets (St. Matt. vii. 15). But we have sufficing proof that a doctrine is from God if it be proposed to us by our rightful teachers and by the chief pastor, especially if it be confirmed by the agreement of the remainder of the bishops of the Church. 2 If a man refuses to submit to these, and claims a right of passing judgment upon his judges, he renders no obedience to the decrees passed by the authorities of the Church, through whom it is the will of the Holy Spirit to teach us ; in his pride and obstinacy he disregards the means given us by the Apostle for the proving of spirits, and in this he proves himself to be a heretic. All teachers of error have thus sought to examine by the letter of Scripture the truths proposed by the authorities of the Church to the belief of the faithful, while they have ever maintained that they were keeping strictly to the teaching contained in Scripture. In the same way the opponents of the Vatican Council desire to test the decrees of the Council, and to set themselves up as judges over the Church assembled in her office of teacher, and over .her decisions ; and for this reason they are heretics, shut out from the pale of the Church. The heretics of the present day maintain, as did those of old, that the Church, whose chiefs they have condemned, is not the rightful Church. But whose judgment is this? It is the judg- ment of the heretics alone ; they look upon themselves not as heretics but as the true Church. But since they have been con- demned in Council by the pastors of that Church, which before their time was esteemed by the whole world to be the true Church, and is still so esteemed by all men except themselves, it follows that if they persist in contradicting the Council they are heretics, precisely as were those who went before them. 3 The Emperor Marcian, at the Fourth General Council at Chalcedon, 4 said : ' Whosoever still inquires further, after truth has been found, is seeking after a lie.' 5 He made a severe law, forbidding that any matter once decided and lawfully settled in Opponents of the Council Heretics. 125 Council should be again made the subject of fresh investigations and disputes, and thus become a pretence for tumult or for stub- born unbelief. The opponents of the Vatican Council are pre- cisely in the position of those early heretics, the Monophysites, against whom this imperial law was passed. And when they reply, as did Chemnitz to the Council of Trent, 6 that ' only when a decision has been rightly established is further discussion for- bidden, and that the question is precisely whether the decision of the Council was rigidly established,' they make themselves and their party the judges of the Council, and refuse to believe the teaching Church, preferring their own opinion and judgment. But in former days was it the judgment of theCouncil or the judgment of Eutychus, Dioscorus, and heretics which was to determine whether the decisions at Chalcedon were rightly established, and whether consequently truth was attained, and the decision placed beyond discussion? Marcian's law becomes utterly ridiculous unless it be admitted that the judgment of the Council was to be decisive. His intention was to forbid the disputations held by the teachers of heresy against the decision of the Council, in which they contended that the truth had not been attained nor a right decision determined upon. Accordingly he declared it to be impious, after the judgment of so many bishops, to rely still upon private opinion, and the height of folly, in full day- light, to desire another and an artificial light. In like manner, in the present day a question once determined by the Church in Council cannot be reexamined by a small party of opponents in order to decide whether the definition has been rightfully made. The new heretics behave towards the Vatican Council just as open Protestants, such as Chemnitz, and Protestants in dis- guise, such as Paul Sarpi, behaved towards the Council of Trent ; their descriptions of it are most alarming, and quite at the be- ginning they expressed their extreme fear lest it should meet with general recognition among Catholics, a result which they have been, however, wholly unable to hinder. 1 Dollinger, in the Allgemeine Zeitttng, March 31, 1871, and others. 2 Cf. Aug. de Bapt. c. Donat. iii. 19 ; also the works, De Utilitate Cre- The Vatican Council. dendi and De Vera Eeligione ; also Tertull. De Praescript., and Irenaeus, Adv. Haer., who says (1. iii. c. xxiv. n. 1) : ' Cujus (Sp. S.) non sunt parti- cipes omnes qui non currant ad Ecclesiam, sed semetipsos fraudant a vita per sententiam malam et operationem pessimam. Ubi enim Ecclesia, ibi et Spiritus Dei, et ubi Spiiitus Dei, ibi Ecclesia et omnis gratia, Spiritus autem veritas.' L.iv. c. xxvi. n. 2 : ' Qua propter eis qui in Ecclesia sunt presbyteris obaudire oportet, bis qui successionem babent ab Apostolis .... qui cum episcopatus successione cbarisma veritatis certum secundum pla- citum Patris accesserunt, reliquos vero, qui absistunt a principal! succes- sione et quocunque loco colligunt ; suspectos babere vel quasi baereticos et malae sententiae .... omnes autem hi deciderunt a veritate.' 3 Cf. Atbanas. Ep. ad Epictet. n. 1 (Migne, xxvi. 1052), on the oppo- sition to the Council of Nicaea. The Sorbonne declared in 1521 in the censure of Luther (Du Plessis, t. ii. p. i. p. iii.) : ' Nonne impium se prodit et infidelem, quisquis orthodoxae fidei, Ss. Ecclesiae Doctoribus ac sacris Conciliis credere dedignatur ? Is nempe cui credit, qui Cath. Ecclesiae fidem habere detractat ? Aut quomodo Catholicis adscribetur, qui Eccle- siam non audit, cum ex ore Veritatis dictum sit : Si Ecclesiam non audierit, sit tibi sicut ethnicus et publicanus? Porro ista est peculiaris haeretico- rum insania, ut Scriptura pro voto contorquentes sese eas solos credant in- telligere, solos se ad veritatem Evangelii putent ambulare, solos se et quos falsa religione seducunt, salutem consequi arbitrentur, nee cujuscunque Doctoris, quantum vis sancti et eruditi, sed nee ipsius Ecclesiae auctoritatem suscipere velint contra earn, quam semel sibi praefixerint, Scripturarum intelligentiam.' 4 L. iv. Nemo, i. 1, Cod. de S. Trinit. 4 Cone. Chalc. act. vi. Mansi, vii. 170. 6 Chemnitz, Examen. Concilii Trid. Praefat. i. part. Moreover, in their whole conduct they imitate the heretics of old. They have forgotten the words of St. Cyprian : ' Whoso- ever is not with his bishop is not in the Church ; u and like the Donatist Petilian, they express the bitterest hatred against the Eoman See, the centre of Catholic unity, herein differing widely from the best among the Gallicans. 2 They adopt an utterly heretical principle, in that they interpret passages of Scripture according to their own private judgment, and employ them con- trary to the mind of the Church. 3 They act precisely like the Greek schismatics, who would have ' no addition to the Gospel,' 4 although many such additions were made, and necessarily made, in the early General Councils, if only in the sense of interpreta- tion and more complete development (propositio explicita) of the Opponents of the Council Heretics. 127 deposit of faith revealed from the beginning. 5 A wonderful likeness may be traced even in detail between the new heretics and those of old, especially the Arians. The followers of Arius opposed the doctrine that the Son of God is of the same nature with the Father, as not being contained in Scripture, 6 precisely as the infallibility of the Pope in his office of teacher is now op- posed as unknown in the Bible. As of old the ' same nature' of the Son (Homoousios), so now the ' infallible Pope' is the dis- tinctive sign and mark of true Catholics. The Arians were ever holding fresh assemblies 7 in opposition to the Council of Nicaea the object of their abuse, 8 but held in high honour by all the faithful of Christendom. 9 Precisely similar were the assemblies held in our own day at Nuremburg, Heidelberg, in the Crystal Palace at Munich, and in the hotel of the ' Great Greenfinch' at Vienna. The Arians attracted even unbelievers to their services and pseudo-councils, 10 and the meetings of our protesting Catho- lics are frequented by Freemasons of all sorts, by Protestants, schismatics, and Jews. St. Athanasius further declares, ' They suffer women and boys to take part in theological disputations ; n they make poor jokes on holy subjects ; 12 they recommend dis- reputable persons if only they further their heresy ; 13 they rest entirely on the civil power, 14 before whom they calumniate the Catholics; 15 they contend exclusively with the Church, while with heretics they seek to be at peace ; 16 they take less pains to establish their own doctrine than to vilify the doctrines of the Church ; 17 few in number, all the greater is the noise they make; 18 inconstant and at variance amongst themselves, they often change their opinions, 19 and appeal to ancient teachers, whose meaning they misrepresent.' 20 Is not this the exact description of the new Protestants? 1 Cyprian. Ep. 69, ad Florent. Pup. Cf. Ignat. Ep. ad Trail, c. i. 2 Cf. e.g. Dissert. Praevia Declar. Cleri Gallic. 1, with the expressions of the pseudo-Catholics of to-day. 3 Athan. Or. I.e. Arian. n. 37, 52, pp. 348-360, ed. Maur. Basil. Ep. viii. c. iy. p. 83. Cyrill. Alex. Ep. ad Joh. Ant. Mansi, vi. 674. * Schulte, iii. p. 2. Andr. Bhod. in Cone. Flor. (Hard. ix. p. 72 seq.), Bessarion, and others. 128 The Vatican Council. 8 Atlian. de Syn. n. 36, Ep. ad Afros. Ep. n. 6, p. 715. De Decret. Nic. Syn. n. 1. Basil, Ep. 214, ad Terent. Com. c. ii. 7 Athan. de Syn. n. 21, Ep. ad Afr. Episc. n. 10, 586, 718, ed. Maurin. 8 Athan. de Decret. Nic. Syn. n. 18. Atlian. Ep. ad Jovin. n. 2. Athan. Vita S. Antonii, n. 82, p. 686. 1 Athan. Or. I.e. Ar. n. 1, 22, pp. 319-336 seq. ; Or. ii. n. 18, p. 384. 2 Athan. Or. I.e. Ar. n. 7, p. 323. 3 Athan. Hist. Ar. ad Monach. n. 2, p. 273. * Athan. I.e. n. 33, 34, p. 287 ; Or. ii. c. Ar. n. 43, p. 404. 5 Id. Hist. Ar. n. 65, p. 302. 8 Athan. Hist. Ar. n. 31, 32, p. 286. 7 Basil. Ep. 214, ad Terent. c. ii. : ofs jute jteAeTT) etr-rlv eV TO?S M TTJS (KKhijcrias A(fyois ov TO, ecLvraiv TrapaffKtvdfeiv, ckAAa TO tyueVepa 5iafta\\tw. 8 Athan. Ep. ad Episc. Alg. et Lib. n. 7, p. 218. 9 Athan. Or. ii. c. Ar. n. 40, p. 401. 20 Athan. de Sent. Dionys. n. 1 seq. p. 191 seq. 4. Again, the new Protestants take exactly the same ground as the Donatists, who sought the true Church in their own land alone, that is, in Africa j 1 for they acknowledge the Church in Germany alone, and amongst the few foreign followers of the German professors, such as Loyson and Michaud. But is this small sect, which is almost wholly confined to one country, and which even there counts comparatively few followers, is this in- deed the Church Catholic, which according to the judgment of the. Fathers is known by this very mark that she is spread over the face of the earth, that she exists where sects also exist, while they are not to be found in many places where she is 1" The so- called Old Catholics may be answered to-day in the words ad- dressed by Peter the Venerable to one of the Cardinals of the anti-Pope : 3 ' Either the Church, the sheepfold of Christ, in which are the sheep of the True Shepherd, is with us, in which case your sheepfold contains no sheep but only goats, whose place is on the left hand ; or it is with you, and in this case the word of the Father is false in which He promised the Son, " I will give Thee the Gentiles for Thine inheritance, and the utmost parts of the earth for Thy possession" (Ps. ii. 8) ; 4 false is the voice of the prophet, " He shall rule from sea to sea, and from Opponents of the Council Heretics. 129 the river unto the ends of the earth" (Ps. Ixxi. 8) ; false like- wise are the words, " All the peoples which Thou hast made shall come and worship hefore Thee, O Lord, and glorify Thy name." 5 All this is false if the inheritance and possession of Christ has indeed become so small that He now possesses only the towers of Pier Leone and the few small fortresses of the Count of Poitiers.' Dollinger indeed wrote, 6 ' Thousands amongst the clergy, hun- dreds of thousands amongst the laity, think as I do, and hold it impossible to accept the new article of faith ;' but his pretended knowledge of men's hearts has come to shame. A few professors puffed up with learning ; a few priests, many of whom were be- fore not living the lives of priests ; some men of culture so called, who, for the most part, had never been rightly instructed in the faith, or who had long ago thrown it overboard, such in the main are the new heretics who have nominally been at such pains to guard the purity of the faith. Pastors without flocks, liberal magistrates, long non-practising Catholics, form now the stronghold of ' Old Catholicism,' and this little group presumes to call itself the true Old Catholic Church, and to designate the immense majority of Catholics, the Pope, and the united Epis- copate as apostates ! 1 Aug. de Unit. Eccl. c. xvi. 2 Cyrill. Hieros. Catech. xviii. n. 23. Vincent. Lerin. Commonit. c. iii. Optat. l.c. Theodoret, Haer. Fab. 1. iii. c. vi. p. 347 seq. Aug. de Unit. Eccl. c. ii. : ' Illae quippe (sectae) in multis gentibus, nbi ista (Catholica) est, non inveniuntur, haec autem, quae ubique est, etiam nbi illae snnt, invenitur. ' 3 Petrus Yen. 1. ii. Ep. 4, pp. 192, 193. * On this text St. Augustine (De Unit. Eccl. c. viii. n. 20) says : ' Quis enim Christianus unquam dubitavit, hoc de Christo esse praedictum, ant hanc haereditatem aliud quam Ecclesiam esse intellexit ?' Cf. Optat. c. Parmen. ii. 1. 5 St. Augustine especially urges this against the Donatists Brevicul. Collat. die iii. in Psalin Ixxxi. 121, de Unit Eccl. c. ii. 25. He also says : ' Hoc ideo dicendum putavi, ut cognoscat eruditio vestra, periculosissime vos opinionem vestram totius mundi sententiae praeponere magisque superbae obstinationi paucorum, quam devotae unanimitati multorum acquiescere.' 6 Declaration of March 28, 1871. VOL. I. 130 The Vatican Council. 5. The history of the Church teaches that almost all heretics carried on their rebellion against her under the pretext that the ecclesiastical authorities had changed and transformed the Church of Christ, whether in doctrine or in constitution. Long ago, the ancient Gnostics declared that the Apostles had given the Gospel a Jewish interpretation, and they, wiser and more honest than the Apostles, desired to restore it according to the mind of Christ. 1 The Artemonites maintained, that since the time of Pope Zephyrinus (A.D. 202-218) truth had been corrupted in the Church. 2 The Macedonians in the fourth century pronounced the doctrine of the divinity of the Holy Ghost to be contrary to Scripture, and unknown in the primitive Church. 3 The IsTes- tjrians rejected the Third General Council (431) as incompatible with the first of K^icea ; while the Monophysites rejected the Council of Chalcedon (451) as contradicting that of Ephesus and the teaching of St. Cyril. 4 The Paulicians, who claimed for themselves the name of the ' Catholic Church,' cast off at once the constitution and doctrines of the Church. 5 The same course was followed by the schismatic Greeks and the mediaeval sects ; and they rejected the Roman Church, as having fallen away from truth. 6 But it is objected by some : ' According to the Fathers, the true faith may at least for a time be lost to the larger part of the Church, and an example of this is to be found in the history of Arianism.' But who may the Fathers be who speak thus ? The Fathers declare the precise contrary. There is not a single one who says that the teaching Church can, even for a short time, fall into error ; they all teach, with one voice, that the faith is the very being of the Church ; that she is imperishable and incapable of error. ' The Bride of Christ,' says St. Cyprian, 7 ' can never be an adulteress ; and the promise of Christ (St. Matt, xxviii. 20) extends to all days, even to the end of the world.' St. Jerome, indeed, on the occasion of the Council of Rimini, exclaimed : ' The whole world wondered to find itself Arian;' 8 but the words ' miratus est' (wondered) show clearly that Opponents of the Council Heretics. 131 the outward appearance did not correspond with the actual reality ; had Arian doctrines preponderated amongst Christians, the world could not have wondered to find itself Arian. 9 In truth, the Arians did not exceed the Christians in number ; and only by the tyranny of Constantius (and later by that of Valens) was Arianism raised to the power, which it lost again as soon as the imperial protection was withdrawn. Many bishops bowed before it from compulsion and fear, as was proved at Eimini ; even under Arian bishops the people often remained Catholic, which made St. Hilarius say that the ears of the people were more holy than the hearts of the priests ; 10 they often understood the doctrine taught them in a Catholic sense. In the East, the whole people frequently fled to the desert, for- saking the Arian churches, and worshipping God amidst the greatest hardships, and under the open sky. 11 There was no lack, either in the East or in the West, of distinguished and resolute de- fenders of Catholic doctrine. The Council of Eimini gave merely an apparent and momentary success to the false doctrine ; for in truth those bishops who had suffered their signature to be ex- torted from them by threats or by force remained in heart Catholic. 12 The court theology of Constantius perished utterly; the theology of the Church, even without the ' patronising in- terference of the State,' proceeds ever on its peaceful way. 1 Iren. Adv. Haer. 1. iii. c. xii. n. 12. 2 Eus. H. E. v. 28, ex Auct. Anon.: aTrb tie TOV SiaS^x " OMTOV (roD BiKTopos) Zttyvpivov irapcucfX a P^X^ at T ^" oATjOejw. 3 Naz. Or. xxxi. s.v. Theol. n. 21, p. 569. Leont. Byzant. de Sectis, act. iv. (Migne, Ixxxvi. 1220). 4 Leontius, I.e. act. vi. n. 3, 4 ; act. viii. n. 2 (pp. 1236-1252). * Phot. c. Manich. i. 9. Everin of Steinfelden to St. Bernard (Dn Plessis, 1. i. p. 23) : ' Di- cunt apud se tantum Ecclesiam esse, eo quod ipsi soli vestigiis Christ! inhaereant,' &c. Ekbert of Schonau, serm. ii. c. Cath. (ib. p. 45). Eamerius (ib. p. 56. Cf. p. 93). Theodor. Balsam. Resp. ad Marc. q. 15 (Leuencl. i. p. 370). Meditat. de Convocat. (ib. pp. 477, 478). 7 De Unit. Eccl. c. vi. 8 Hier. Dial. adv. Lucifer. The matter is treated in detail by Tho- massin (Diss. Vin. Syn. Arim. 1, p. 109 seq.), because, as he says, with this passage velut ariete novatores Ecclesiae toto orbe diffusae universitatem solent impetere. 132 The Vatican Council. 9 Thomassin, I.e. 4, p. Ill : ' Nempe id novum, id praeter mentem et voluntatem suam esset, imo quod impossibile esset et tamen ita specie tenus esse videretur.' 10 Hilar. c. Auxent. Liber, n. 6. ' i' Basil. Ep. 92, al. 69, c. ii. p. 481. 12 Thomassin, I.e. p. 113, seq. 8. 6. The new sect deserves in justice the name of new Protest- antism and new Jansenism. The teachers of false doctrine have ever borrowed weapons from the arsenals of ancient heretics, derived expressions from their writings, and sent them forth as something new ; : and in like manner the German Janus party has borrowed its ideas and words chiefly from Protest- antism and Jansenism. Protestantism took the pretended corruption of the Church as a pretext for separation ; while Jansenism took as its pretext the darkness said to have lasted many hundred years. No wonder, therefore, that the new sect should even outwardly connect itself with the remnant of the old Jansenists. There is in the writings and conduct of the Jansenists and the Dollingerites a harmony which extends even to the smallest details. The opposition raised against the definition when made, July 18, 1870, is precisely the same as that raised in France in 1713, against the Bull ' Unigenitus.' Both heresies fought against the definition of the Church as being dangerous to the State, and both appealed against it to the power of the State ; both allied themselves with any powerful party which would make common cause with them against the Church ; both attacked in particular the Society of the Jesuits, who had served the Church so well ; both made use of the same means, odious imputations and suspicions against Eome. Here again are the same appella- tions, the same defenders of ' pure theology,' the same lamenta- tions over the tyranny of bishops, the persecution of ' orthodox' priests, and the refusal of the longed-for sacraments to ' orthodox' laymen ; then come complaints of want of clearness in the definition, and of its suspicious origin. 2 Now, as then, the ques- tion of right is separated from the question of fact. The ' Old Opponents of the Council Heretics. 133 Catholics' would not for the world set themselves against a Council which is in truth general ; but they contend that the Vatican Council was not truly general. They cannot perceive the dogma denned to be well founded and true ; and therefore they oppose the Council which denned it. Again, they hesitate to acknowledge the Council as in truth ecumenical and lawful ; and therefore they hold themselves to be freed from the believ- ing submission to its decrees, which else they must acknow- ledge as due to the mysteries of faith, to those sublime truths which are far above human reason. 3 But this alone is sufficing proof that, whatever they may be, they are not Catholics. Further, every Catholic has always been bound to believe, that the Church must be, now and ever, in her essence unchange- able, imperishable, and infallible ; should she ever cease to possess these attributes, then she never was at any time the true Church. But the new Protestants have altogether lost the con- ception of the infallibility of the Church. Moreover, a Catholic is bound to hold firmly, that a real contradiction between the teaching of the Church and science is not possible, and that there can be merely a seeming contradic- tion ; if, therefore, he feel himself repelled by a definition of the Church, and find it hard for his reason to master, the error is to be sought on his side, and not on that of the Church. So said Dbllinger as late as 1863. 4 No Catholic can or ever could say, as did a member of the Munich Congress (1871), that he was so deeply impressed with the truth of his own conviction, although rejected by the Pope and bishops, that even were he the only mortal man who adhered to this principle, he would never profess any other. This is, and always has been, the stub- born and unjustifiable pride peculiar to heretics, 5 which leads them to take their own judgment as their sole standard, and makes it certain that they will lose themselves in endless in- consistencies and contradictions. 6 1 Abbot Wibald writes (Ep. 147, p. 1250) : ' Illi ipsi qui ob ignominio- sam gloriam haeretici contendunt fieri, non nova inveniunt, sed vetera replicant, et superfluas verborum novitates, quas Apostolus devitandas '34 The Vatican Coimcil. praecipit, quae multorum sunt con-ectione antiquatae, tamquam propria ratiocinatione inventas in contentionem adducunt.' 2 Cf. these expressions with the Eemonstrance du Parlement au Roi du 9 Avril 1753, e.g. 'Que ces voyes d'autorit6 si e'loignees de 1'esprit de la religion n'out janiais et6 plus multipliers a son prejudice, qu'au sujet de la Bulle Unigenitus C'est par la violence, que 1'on soumet les fideles a la Bulle Unigenitus Quelle indetermination ! Peut-elle se concilier janiais avec 1'idee d'un jugement dogmatique, d'un jugement irrcformable de 1'Eglise universelle ?' (p. 182.) ' Combien de cures fideles a leurs devoirs n'ont ete enleves a leurs paroisses par des ordres, que le faux zele de quelques eveques est parvenu a surprendre a votre Majeste ! . . . . Quel spectacle affligeant pour la religion !' &c. Details on this subject in M. Gerbert, Op. cit. 1. iii. c. vii. n. 13 15, pp. 535-544. 3 The Faculty of Douay, in the Declaration of 1704, art. vi. 4 (Du Plessis, t. iii. P. ii. pp. 436, 437), says : ' N. 3. L'infaillibilite' de 1'Eglise n'est pas fondce sur 1'evidence de ce qu'elle propose, mais sur 1'assistance du St. Esprit, et par consequent il ne faut pas rechercher V evidence de 1'objet pour lui soumettre son esprit. N. 4. Si Pinfaillibilite de 1'Eglise n'etait fondce que sur Vevidence du fait, elle n'aurait en cela pas plus d'avantage que le dernier des hommes, qui ne peut aussi se tromper sur ce qui est evident. 10. Reconnaitre un fait, parcequ'il est evident, n'est pas se soumettre a 1'Eglise, mais a une necessite naturelle, qui entraine 1'esprit du cote de 1'evidence.' 4 Munich, Gelehrtenversammlung, 1863, Verhandlungen, p. 56. Cf. Cone. Later, v. et Pius IX. ap. Denzinger, Enchir. p. 219, n. 621; pp. 444-451, n. 1498, 1508. Const. Vat. Dei Filius, cap. iv. 4 The words of St. Augustine apply here (c. Crescon. iii. 3), on the false view of heretical baptism taken by the early African bishops : ' Sicut laudabile est a vera sententia non amoveri, ita culpabile est persistere in falsa.' 6 Cf. Tertull. de Praescr. c. xl. xli. Again, the new heresy has another point in common with those gone before it. Logic and consistency have never been characteristics of heresy ; on the contrary, it is inseparable from glaring inconsistencies and contradictions ; and this feature is to be seen again among the new Protestants, or so-called Old Catho- lics. On the one hand, they no longer acknowledge the ' infal- libilistic clergy' as being Catholic and lawful ; on the other, they demand from them for their members ecclesiastical employ- ment, and to be allowed to exercise the functions of parish priests. They reject an episcopate submissive to the fatal July decrees, but still they make appeal to a higher court of the same Opponents of the Council Heretics. 135 episcopate, thereby acknowledging its jurisdiction ; they seek to bind the Pope by ancient canons, from which they free them- selves. The ancient law of the Church, that no priest may exercise ecclesiastical functions beyond his own diocese, unless by permission of the bishop, they have with sovereign power set aside. The Jansenist Archb : shop of Utrecht, without scruple, exercised his episcopal powers in Bavaria as universal bishop. The parish duties discharged by the priests of the new sect should be considered precisely in the same light as though discharged by priests who have no parochial rights, and in places where such had never been granted to them. 1 The ' Old Catholics' either are or are not excluded from the Catholic Church ; they either do or do not regard the power of the State as forming a part of the Catholic Church. In the former case, as the Austrian Minister of Worship expressed it (Feb. 20, 1872), they must ' consider as lawfully entitled to perform the pastoral functions of the religious denomination acknowledged by law those priests alone who, by the existing laws and the agreements between Church and State, are known to be the regular pastors of the denomination ;' and hence they cannot consider as valid the civil register brought in by the ' Old Catholic' clergy, who had no former rights in the parish ; nor can they consider the marriages solemnised before them as binding. In the latter case they must take their stand on the laws existing for dissenters and other sects, unless they should join some recognised Protestant denomination. Moreover, the ' Old Catholics' vary much in their demands ; some insist on a Church, as of right belonging to them ; others need none, look- ing upon the whole world as their Church ; some desire par. ishes of their own, properly organised ; others perceive this to be ' a fatal course, beset with snares at every step ;' 2 some say the infallibilist bishops and priests still form part of the Church, and are 'the rightful holders of Church authority;' 3 others con- sider them as wholly cut off from the Catholic Church, and as constituting an heretical Church ; some have perceived that the State ' will never, in order to please a few dissenters, deprive of her rights and titles that Church which in the eyes of the whole 136 The Vatican Council. world has an unbroken succession, and the possession of an enormous majority of members and parishes, that Church with which the State long ago entered into close alliance ;* others, on the contrary, have held this to be possible, and have straight- way demanded that the Catholic foundations should be handed over to them as the rightful Church. On the one side they de- clare, 'We accept everything which was received in the Catholic Chmch up to July 18, 1870;' and on the other, 'We oppose not a single dogma alone, but the whole spirit by which for centuries Eome has been animated.' Thus are the new Protestants at variance amongst them- selves, and exhibit that distinctive mark of heresy, disunion ; whilst at the very time of the Vatican definition the unity of the Catholic Church was once again most strikingly shown. In the last century Martin Gerbert wrote : ' What schism could be more terrible than that imagined by those who believe it possible for the bishops in Council to differ from the faith of the Roman Church 'Z But they will ever agree in the same sentence, though differences of opinion may from time to time arise in discussion : for neither to the Pope nor to the bishops is a sudden inspiration given, but the determination to which they come after deliberation is, by the assistance of the Holy Ghost, firm and inviolable.' The head will never be divided from the members ; and thus we see the entire unity of the episcopate Avith the head of the Universal Church, while those who set themselves against the Vatican Council have fallen under the excommunication pronounced by it, and have ceased to be Catholics. 1 Vide Der Conflict zwischen Kirche und Staat in Bayern, p. 86 seq. 93 seq. - Dollinger, Munich Speech, 1871, Report, p. 108. 3 Dollinger, I.e. 109. Dollinger, ibid. 129, 130. Charges against the Council. 137 PART II. CHARGES AGAINST THE COUNCIL. 1. Pretended want of freedom of the Council. 2. Letters on the Council and Friedrich's Journal. 3. Pressure by the Pope and the Curia. 4. Right of proposal. 5. Right of definition. 6. Order of business. 1. Lay diplomacy. 8. Charges against the bishops of the majority. 9. Composition of the Council. 10. Principle of majority. 11. Representation and consent of individual Churches. 12. ' Theologians' and public opinion. 1- What do our able opponents bring forward 1 First, they show great fear lest the acknowledgment of the Vatican Council should bring with it the downfall of the modern State, of the German empire, and, in general, of civilisation and true reli- gion. 1 Another, on the contrary, writes : ' Whoever has cour- age to look calmly in the face the simply horrible caricature presented to us by the Vatican Council will at once lose all fear of its power and vitality.' 2 Wherefore, then, is so much pains taken to oppose that which is in itself ' powerless and in- capable of life'] Hase (a Protestant) is right in saying: 'Had the dogma been withdrawn, or had it been rejected by the ma- jority, the opposition would never have thought of calling in question the ecumenical character of the Council.' 3 The Council is not rejected on formal and juridical grounds, but only by reason of the dogma itself. What, then, is the formal deficiency with which the Council is reproached 1 The answer is : Above all, the notorious want of freedom of the bishops. 4 The same reproach was once cast on the Council of Trent, but was refuted on all sides. 5 In order to prove the want of freedom of the Vatican Council, it would be needful to produce witnesses or documents, and more- over unexceptionable witnesses and documents above suspicion. Up to the present day no one has been able to do this. 6 Is, perchance, a French pamphlet, the author of which dares not even come forward with his name, and the contents of which have been branded as calumnious and lying by five hundred bishops, 7 to be reckoned as proof? Or the expressions of Lord 138 The Vatican Council. Acton, 8 too famous for his activity against the Council? Do the voices of the opposing minority alone carry weight, and not those of the majority, who, be it remembered, would always have formed a majority, even without the subsequent addition of those who were at first, from various causes, amongst the op- positionists ? Do the assurances of all the bishops speaking with one voice of those who were never troubled, and of those who for a short time saw cause for anxiety do all these go for nothing? The freedom essential to the Council is freedom of speech and of vote. This was fully granted, as even the antagonistic accounts prove without meaning to do so, when they report the more than frank expressions of the oppositionists.9 If, on July 18, 1870, two bishops (who, however, on the subsequent defi- nition immediately submitted to it) were able to give a nega- tive vote, ' Xon placet,' it surely would have been as easy, or even easier, for twenty or a hundred to have done the same. Once only, on June 3, was the closing of the debate deter- mined, and then it was oil the motion of more than one hundred and fifty of the Fathers, and was carried by an overwhelming majority, in which were numbered many even of the ' opposi- tion;' and this was done after the hearing of sixty-three speakers in fourteen debates, and with the reservation of the special de- bate, which lasted over four more weeks, and gave many more speakers an opportunity for a free expression of opinion. In truth at no time and in no place has there been such perfect freedom in a like assembly, nor so many occasions given for dis- cussion. 10 1 Vide Dollinger, Allgemeine Zeitung, March 31, 1871, and others. 2 Berchtold, p. 9. 3 Hase, Handbuch der Prot. Polemik, p. 198. 4 Dollinger, ibid, and others. 5 Pallavic, Hist. Cone. Trid. 1. xxiv. c. xiv. 8 Cf. Ueber das Vatican. Concil. Mainz, 1871, ii. pp. 6-12. Schulte's publication, Das Unfehlbarkeits-decret. v. 18 Juli 1870, auf Seine Kirchliche Verbindlichkeit Gepriift (Prag, 1870), was shown in its trne colours, by Bishop Fessler, in Das Vaticanische Concilium, dessen Aus- sere Bedeutung und Innerer Verlauf (Vienna, 1871). 7 Cf. the Ratisbon Pastoral of Oct. 28, 1870, 11. Charges against the Council. 139 * Cf. Frhrn. v. Ketteler, Die Minoritat auf dem Concil. Antwort auf Lord Acton's Sendschreiben, Mainz, 1870. Archiv fiir Kath. Kirchenrechte, 1870, vol. xxv. p. cliii. seq. 9 Histor. Polit. Blatter, vol. Ixvi. p. 198 seq. Ueber das Vat. Concil. pp. 9, 10. )0 Eatisbon Pastoral, Oct. 28, 1870, 12, p. 46. 2. On what, then, is founded the calumny that the Council was notoriously wanting in freedom ? On the letters on the Council in the Allgemeine Zeitung, and on the Journal (Tagebucli) of the Roman Council by Friedrich. These are the two sources, and they form in reality but one, as may be seen by any person who takes the trouble to compare the two. They echo each other and are composed of mere pitiful gossip, often repeated at second and third hand, 1 most shameful expressions being put into the mouths of anonymous witnesses, described as pre- lates, theologians, diplomatists, laymen, &c. 8 The Journal? moreover, indulges in insulting expressions about the highest dignitaries in the Church, such as can only have been dictated by the bitterest hatred. 3 But enough has been said of this book, which is highly praised by its party as ' an historical work.' 1 Petrus Vener. 1. ii. Ep. 33, p. 252 : ' Habent vina hunc morem, ut de vase in vas frequenter transfusa a virtute naturali languescant ; si re- centia hauriantur, vini saporem integre sei-vasse probentur. Sic verba per aures alienas aliorum cordibus committenda referentium inscitia, incuria, industria aut non intellectaru aut neglectam aut depravatam quandoque augent, mutant, minuunt veritatem.' 2 Many of the statements made are simply ridiculous. The Fosfori Infallibili (matches which never fail to strike] were not hawked about for the first time of late (Journal, p. 177), but many years ago. In one of the most important Basilicas, the Credo and Agnus Dei were to be sung on Holy Saturday (p. 331), while on this day both are omitted. Concern- ing the Roman Inquisition, he learns that it still believes that ' horses are made to prick up their ears by the holy souls ; therefore the owners of these horses are to have chapels built to the holy souls on the spot.' He speaks iu Latin with a chaplain ; the auditors, especially the ladies, were never- theless on his side (p. 329), &c. 3 The bishops are flatterers (p. 51), perfidious (p. 137), ignorant (p. 244). He perceived as early as January 2, 1870, that the Council was to be a Synod of flatterers and thieves, ' which we theologians' (p. 251) could not acknowledge. 140 The Vatican Coitncil. 3. ' But/ it is objected, ' the power of the Pope and of the Curia was contrary to all freedom on the part of the bishops.' What, then, was to be done 1 Were the bishops to be released from their oath of obedience to the Pope 1 Was the Pope, out of favour to the episcopal privileges, defended by a small number of learned men in Germany, to renounce rights founded on history and canon law ] Was the disorder which prevailed at Basle to be again regarded as order ? Surely the mere sub- ordination of the bishops to the Pope does not destroy their liberty ! Members of Parliament do not lose their freedom by taking an oath of obedience to the head of the State ; and the oath of obedience taken by the bishops does not bind them to give a vote contrary to judgment and conscience. 1 The Coun- cil is not indeed a sovereign national assembly, with the Pope on the other side as president and chief of the executive power ; the reason being, that neither the assembled bishops nor the Pope lose the rights and spiritual powers given to them by Christ. 2 As the bishops individually are all subordinate to the Pope, so when collected together they are not loosed from this subordination. 3 1 Raynald. a. 1560, n. 60 ; a. 1561, n. 6. 2 Bossuet, Def. P. iii. 1. vii. c. iv. t. xi. p. 9 : ' Quum profecto Concilium nihil aliud sit, quain Cath. Ecclesiae repraesentatio, integris omnibus, quae cuique a Christo sunt, dotibus, non profecto sublatis, ne non reprae- sentatio, sed exstinctio ecclesiasticae unitatis esse videatur.' 3 Cf. Bouix, De Papa, t. ii. p. 220. 4. In every large assembly the right of presiding is so far bound up with the right of proposing questions, that the president has to decide the order of succession amongst the subjects to be con- sidered. But now our opponents deny to the Pope the right of proposing as well as the right of defining, and they make appeal in the first place to the Council of Trent. Every member of the Vatican Council, as of the Council of Trent, had the right of making proposals on the subjects under discussion; but, on the Charges against the Council. 141 other hand, in this as in the preceding Council, except by the presiding cardinals, no new subject could be proposed for dis- cussion and vote. This rule was in fact maintained at Trent, 1 and the Fathers did not thereby lose their needful freedom, but confusion and disorder Avere avoided. 2 The Papal legates at Trent wrote at the time to the Emperor Ferdinand : ' Were each member suffered to make proposals at will the Council would never end ; if the Spaniards exercise this right, so will the French, the Germans, &c. We have more than once told the Fathers that in case they desire a proposal made, they can lay it before the legates ; and this has, as a rule, been done.' 3 In the Councils of the Middle Ages the Papal right of proposition passed unquestioned. The first Councils lawfully held in the East cannot be taken as affording a permanent rule, for at that time the emperor's extensive office of protector of the Church gave to the imperial commissioners the external direction of affairs, and, as a consequence, considerable influence. 4 As a rule, however, they were considered as distinct from the Council; thus the letter of the Fathers of Chalcedon to Leo the Great distin- guishes the Papal power of presiding as that of the head over the members, and the power of the emperor as an honorary pre- sidentship. 5 In conducting the business of the Council, the Papal legates took the initiative from the imperial commission- ers, but they also afterwards conducted it with them, often in a most striking way, as is especially proved by the proceedings of the Fourth 6 and Eighth 7 General Councils. The fact that St. Cyril was Papal legate at Ephesus in 431 is disputed without reason, the very acts of the Council designating him as such. 8 Theo- dosius II. (431) forbade the imperial commissioners sent thither, to take part in the ecclesiastical inquiries and conferences. 9 From the fact that a Council which originally was not ecu- menical may receive the ecumenical character from the Pope taking part in it, nothing follows as to the right of proposition in Ecumenical Councils; if a Council be convoked and held as ecumenical, still the right of proposition belongs to the Pope. It cannot be taken as proof to tho contrary that at Chalcedon the 28th canon was unlawfully brought in and accepted by the 142 The Vatican Council. bishops who were servile to the court of Byzantium ; for the Pope as well as the legates protested against it, and the Orient- als until long after only reckoned twenty- seven canons of Chal- cedon. 10 In later times, the ambition of the Byzantine court once more brought forward the canon rejected by Rome, much as the Gallicans have once more brought forward the Declaration of 1682, annulled by Louis XIV. in 1693. 11 The condemnation of Honorius at the Sixth Council, before the Roman legates were prepared for it, was the result of pressure on the part of the Greeks ; his guilt consisted, as Pope Leo II. plainly declared, in negligence, by means of which heresy was strengthened. It must not be concluded that because the Ro- man legates did not oppose proposals originating on the other side, that they therefore conceded to it the right of proposition. Neither does it follow from the conduct of the legates that it must have been forthwith, and to its full extent, approved and ratified by the Pope. Often the legates were disavowed by the Pope, and blamed and punished for overstepping their powers. 1 Bennettis, Privil. S. Petri, p. i. t. i. p. 514. 2 Pallav. Hist. Cone. Trid. 1. xxiii. c. xii. n. 7. Massarelli's remarks are made expressly of the general congregations, to which alone they can apply, since that which had been determined in them was only made public in the solemn sessions : ' Nemini enim licet nisi solis Praesidentibus proponere.' This last word, as Fessler observes (Das Vatic. Concil. p. 34, n. *), may mean : (1) to propose motions on subjects fixed for discussion; (2) to pi-opose subjects for discussion and vote. The first, in the Vatican Council as in that of Trent, was the right of all members ; the last, in both cases, was the right of the presiding Cardinals alone. 3 Raynald. a. 1563, n. 32. 4 Hefele, Cone. i. pp. 25-33. * Leo, Ep. 98, c. i. : ' Quibus tu quidem, sicut membris caput, prae- eras (&s Kea\}) fj.t\wv f)yffj.6vevfs) in his qui tuum tenebant ordinem .... Imperatores vero fideles ad ornandum decentissime praesidebant (irpbs fvKoafiiav f^pxov), ut Zorobabel Jesu.' The allusion to 1 Esdr. iii. 2 shows the cooperation of the two powers for the restoration of religion. Cf. L. Thomassin, Dissert, x. in Syn. Eph. i. 14, p. 198, ed. Colon. 1784, seq. 6 Cf. De Marca, de Cone. 1. v. c. vi. Leo. M. Ep. 93, ad Syn. ; Ep. 89, ad Marc. (Jaffre, n. 253, 247) preserved completely all the rights of his See. 1 Mansi, xvi. 25 seq. 33 seq. ; p. 316 seq. Charges against the Council. 143 8 The force of the words of Celestine, Ep. 17 (Jaffr6, n. 160), written to the legates appointed to Ephesus, is overlooked : ' Ad fratrem et co- episcopum nostrum Cyrillum consilium vestrum omne convertite, et quid- quid in ejus videritis arbitrio, facietis. Et auctoritatem Sedis Apostolicae custodiri debere mandamus ; ad discrepationem si fuerit ventuin, vos de eorum sententiis judicare debetis non subire certamen.' Mansi, iv. 1119. 10 Dionysius Exiguus reckons this number only; also Theodoras Lector (1. iv. p. 168, ed. Migne), Johan. Scholasticus, Eclogae Hist, by Cramer, Anecd. Paris, ii. p. 101, and elsewhere. Ballerini, in Diss. i. ; Quesnell, a. 451, n. 14, p. 869. This is treated in detail in Photius, vol. i. pp. 76-89. 11 The letter to Innocent XII. of Sept. 14, 1693, is given by Du Pies- sis, t.iii. Append, p. 5, strictly according to the Vatican Archives, Theiner, Hist, de Clement XIV. vol. i. pp. 332, 333. 5. The opinion that the Popes, with respect to the right of de- finition, were in no way superior to other bishops, has been long ago set aside by theologians, and in particular by the Gallicans. 1 The fourth Gallican article of the Declaration of 1682 gives to the Pope, in the decision of questions of faith, the ' principal share' (praecipuas partes). It has ever been acknowledged in the Church that a Council without the Pope cannot be a General Council. Whether the Pope defines with the ' approbation of the holy Council' (sacro approbante Concilio), as has been the case in all Councils in which the Pope was present in person, or whether the Council speaks in its own name, and the con- firmation of the Pope is added, 2 is in essence the same ; but Catholic theologians have ever recognised the participation or confirmation of the Pope to be essential to an Ecumenical Coun- cil. 3 This one historical fact is unassailable, and is enough to prove the Pope's right of definition : no Council, however nu- merous, has ever obtained universal recognition if rejected by the Eoman See, and only those acknowledged by Rome have been acknowledged also by the whole Church. 1 Thomassin, Dissert, xii. in Cone. Chalc. 1 seq. p. 248 seq. The Sorbonne in 1605 condemned the sentence : ' Le Pape comme Pape n'a plus de puissance qu'un autre en ce qui est de la substance et des articles de la foi et qui n'est point determinfi, si ce n'est qu'il lui soit revele par expres' (Du Plessis, t. ii. P. i. p. 542). Febronius himself (De Statu Eccl. 144 The Vatican Council. c. vi. 4, n. 3) says : ' Ei (Papae) competit jus relationis sen primae sen- tentiae, ita ut ipsius sit referre ad Patres, quid de re censendum sit, et p'rimam fen-e sententiam, quae definitionis vim habet, si Patrum sententiis firmetur.' 2 At Constance both forms were used ; the first after the election of Martin V., the last before there was a ' Papa certus.' Augustinus Patri- cius, c. 1488, accurately states the distinction, Ordo celebrandi Generalis Concilii, c. ix. (Walter, Fontes, i. p. 126). 3 Ballerini, not. in Leon. M. Ep. 114 (Migne, 1. iv. pp. 1439-1441). Thomassin, Dissert, vi. in Syn. Occ. ii. pp. 134, 135. A. Duval, Tr. de Supr. Rom. Pont. Pot. p. vi. q. 6, p. 525 seq. ed. 1614. It is also said that the order of business in the Council in- terfered with the freedom of the bishops. The opposition party allow that no settled order of business existed in the General Councils of the first century. 1 At Constance 2 the necessity of some such arrangement was recognised, but under the pressure of extraordinary circumstances the practice of former Councils was entirely set aside. 3 Likewise at Trent no restrictive order of proceeding was established ; Massarelli's notes 4 contain only the order as actually observed there (modus observatus), and not any rule for such an order (modus praescriptus). The ques- tion put by Cardinal del Monte, during the discussion on a de- cree, whether the manner of proceeding gave satisfaction, cannot in truth be taken as proof that an agreement had been made with the bishops upon the whole order of business, as Dollinger desired. The Vatican order of business was in the main the same as that observed at Trent, often agreeing with it even word for word. 5 A full discussion by the Council of the order of business would not have been possible without great loss of time. The right of the Pope to settle this order by virtue of his presi- dential office was not disputed even by the episcopal memorial demanding alterations. The order of business was in the first place drawn up and published by the Pope, 6 then further deve- loped according to the proposals of the majority of the Fathers, suggested by their experience, 7 and as a matter of fact accepted by all the bishops. But in order more effectually to preserve freedom of vote to the Fathers, not only was the draft of the decrees submitted Charges against the Council. 145 whole and entire (integra integre) to their free discussion, so that in word and in writing they could express their opinion upon them, 8 but the privilege of making independent proposals was likewise granted them, naturally under certain conditions, some of which were intended to facilitate discussion. 9 A right of making proposals was fully conceded to the bishops, subject only to the control of the committee appointed for the purpose, precisely as was the case at Trent. 10 Thus the Tope granted to the bishops, in a limited degree, a share in the initiative power which was his, without indeed lowering himself to the position of a president subject to his parliament, which innovators would have had him do. That the presiding cardinals should from time to time in- terrupt bishops, and call them to order, was formally and ma- terially justified by the practice of all parliamentary assemblies, of the more ancient Councils, 11 and even of the Council of Basle, 12 and happened to bishops of the majority as well as to those of the minority. It is said, that in the disputes respecting the Council the Pope most plainly sided with one party, encouraging and com- mending the infallibilists by word and in writing, and blaming their opponents. Should he, then, have been silent when men were beginning to cast doubts upon a truth of which he was convinced, were intimidating and holding up to scorn the most faithful defenders of the Holy See, were announcing as true theological doctrine propositions long ago censured and con- demned, and going even so far as to call the doctrine of infal- libility an heretical doctrine 1 Is it not the duty and the right of the Pope to protect the faith of the Eoman Church from calumny, and to defend it at every point, to uphold the decrees and censures of his predecessors, to preserve the prerogatives of the Apostolic See, especially as the ' Curial system' had be- come the watchword of the opposition 1 The Pope never sought to check the discussion of diffi- culties, but only to check accusations made in the heat of the conflict against the constitution of the Church, and rash censure of a doctrine ever held in high esteem by her, which VOL. i. L 146 The Vatican Council. doctrine, though not yet defined, could never be pronounced indefinable. While, on the one hand, those bishops who considered it as unneeded and inopportune to proclaim the in- fallibility of the Pope's doctrinal decisions as a dogma were ap- pealing to the fact that Catholics had never been so submissive to the Pope as at the present time, those men, on the other hand, who considered themselves as the representatives of German learning called in question in the most shameless way the obedience due to the Pope, and raised aloft the banner of open insurrection. Against this the Pope was forced to lift up his voice, in a manner not to be misunderstood. Neither physical force, nor threats, nor intimidation were employed ; nor has a shadow of proof been brought forward of their existence. The proposal for the definition of infallibility was not amongst those laid before the bishops by the Holy See : it was brought in by an overwhelming majority of the Fathers. Ought the Pope to have simply rejected this petition of the bishops 1 How would it then have been with the freedom of the Council ? What do the oppositionists say on this point 1 If they say the Council would then have been free, they prove that they desired freedom for their own party only, and were willing to see tyranny exercised over the majority of the Fathers ; if they are forced to concede that the Council would not in that case have been free, how can they, in the interests of freedom, complain of the actual conduct of the Holy Father ? 1 Dollinger, Declaration in the Allgemeine Zeitung, March 11, 1870. 2 Mausi, xxvii. 657, 658. 3 Mansi, I.e. 563. 4 Friedrich, Doc. i. pp. 265-276. Cf. Fessler, Das Vaticanische Con- cil. Wien, 1871, p. 32. 5 The passages given in Cecconi's History, i. Test. p. 172 seq., from the vote of von Hefele, then consultor at Rome, drawn up in 1869, prove moreover that many points of the order of business of Nov. 27, 1869, after- wards so bitterly attacked, corresponded closely with the proposals of this learned German, and in more than one respect put to shame the oppo- nents of the Council. 6 Const. Multiplies inter, 27 Nov. 1869. 7 Decret. Legat. 20 Feb. 1870. Cf. Schreiben, Ueber das Vatican. Concil. 2, pp. 7, 8. 8 Const. 27 Nov. 1869, 7. Charges against the Council. 147 9 Ib. 2. Cf. Fessler, I.e. p. 34. 10 Eaynald. a. 1563, n. 32, Lit. Leg. ad Ferdin. I. Imp. 11 Pallavic. Hist. Cone. Trid. 1. ix. c. i. n. 7. 12 Mansi, Cone. xxix. 378. An attempt prejudicial to the freedom of the Council was indeed made, but it did not proceed from the side of the Pope ; far otherwise. The interference of secular diplomacy, by which in truth an attempt was made to exercise pressure on several bishops of the majority, and on the Pope himself, throughout the course of the Council, was called forth and extolled by that very opposition party which proclaimed the freedom of the Fathers injured by the Pope, and would fain have seen his legiti- mate influence lessened. In the newspapers of this party, since shown in its true heretical colours, there are not alone complaints as to the exclusion of laymen, and especially of the envoys of princes ; but it is moreover said that the opposition party was supported by France, and by French influence in the States of the Church ; that many bishops who were of this mind thought with painful longings of the Council of Trent, at which the envoys of ruonarchs supported the foreign bishops ; that iirst France and then Austria and Prussia mingled drops of worm- wood in the joyful cup of the homage of the majority. The two letters of Count Daru, and later his notes, were received, we are told, with exultation, and afterwards the memorials of other powers, until it was at length perceived that the Curia had succeeded in setting aside the attempted interference of govern- ments, so that the combat, as was fitting, had to be fought out by the bishops themselves. Without speaking of the distinguished ladies who ' had much to do' with the minority in the Council, the so-called ' matri- archs,' the warning given to not a few of the bishops on their road by the statesmen of various countries, and the influence exercised by accredited envoys in Eome, strengthened by menaces and intimidation from the home press, were all without doubt intended to act as pressure upon the bishops. Even before the opening of the Council attempts at dissuasion and intimidation 148 The Vatican Council. of all sorts were made. 1 The adherents of Janus were con- stantly recalling the circular concerning the Council, issued by the former Prime Minister of Bavaria, the Prince von Hohenlohe, dated April 9, 1869. The Pope was openly threatened with the abolition of the Concordats, the withdrawal of the French garri- son, the prohibition of Peter's pence, with attacks on Church property, and with numerous apostasies, especially among the Orientals. Intrigues were prepared long beforehand among the Armenians in Constantinople, the results of which are now seen. ' This intimidation,' says a bishop, ' these menaces, supported by a press conducted in a manner corresponding, lasted for months; but some doubt being felt as to their effect, every means was at the same time employed to protract the labours of the Council, and so to lengthen its deliberations that the setting in of the hot season, or some other longed-for occurrence, might make the definition impossible, and render its postponement or that of the Council itself indispensable. And now persons, who must be well aware of the whole conspiracy against the freedom of the Council, bring the outrageous charge against the Pope, as though he had ' through moral pressure' so impeded the freedom of the Fathers of the Council, that they voted for doc- trines which they did not acknowledge as true and handed down by tradition.' 2 1 Friedrich, p. 349, tells us that as early as the summer of 1869 the Prussian and Bavarian governments were desirous that the aged king of Saxony should represent them at the Council as their envoy, which, how- ever, he declined to do. 2 Ratishon Pastoral, Oct. 28, 1870, 15, p. 49. 8. Truly comic was the demand made by a portion of the German press, that the decision should rest with the bishops of the opposition, even though few in number, because they repre- sented the largest dioceses, and the intelligent inhabitants of capitals and large towns, and because they themselves were the more learned men, while those who belonged to the majority were far behind them in intelligence and learning. This is in- deed a new rule never thought of in early ages. Had the votes Charges against the Council. 149 oi the bishops been weighed according to the ' intelligent inha- bitants' of their cities, the head-quarters of luxury and unbelief, how would it then have fared with the Church 1 Had such a rule prevailed in the first eight centuries of the Church, the subject of so much praise, the heretical bishops of the ancient imperial city Constantinople, who were numerous, would have had the decision in their hands. Do bishops, then, come to a General Council merely as deputies of their people, as envoys from their dioceses ? Or were the bishops of Nicea, for instance, in 325, estimated according to their learning 1 Was the decree of the Council ascribed rather to their knowledge, or to the Holy Ghost 1 Were not the Apostles ' unlearned men,' through whom God put to shame the wisdom of this world ? And have not all heretics charged the bishops who condemned them with ignorance ] x Here again the so-called ' old Catholics' show them- selves the worthy followers of heretics who have gone before ; they come forward as the sole ' defenders of learning ;' but as is ever the case with falsehood, in so doing they involve them- selves in fresh contradictions. But have the majority of the Fathers been in truth con- victed of ignorance of theology and weakness of intellect ? If coarse abuse could be taken as proof, then indeed more than enough would have been given. 2 Happily, however, actual proof to the contrary exists. But how stands the case with the ' learned opposition bishops' ? Alas, they lost their reputation at once when they submitted to the decrees of the Council. And even while they were as yet held in honour, a most unfavourable account of their learning was given us by one of the fanatical ' fallibilists,' who pretends to have observed them closely, and to have had considerable influence with them ; 3 one prelate makes no use of theology, another no use of books. In general, on the side of the minority there are to be found ' no truly great and imposing characters.' The defenders of German learning were anxious to render even the bishops docile pupils and mere tools of their own ; while they also felt themselves called upon to save the honour of governments. 4 So far as the theological arguments of the opposition are The Vatican Council. concerned, it is easy to show that they are of no great scientific value. The oppositionists even suffered themselves to be betrayed into declarations which would have met with severe censure, not merely from the ' Curial authorities,' but also from the ancient theological faculties, even from that of Paris ; e.g. that the denial of our Lord by St. Peter was an apostasy from the Faith ; 5 that all the Apostles, in an equal degree with St. Peter, were made foundation stones of the Church ; 6 that the words in St. Luke xxii. 32 are to be confined to the person of St. Peter only during the * time of Christ's Passion ; 7 that the striking words of the Fathers on the privileges of St. Peter are to be taken as rhe- torical exaggerations. 8 The arguments brought forward against the definition proved weak, and were by no means left unan- swered, as has been maintained. The pamphlets were refuted in numberless replies, the speeches in powerful counter-speeches,9 and the observations of individuals in the discussions of the dogmatic committee. But even if the fitting solution should not have been found for every doubt and every difficulty, is that any gain for our opponents ? Did the ancient Church delay her defi- nitions until learning had removed every difficulty from the path *? Even now, after so much labour, do not scientific difficulties still exist on the canon of Scripture established by the Church, on the mysteries of the Trinity, the Incarnation, and the Eu- charist 1 1 M. Canus, De Locis Theol. 1. v. c. vi. seq. 176. 2 Take, for example, the revolting manner in which the Bishop of Pad- erhorn is reviled in the Journal before mentioned and elsewhere, and also the late Bishop of Wurzburg, Dr. Von Stahl, well known for his tho- rough knowledge of theology. * Friedrich, from whom also the other quotations. 4 Interesting indeed is the statement in Friedrich's Journal, p. 283 : ' Had not German learning [in the person of its representatives] saved the position [of the governments] and established an opposition in the Coun- cil, and kept it continually alive, even against the will of the govern- ments ! ! [a noble confession !] and had not our Lord God placed folly and ignorance on the side of the majority and of the Curia, governments would have been brought to shame in the face of the whole world.' All parties in turn come in for a share in his compliments. 5 M. A. de Dominis, 1. i. c. vi. n. 35 seq., censured by the Faculty of Cologne, 1618, and by that of Paris, 1617 (Du Plessis, t. iii. P. ii. p. 197 ; t. ii. P. ii. p. 105, prop. 8). Charges against the Council. 151 8 De Dominis, I.e. n. 45, 49, c. ix. n. 7. Censura Colon. l.c. pp. 197, 200, as prop, haeretica. 7 De Dominis, l.c. c. ix. n. 8. Censura Colon, l.c. p. 200. Cf. Synops. Observ. n. 18, 22, 114, 134. 8 De Dominis, l.c. n. 19 seq. Censura Colon, l.c. When E. Dupin (Nouvelle Biblioth. des Auteurs, i. i. pp. 8, 19 ; P. ii. p. 274) designated the expressions used by St. Augustine and Theodoret in praise of the greatness of the Roman Church as compliments, the Archbishop of Paris, Francois de Harley, considered the epithet offensive, and Dupin explained : ' Je n'ai point pretendu que ce fussent des complimens, quine soientpas fon- des sur la verite, reconnaissant que ces eloges sont tres-ve'ritables' (Du Plessis, t. iii. p. ii. p. 383). ' Vide Animadversiones in quatuor libellos, and elsewhere. Cf. His- tor. Polit. Blatter, vol. Ixvi. p. 500 seq. 9. The composition of the Council was another ground of com- plaint, inasmuch as the Vatican Council numbered amongst its members entitled to a vote many who were not bishops. 1 But there were, in fact, only 59 of these to be set against 608 consecrated bishops that is, they formed not even a tenth part of the assembly; 2 they consisted only of special personages, to whom by reason of their position the right of taking part in a Council is granted by ecclesiastical law, as was laid down as early as the Council of Basle. 3 These are cardinals, who, as electors of the Pope and organs of the central government of the Church, hold a prominent position, and who had, moreover, the right of vote in the Councils of the Middle Ages. 4 Also generals of orders, most of whom have more priests under them than have many bishops ; and abbots-general, who, since the Seventh General Council, have had power to confer minor orders on members of their order, 5 and have possessed qua^ c i-episcopal rights. 6 No one felt any scruple when Paul III., in 1542, sum- moned to the Council of Trent the bishops, abbots, and others, ' to whom, by virtue of right or privilege, the power of tak- ing part and voting in a General Council has been granted.' 7 Bishops lawfully consecrated, even though they possess no dio- ceses (bishops in partibus infidelium), belong by virtue of con- secration to the episcopate. 8 ' Bishops without dioceses' (Maret and others), whom the opponents of the Council could number The Vatican Council. amongst themselves, were made welcome by them. Had they been able to claim the whole number, we may be sure no com- plaint would have been made of their lack of diocese. 1 Kenrick, De Pontificia Infallibilitate, Neap. 1870, p. 35. 2 Fessler, Das Vatican. Concil. p. 22. 3 Thus, Augustin. Patric. Ordo Celebr. Cone. c. iii. (Walter, Fontes, p. 120). It is well known that Peter d'Ailly (Mansi, xxvii. 561) and Ger- son (De Pot. Eccles. ii. 250) proposed a still further extension of the right of vote. 4 Hefele, v. 984, seq. vi. p. 116. * C. xiv. Hefele, iii. p. 447. Thomassin, de Vet.et NovaDiscipl. p. i. 1. iii. c. xvii. n. 3. 6 The Ahhot of St. Columhan had even, according to Bede, several bishops under him. 1 Const. Initio Con. Trid. ed. Richter, p. 6. 8 R. M. Coppola, Sul Diritto suffragio de' Vescovi titolari e rinun- ziatarii nel Concilio Ecumenico, Napoli, 1868. Walter, Kirchenrechte, 157, p. 294. Louder still are the complaints against the ' principle of majority, which in matters of faith is absolutely inadmissible, but which was followed nevertheless.' a 'I ask,' writes Palla- vicini, ' with whom rests the power of decision 1 with the ma- jority, or with the minority? The practice of all councils, of all assemblies, and even common sense itself, give an answer to the question.' In every assembly in which important questions are decided all are settled by the majority, and no one has yet maintained that the decision should rest with the minority. 2 Had the Pope agreed with the minority in the Council, it is certain that the new Protestants would have praised him as much as they abuse him. Even the Gallicans considered a deci- sion unassailable when sanctioned by the Pope and a majority of the bishops. 3 Moreover, Mgr. Maret, once so renowned amongst the oppositionists, even held the Pope to be bound to confirm the decision of the majority in the Council;* and it was only when it became plain that the majority of the Fathers was on the opposition side that support was sought in another quarter. How is the absolute inadmissibility of deciding by majority proved? By the theory, newly discovered, of moral Charges against the Council. 153 unanimity, 5 which however has no sure foundation, either juri- dical or historical. 6 Even in the first six General Councils no such absolute unani- mity was required. Neither was it insisted upon at Constance ; still less at Basle or at Trent. Some amongst the bishops might be affected by heresy, as was the case at the First General Council of Xicea. According to this principle it would always be possible to such to put a stop to any definition. The idea of ' moral unanimity' is, moreover, uncertain and elastic in the extreme, and has never been defined with precision.? Further, ' moral unanimity' did, as a fact, exist when the final and solemn votes were given, which, to the exclusion of all preparatory votes, are alone to be considered here. Two bishops only voted ' non placet,' and even these afterwards gave in to the decision of the Council. Those who withdrew beforehand renounced thereby their right of voting, and Avere no longer aembers of the Council. The votes passed July 13th were not lecisive, and therefore many members of the Council were ab- sent who were strongly in favour of the definition, and after- wards voted solemnly for it. Amongst the 62 who at that time voted ' yes' conditionally (placet juxta modum),the majority was composed precisely by those who, in opposition to Gallicanism, desired the words ' of himself, and not through the previous agreement of the Church,' to be added (ex sese, non autem ex consensu Ecclesiae). While all this proved the perfect freedom of the Fathers in giving their votes, it also showed the moral unanimity within the Council ; and this was rendered more striking by the adhesion of many bishops who had been unable to appear in Rome, and who far out-numbered those who volun- tarily absented themselves. But it has been said that in Eome the first ' no' weighs incomparably more than the later ' yes.' Why should this be? When, at the provisional voting of July 1 3th, certain bishops replied in the negative, they were opposing no decree of the Church ; but when they afterwards voted ' yes,' they did so in the face of an unassailable decree. The Bishop of Ermland observes : 8 ' A deputy cannot disregard a law passed by the Chambers, and confirmed by the king, on the ground 154 The Vatican Council. that lie with the minority has ever expressed himself against it and dreaded its consequences. This rule, which applies to the government of a country, applies likewise to the laws of the Church, and bishops are bound to acknowledge and yield obe- dience to the canons lawfully passed by the highest ecclesiastical authority, even though they may previously have entertained opinions as to their opportuneness differing from the opinions of the majority; and even though from the excited and misguided state of public opinion they may have feared evil consequences from the passing of a decree in itself perfectly just.' It is true that some fifty bishops did absent themselves from the fourth solemn assembly in the Vatican, July 18, 1870, and in a declaration dated July 17, 1870 before the definition there- fore upheld and renewed their former negative votes ;9 but still they could neither turn the Council into a ' rump Council,' nor call in question the authority of the decree of 533 bishops, sanc- tioned by the Pope, as indeed the greater number of the absent bishops have themselves explicitly acknowledged. 10 A docu- ment such as this, external to the Council, and proceeding from a fluctuating miiiority of between a ninth and a tenth part of the Fathers, could have as little weight against the Council as the protest of the 43 bishops assembled under John of Antioch at Ephesus in 431 against the true Council led by St. Cyril ; n it did not even carry the weight of an engagement on the part of those who signed it not to submit to the authoritative decision, and it was, moreover, retracted by the submission which followed. 1 Berchtold, Dollinger, &c. 2 Cf. c. i. De his quae fiunt a maj. parte, cap. iii. 21. Innoc. III. 1. ix. Ep. 125 (Migne, ccxv. 945). Turrecrem. de Eccl. 1. iii. c. Ixv. Jaco- bat. de Concil. 1. vi. a. 3, n. 1, 2, 57. 3 Natal. Alex. H. E. saec. vii. diss. ii. prop. 2. Begnier de Eccl. Christi, p. i. sect. i. c. iii. Tournely, de Ecclesia, q. 4, a. 4, 5. 4 Maret, Du Concile et de la Paix Religieuse, i. p. 424. 5 Dollinger, Allgemeine Zeitung. De 1'Unanimite morale necessaire dans les Conciles pour les Definitions dogmatiques, Naples, 1870. L'Una- nimitu dans les Conciles ecumeniques, Paris, Dentu, 1870. 6 Steccanella, Adversus novam Doctrinam de necessitate Episcop. Consensus, Romae, 1870. Schneemann, in den Laacher Stimmen fiber das bkum. Concil. ii. 3, pp. 52-70. M. Schrift, Ueber das Vatican. Concil. iii. pp. 13-16. Charges against the Council. 155 7 Fessler, I.e. p. 107. 8 Letter to the Minister v. Miihler, Dec. 20, 1871 : Germania, Jan. 24, 1872. 9 The Archbishop of Cologne and the Bishop of Mainz did not sign the declaration. 10 Cf. Fehr. v. Ketteler, Die Minoritat auf dem Concil. p. 11. Cologne Pastoral, Sept. 12, 1870, p. 10 seq. Treves Pastoral, Sept. 14, 1870. 11 Cone. Ephes. Hard. iii. 750. 11- Here again is another point of resemblance between this and former heresies. The theory that in a Council the majority can- not pass a decision, that bishops are merely the deputies of their Churches, and that their resolutions must first be agreed to by these Churches, was promulgated for the first time in Germany by the Protestant Samuel Pufendorf. 1 E. Eicher 2 and his ad- herents in France, amongst whom above all are numbered the Jansenists, gave expression to precisely the same theory. In the foregoing century, its boldest defender, with the exception of Febronius, 3 was Petrus Tamburini of Pavia, according to whom in the last resort the faithful are entitled to decide whether a Council has in truth represented the Universal Church. 4 Pre- cisely similar is the doctrine of the apostate M. A. de Dominis, which, in so far as it insisted on the assent of laymen as neces- sary to the definition of an article of faith, 5 was declared by the Sorbonne, 1617, to be heretical, and destructive of the stability of the Church. 6 Even amongst the Calvinists, in the years 1565, 1582, 1598, the opinion that the government .-of the Church, and in particular the definition of doctrine, belongs to the people, was condemned, 7 and appeal to the civil magistrate was forbidden. 8 Moreover, Fenelon did not, as has been maintained, 9 consi- der bishops as legates and deputies of their dioceses, that is, of parts of the Church, but as deputies of the Church Universal. 10 The assembly of the French clergy (1715) declared schismatical and heretical the opinion that bishops are to be looked upon as only delegates and interpreters of the assembly of the faithful, and only commissioned to declare the views of the Churches over 1 5 6 The Vatican Council. which they preside. 11 The theological Faculty of Cologne also declared, January 11, 1715, that assent or acceptance on the part of the faithful could impart no power or additional efficacy to the definition of the Pope. 12 Neither can the decrees or judgments of a General Council be subject to the examination and approbation of individual diocesan synods, nor can their power of binding depend upon their acceptance by such synods, a proposition condemned by Pius VI. (1794) on occasion of the pseudo-Council of Pistoja. 13 . ' Pufendorf, de Habitu Religionis Christ, ad Vitam Civilem, 38, p. 126, ed. Brem. 1687, teaches that the members of a Council are not to be considered as members of a senate or college : ' Quorum major pars suffragiis suis propositum negotium decidere queat, sic ut ista decisione quisque Christianorum stare utique teneatur, praesertim cum in universum veritas non semper a major! suffragiorum numero dependeat,' but are not to be looked upon otherwise than as ' deputati ecclesiarum.' ' Ad quam de- cisionem amplectendam Ecclesiae non tenentur, nisi quatenus cumdivinis literis congruam deprehenderint Quodsi autem a Conciliis aliquid super moribus decretum fuit, id non aliter vim obligandi habere intelli- gitur, quam ex antegresso mandate aut subsequente approbatione eccle- siarum, sic ut Concilia nullum in Ecclesiam imperium obtineant.' 2 Richer, de Eccles. et Politica Potestate, 1611. Cf. also Du Plessis, t. ii. P. ii. p. 308. ' Febron. de Statu Eccl. t. i. c. vi. 8, n. 12, p. 436 seq. 4 Tamburini, Vera Idea della Santa Sede, p. 204. Analisi delle Pre- scrizioni di Tertulliano, 47, 65. Bolgeni, 1'Episcopato, vol. ii. c. ii. a. 1, p. 93 seq., n. 412 seq. ; and Risposta all' Appellante, Macerata, 1787, p. 431 seq. Dollinger, A. Z. March 11, 1870, wrote in precisely the same sense, and, as the Civilta Cattolica remarked, he wished to bring an Italian's Jansenistical wares into esteem in learned Germany. s M. A. de Dominis, de Rep. Christ. 1. i. c. xii. n. 42. 6 Du Plessis, t. ii. i>. ii. p. 106, n. 13. In like manner the Faculty of Cologne, 1618, ibid. t. iii. p. ii.pp. 203, 204. To the earlier sentence (I.e.), n. 9, of the same De Dominis ' Totam Ecclesiam esse columnam et hanc Ecclesiam totam non esse in solis episcopis et presbyteris.neque Spiritum ilium, quern Christus sui vicarium relinquebat, in terris alligatum esse soli ordini presbyterorum aut episcoporum' the Faculty of Cologne re- marked (p. 202) : ' Propositio partim haeretica, partim fraudulenta ; indi- cat enim in definitionibus Conciliorum plebem habere votum decisivum et apostolum eodem detorquet.' 7 The Synod of Paris, 1565, condemned the writings of Jean de Moreli : ' Car en attribuant le gouvernement de 1'Eglise au peuple, il veut introduire une nouvelle conduite tumultueuse et pleine de confusion populaire ;' and the Synod of Montpellier, 1598, says : ' Le jugement et les decisions, qui concernent la doctrine, n'appartiennent qu'aux ministres et aux pasteurs' Charges against the Council. 157 (Actes Eccl6s. et Civ. de tous les Synodes Nation, de 1'Eglise RefonnSe de France, t. i. pp. 58, 221). 8 Synod of Vitre, 1582 ; Assembly of Montauban, I.e. pp. 160, 176. Franc. Turrettini, Instit. Theol. P. iii. q. 22, de Vocat. Pastor. 18. Cf. Bianchi, t. i. 1. iii. 1, n. 6, pp. 442, 443. Dollinger, A. Z. I.e. 10 F6n61on, de Summi Pontif . Auctorit. c. xxxiv. t. ii. p. 861, ed. Vers. 11 Congr. Cleri Gall. Collect, des Proces-verbaux, t. vi. Pieces Justifi- catives, pp. 505, 506. 12 Roscovany, Rom. Pontif. ii. p. 62 seq. 13 Const. Auctorem Fidei, n. 11. Denzinger, Enchir. p. 391, n. 1374. 12. ' It rests finally with us theologians,' says Friedrich, 1 ' to decide whether the Council be ecumenical or no. I answer for it that as an Ecumenical Council it will be disowned.' Natur- ally enough the Vatican Council did not submit to the guidance of such theologians as these. But what sort of theologians are they 1 They are theologians who have all but copied the book of the apostate Archbishop de Dominis, which was an object of indignation and disgust to all Catholics in his day, and even to Gallicans. The independent ' German theologians' are come to this, that they bring forward heretical wares as being ' genuinely Catholic.' They are liberal theologians, who are entirely under the dominion of so-called ' public opinion,' 2 who bow before the reigning spirit of the world, who desire to strip the Church of her divine character, 3 and who, in the place of her supernatural certainty, desire a purely natural moral certainty springing from universal testi- mony. To obtain this no supernatural aid of the Holy Ghost is needful f but woe to the Church, the Bride of Christ, if ever- changing ' public opinion' were able to triumph over her ! The description given by Tournely (1729) 3 holds good of these liberal theologians : ' The authority of the Church dispersed throughout the world (Ecclesia dispersa) is disowned, and to a General Coun- cil alone which is itself made subject to the judgment of indi- viduals, and is not in truth acknowledged is appeal made as the highest judge in cases of dispute. The sacred dignity of Pope and bishop is violated ; simple priests are placed almost on a level with bishops ; the right of private judgment in matters 158 The Vatican Council. of faith is claimed and usurped, not merely by simple priests, "but even in the most insolent manner by laymen ; the Church is represented as so completely shrouded in darkness, that scarcely a faint spark of light seems to be left within her.' 6 1 Journal, p. 203 ; also p. 345 : he wrote, that in fact the Council could no longer be spoken of as ecumenical, although, alas, the bishops could not be quite clear on the subject. 2 Gioberti (La Riforma Politica, Torino, 1856, p. 54) : ' La dittatura dell' opinione, e quindi dell' ingegno ha luogo nella Chiesa come nello stato. In virtu dell' opinione i fedeli hanno un potere sulla gerarchia. Dall' opinione dipende la signoria estragerarchica dell' ingegno nella societa cristiana ; ma non e mai antigerarchica. In ogni societa oltre i poteri ordinarii e necessario un potere straordinario. Questo 5 create dall' opinione e fondato su di essa. L' ite docete e detto anchi ai laici. II laicato lo esercita ora col commercio, ora colle conquiste.' Dr. Dollinger expressed much the same idea in his speech, Sept. 28, 1863 (Verhandlun- gen der Kath. Gelehrtenversammlung in Miinchen, p. 47), when he pointed out public opinion as the extraordinary power existing in the Church side by side with the ordinary power, and which he likened to the race of prophets amongst the Hebrews. 3 ' Humanum conari Ecclesiam facere ;' Cypr. Ep. 52, ad Antonian. 4 Cf. Historisch-polit. Blatter, vol. Ixvi. p. 508. 5 Du Plessis, D'Argentre Collect. Judic. t. iii. p. i. pp. 179, 180. Tour- nely, ibid. p. 183 : ' Hoc statuimus et contendimus, .... legem publica et legitima auctoritate latam firmam ex sese et inconcussam esse debere, nee private cuicunque, ut earn infinnet, fas esse inquirere in examen modum et motivum, quo lata est (Can. de loc. v. 5, quoted) Quod- cunque supponatur legis motivum, fieri numquam posse, vi promissionum Christi, ut Ecclesia erroneam acceptet et approbet sententiam. Ergo legis literae, quae sola subsistit et vim habet, standum est ac supponen- dum, ne ulla deesset ex requisitis conditio ad firmam, certam et inconcus- 6am defmitionem.' PART III. THE HOPES OF OUR OPPONENTS. 1. A new and ' freer' Council. 2. Dollinger's proposal. 3. Pre- tended warfare of the Church against the State. 4. Excommunica- tion. 5. The Council a test of States. 6. The heathen State and State omnipotence. 1. Throughout the opposition literature the hope was expressed of a ' new Ecumenical Council,' really free in discussion, which should do away with the Vatican Council of 1870. 1 Yet this hope was over and over again checked by the harmony of the assembled bishops, ever plainly expressed, and it must have been The Hopes of our Opponents. 159 acknowledged from the beginning to be a delusion by all who understood the subject. ' Never,' wrote Bossuet on a certain oc- casion to Leibnitz, ' will an example be found of a definition once made being deprived of its power by posterity.' Our opponents say that a new/ree Council should be assem- bled ; the governments of States should compel the Pope to do this for the avowed purpose of ' revoking the new dogma, and declaring the Vatican Council of no account.' This, then, would be a really free Council ! And it should be held in Germany, whither the bishops of the Latin race would either come in small numbers, or not at all. That would indeed be a universal Coun- cil ! And, moreover, appeal is made in the case of Bavaria to the Religionsedikt, 56, by which the ruler has the right, if divisions arise in any religious denomination, of causing an ec- clesiastical assembly to be held, but the concluding sentence is ignored, ' without mixing himself up in matters of religious doctrine.' Some have cherished the hope that the successor of the pre- sent Pope might set aside ' the offensive portions of the decrees of Pius IX.,' and the recognition of the Prussian monarchy 1 re- fused by Clement XII., but granted by Benedict XIV., has been brought forward as a precedent ; but this shows as little concep- tion of the dogmas and essence of the Catholic religion as the notion that the same end might be obtained by imposing cer- tain conditions on the newly elected Pope. Eeasonable, from a human point of view, was the hope of the Revolution that the Papacy was buried with Pius VI., and the expectation that the power and cunning of men would put a stop to any future Papal election, or at least render it doubtful or invalid ; 2 but, seen by the light of the Catholic faith, this hope is idle. Catholics rely on the promises of our Lord, who will not withdraw His aid from His Bride, nor suffer the rock of Peter to fall to ruins. But the less they mix themselves up in the concerns of other religions, the more annoying to them is the way in which men who have not the slightest call to interfere, and who would never dream of obeying the Pope, still insist upon considering the future Papal election as their own affair. 160 The Vatican Council. 1 Berchtold, p. 10 ; Friedrich, Journal, p. 343 ; and others. 2 The following appeared in the Allgemeine Zeitung, June 5, 1872 : ' We have hitherto spoken only of the possible influence of the European powers on the next Papal election, and of the conditional acknowledgment of the new Pope by the German empire. But what if it should come to pass that there is no valid election ? Would not the thousand years old, the "wonderful" organisation of the Roman Catholic hierarchy fall com- pletely all to pieces, so that side by side with the Gallican Church we should necessarily see national Churches in Italy, Spain, and Germany professing the Catholic faith, but existing independently and without any compulsory legislation ?' When the declaration of Fulda, published by the majority of the German bishops, became known, the design of holding a Council on this side the Alps was felt to be impossible. There- fore Dr. Dollinger, in his declaration, appealed from the bishops ill educated to the bishops better educated, or in reality to pub- lic opinion, since he demanded that a conference should be held before the assembled bishops, or before a committee of the cathe- dral chapter of Munich, at which a government official should be present as a witness ; or he promised to submit to the judg- ment of the most distinguished of German historical critics. But it is precisely from history that we learn how fruitless such disputations and conferences have ever been. Huss and Luther also professed themselves ready to retract, if only they were met with clear and convincing arguments. Take as an example the dis- putation at Leipzig, where each party claimed the victory. This shows us that although the evidence before us is (objectively) convincing, we may, if we choose, refuse to be (subjectively) con- vinced. Again, is a conference or a disputation to be of greater weight than a definition of faith pronounced by a General Council 1 ? or is it to overthrow an Ecumenical Council? In the Protestant movement of 1517, the Humanists were dragged into the fray; and now, in the new Protestant movement of 1871, the historians are dragged in, and are made to decide in a matter of faith ; for with such are we dealing, and not simply with an historical question, as Dollinger with the Protestant Hase sup- poses. The Hopes of our Opponents. 1 6 1 3. ' What, then, is the contest which must now be fought out?' asked the Counsellor of the Court of Appeal, Von Enhuber, at Munich, September 23, 1871 ; and he forthwith received the answer : 'It is no other than a contest of the Church against the State.' 1 But were not these the words of the Jansenists and other sects, who gave out that their desire was to defend the State against the Church? How has the Church too much power, especially when her Head is oppressed as he is now? Who can point to a single act of aggression on the part of the Church ? Is it possible to consider as s\ich the dogma of Infallibility, which has to do purely with matters of faith? and does not the mere attempt to prove it such involve gross misrepresentation of the dogma? When the peace between Church and State is troubled, the disturbance is not begun by the Church. Can it be said that the Pope did so, when he de- clined diplomatic interference in questions of dogma? or the Council, when with an immense majority it pronounced a purely ecclesiastical decree? or Catholics, who, in obedience to their ancient faith, submitted to the highest authority in the Church, and made themselves answerable for her just rights, which were threatened by open foes, and by others secret, but soon to be unmasked 1 or the priests, who have defended the freedom of religious profession, and the rights of their Church, for the most part at the cost of great sacrifice, while those amongst their brethren who were untrue to the Church, and therefore excluded from her, were taken under the protection of the State, and sometimes loaded with honours besides ? And are Catholics alone to hold their peace in the face of intrigues against Pius IX. and against the future Papal election, though their aim be no- thing less than endangering to the utmost the freedom of con- science of many millions of Catholics, for the sake of a small number of apostates? are they to hoM their peace when all that is sacred is dragged in the dust, when absurd caricatures are hailed with delight, when the police are called in on all occa- VOL. I. M 162 The Vatican Council. sions, and encouragement is given to ecclesiastical rebellion and anarchy in the Church? 1 Report, Berlin, p. 97. 4. Again, is the administration of the laws of the Church an attack on the State? or the excommunication, which, according to primitive right, founded upon Holy Scripture, and existing even amongst Protestants and Freemasons, is pronounced by bishops against apostate and heretical priests? which sentence, far from injuring the civil rights of those concerned, has, on the contrary, been the means of making many persons famous who Avould not otherwise have been so. When the priest Thomas Braun was excommunicated for denying the dogma of the lui- roacnlate Conception, 1 the highest court of justice in Bavaria, on his bringing .an action, declared, May 3, 18GO : ' The Catholic priest loses his claim on the Catholic Church for the support due 1o his position on quitting that Church, equally whether he leaves her willingly, or whether, having been ordained, he is cut off from her in punishment by the existing ecclesiastical autho- rities. For the penalty of complete exclusion from the Church, so long as it lasts, entails the loss of all rights springing from union with her, precisely as though the person in question left her of his own free will. 2 Moreover, the Catholic Church, by the well-known principles of her constitution, is entitled to demand from her subjects the acceptance on faith of all her decrees dogmatically pronounced, and to punish every positive and continuous denial, even though it be directed against one dogma only, with the greater excommunication, 3 provided the punishment, in the case in question, be inflicted by the proper ecclesiastical courts. There can be no doubt, according to the Yerf.-Urk. Supplement ii. 38A and 40, that in this case the episcopal court of Passau was acting within the limits of its power. But the civil court is not competent to decide whether the excommunication has been justly pronounced against the plaintiff.' The case of the excommunicated priest Thomas Braun has The Hopes of our Opponents. 163 exactly repeated itself; whether the dogma in question be that of Papal Infallibility or of the Immaculate Conception, the case is the same from the standpoint of the civil authorities ; both dogmas were published in the same manner, and one is as bind- in" upon Catholics as the other; the excommunication was in each case pronounced by the proper authority. Whether the Government of the country does or does not itself accept the dogma in no way affects the matter ; the Government must in any event regard it as rightfully existing within the domain of the Church ; and within this domain, according to Catholic prin- ciples, the ecclesiastical authority alone has power to decide. Since in matters touching the Catholic Church the State courts are by no means competent to act, neither most surely are their administrative magistrates, especially in deciding whether an excommunication has or has not been rightfully pronounced. The jurisdiction of the Church authorities is acknowledged by the constitution ; interference in favour of persons cut otf from the Church, for the protection of rights which belong to them only as members of the Church, can in no way be justified, espe- cially as by this means the jurisdiction of the ecclesiastical authorities is nullified, and complete Ccesarism ensues. 1 It is by no means true, as was maintained at Munich in 1871 (Re- port, p. 98) : ' That the bishops, when the dogma of the Im. Conception was denied, forbore to disturb the peace of the country,' while in the case of the new dogma they ' at once raised a storm, in order apparently to get the sceptre of the State itself into their own hand.' - On this point was quoted Pcrmaneder, Handbuch des Kath. Kirchen- rechte, vol. ii. 557, n. 2; Kreitmahr, Amnerk. vol. v. c. xix. 41, n. 3. 3 Reference was here made to Annotat. ad Cod. Civ. v. c. xx. 4, V.-U. Sup. ii. 41, coll. 38a. 5. The Vatican Council, together with its first great object of defending the Catholic Faith, and keeping it pure from the cor- rupting influences of rationalism and subjectivism, serves also as a test of States, as to whether and in what degree they still pre- serve the Christian character. A State which is still Christian cannot repudiate its duty towards a recognised religion endowed with constitutional rights, 164 The Vatican Council. in favour of a sect clearly recognisable as such, and declared to be a sect by the competent Church authorities, and which, whether it will or no, proves itself by its own conduct to be such. It is true that a pretence is made of exceeding difficulty in deciding where the real Catholics are to be found, whether amongst the adherents of the Vatican Council, or its opponents. But nothing is easier or more simple. The Catholic Church is there where are the Pope and the Bishops ; where exists com- munion with and obedience to the See of Rome ; she is the Roman Catholic Church alone. 1 Even the heathen emperor Aurelian knew well how to distinguish true Catholics from the followers of Paul of Samosata, when he promised the Church buildings, about which a dispute had arisen, to those in com- munion with the Italian bishops, and especially with Rome. 2 Have not the followers of Dollinger already proved themselves a sect, and openly declared themselves Jansenists, by bringing from Utrecht (where a Roman Catholic bishop was in residence) Archbishop Loos, who was cut off from communion with the Church as a Jansenist, and was not recognised by a single Catholic bishop 1 Plain rights cannot be set aside by an appeal to the ' irre- futable German science,' and to learned men Avho, besides an unparalleled changeableness of opinion, are answerable for the grossest errors, from which no one yet has succeeded in vindi- cating them ; the faithful turn their backs upon them as false prophets, while the enemies of Christianity lend them the most open assistance ; and those men who have long ago banished ' the whole apparatus of the history of revelation to the cabinet of old curiosities' are the loudest in their protestations against ' the good pleasure of an old man or his advisers being the highest law for the actions and inquiries of the human mind.' 3 Where nothing exists beyond pure negation the Catholic is never to be found ; the ' reformers' of to-day have nothing posi- tive about them, nothing but destruction and anarchy. If the ' Christian State' of these latter days does not perceive this, if it still thinks to find support in these reformers, then all Chris- tian consciousness is completely lost to it. The Hopes of our Opponents. 1 65 1 This is the Church spoken of by the Prussian Verfassungs-Urkunde, 1850, art. 15, and the Bavarian Concordat, art. 1. " Eus. H. E. 1. vii. c. xxx. The Theological Faculty of Paris, 1611, in its censure of a book having great affinity with Janus, entitled Le Mystere d'Iniquite, c'est a dire, 1'Histoire de la Papaute, by Philippe Mornais Du Plessis, pronounced : ' Merito omnes Catholici exsecrari illos debent, qui S.R.E. primatum atque unicam Petri Cathedram scriptis suis evertere moliuntur, cum certissimum sit, Ecclesiam, quae est mysticum corpus visibile Christi, nulla re vel nota accuratius.dignosci, aut a factiosis Satanae conventiculis quam uno visibile capite secerni posse' (Du Plessis, t. ii. P. ii. p. 49). 3 Allgemeine Zeitung, Jan. 7, 1870. 6. But to go still further ; the question of the day is, whether the ancient heathen State is to be revived in its most brutal de- velopment. Against the infallibility of the Church in her office as teacher is opposed in truth the omnipotence of the State in every sphere of life. The heathen State, as Dollinger once wrote, 1 was founded on the principle of utility, of interest, and of brute force ; it sought to penetrate all spheres of life, and as an ever-working, ever-grinding machine, to bow down the nations beneath its yoke. It believed, as up to the very latest times the Govern- ment of Japan also believed, that the doctrines of Christianity would undermine its very existence ; worship of the fatherland was to it the soul of religion. Freedom of conscience was un- known to it, 2 and it saw in the Christian Church merely an un- lawful society (collegium illicitum). There are in the present day many who desire to replace the power of the State upon its old ground ; they would abso- lutely root out from the Word of God the passage (Acts iv. 19; v. 29), ' God must be obeyed rather than man.' They would enforce the observance of all State laws already passed or to be passed in future (according to the good pleasure of the lawgiver of the day), as binding unconditionally and inviolably, without regard to the laws of God and of the Church. The bishops, it is said, much as in Russia, 3 are to submit without condition to all existing laws, and to those which by a continual increase of 1 66 The Vatican Council. government interference are yet to be passed by an insatiable majority in the Chambers. They are said never to be at liberty to consider a human law as non-binding, which declaration nei- ther bishop nor simple layman could ever make without gravely sinning against the first principles of Christianity. 4 This means 110 longer to render to Cassar the things that are Caesar's, but to deliver up to him also the things that are God's; obedience is to be withdrawn from God, and to be slavishly given to men, who are no longer His representatives, and who are overstepping the authority which in justice belongs to them. The authority of the Church is no longer to be acknow- ledged, but in every sphere State omnipotence alone ; and while it is impossible to point out one single case in which the rights of the State have been violated in consequence of the new dogma, the ancient rights of the Church, on the contrary, have been al- ready grievously violated and set at naught. Civil governments will be driven so far as no longer to acknowledge any law not springing from themselves ; the State will be made into a god, and divine honours will be claimed for it so long as unbelievers guide the helm. This is the meaning of the fight for life or death with the Catholic Church, which is set down to her political pretensions. A man who has himself merely political aims, and has no con- ception of religious belief, supposes that the same is the case with others also ; and when he meets with firm convictions founded on faith, he presumes some criminal intention, and calls physical force to his aid. Thus true Catholics are suspected by the mighty of the earth as dangerous to the State ; whoever stands up for their doctrines is ' no friend of Ca?sar ;' the war- fare is carried on against them, not merely by a restless and uneasy press, by the intellectual pride of the puffed-up wise ones of this world, and the childish darkness of men of super- ficial knowledge ; but the police and the magistrate as instru- ments of despotism are also brought forward against them, they are threatened in their possessions, and if possible are deprived of all rights. Almost every form of unbelief or of superstition is tolerated, eveiy sect, every party; from Catholics alone are all The Hopes of our Opponents, 167 rights to be withdrawn ; their steadfastness is fanaticism, their sacrifices and assemblies are conspiracy. Thus the endeavour of their enemies is to reduce all true Catholics to the position of the Christians of the first three cen- turies. But however grave the times may be, however fierce the battle raging against the Church, Catholics rely not on man, nor on any earthly power, but on the promise of God, which shall never be overcome, and the future will prove that once again, on July 18, 1870, the Church spoke ' to the honour of God our Saviour, to the exaltation of the Catholic religion, and to the welfare of all Christian nations. 1 Dollinger, Heidenthum uud Judenthuin, p. 697. - Dollinger, I.e. p. 667. Neauder, Kircheiigeschichtc, i. pp. 47, 48, iii. a. 3 In Russia every Greek schismatic bishop has to swear at his conse- cration that he will duly and conscientiously hold the office confided to him, Loth according to the general and personal instructions, regulations, and orders given, and to be in future from time to time given, in the name of his imperial Majesty by the officers appointed by him ; and further, that he will maintain inviolable all things ' prescribed by the regulations of the most holy directing Synod for the whole of Russia, and by the Synodal documents, and likewise all that in the future may be unanimously ordered and laid down as law by the same most holy Synod, with the permission of his imperial Majesty' (M. Rajewsky, Euchologion der Orthodox- Katholischeu Kirche, Wien, 1861, ii. pp. 94, 97). < This is well pointed out, and a reference is made to Art. 16 of the Augsburg Confession and the Reformers, by a Protestant writer in the Germailia, June 2, 1872. ESSAY IV. THE POPE AND THE BISHOPS. No assertions have been so frequently repeated as these : that by the Vatican Constitution of the Church the position of the bishops has been changed ; that the episcopate has become an unsubstantial shadow, and that bishops are now no longer bishops, but Papal deputies or plenipotentiaries, and merely in- struments of the Pope, who has been invested with the uni- versal episcopate. These are the charges brought by the opponents: 1. That the Vatican Council has converted the bishops into mere pleni- potentiaries of the Pope. 2. That it derives episcopal authority from the Pope, and not from God. 3. That it invests the Pope alone with the almost boundless power of the Church. Let us take these propositions separately. PART I. THE BISHOPS HAVE NOT BECOME MERELY VICARS OF THE POPE. 1. The power of the Pope the supreme but not the only power. 2. Doctrine of theologians upon the ordinary and immediate power of the Pope. 3. The power of the Pope does not annul the ordinary power of the bishops. 4. The bishops as successors of the Apostles. According to the doctrine of the Church, the power of the Popes is a full power, as it is called by the Council of Florence, 1 because there is no power in the Church in which the Head of the Church does not partake. 2 It is a supreme power, as the Council of Trent 3 calls it, because in the Church there is none more exalted, because all others depend upon it, itself inde- pendent of all. 4 It is an ordinary power, as it is called by the- Bishops not merely the Popes Vicars. 169 Fourth Council of the Lateran, 5 because the Pope, by the rights appertaining to him as head of the bishops, can perform eccle- siastical acts in any diocese. As the bishop can, for example, according to his ordinary right, baptise where the parish priest either from carelessness or from some hinderance has not bap- tised, so the Pope can supplement the remissness of a bishop. 6 The power of the Pope is an immediate power, because it springs not from the Church, not from the bishops nor Councils, but from Christ Himself, and also because it can be directly exer- cised upon the faithful and their pastors." It does not abolish the direct power of the bishops, but supplements and compen- sates it when interference is desirable for the good of the Church. 8 The power of the Holy See is an episcopal power, because its rights even over bishops are those of a bishop, and because the Pope is the bishop of bishops, the father of the fathers, the pastor of pastors. 9 But as St. Bernard, 10 and with him all theologians, 11 teach, this supreme Papal power is not the only power to be found in the Church. The Pope has no power to abolish the episcopate ; 12 he cannot outstep the limits of Christ's appointment, and all the earlier definitions of the Church are binding upon him. The Vatican Council plainly declares that the supreme authority of the Holy See is not opposed to the authority of the bishops ; bishops have by the Holy Spirit been constituted successors of the Apostles, and endowed with ordinary and immediate powers. 13 1 Potestas plena. Deer. Union. Denzinger, I.e. n. 589, p. 201. * Aichner, Compend. Jur. Eccles. Brix. 1862, 24, p. 66, note 3. Petr. Ballerini, Vindiciae Auctorit. Pontif. c. iii. n. 10, p. 172, ed. Monast. 3 Potestas suprema sen summa. Trid. Sess. xiv. 4 Aichner, I.e. Ballerini, I.e. n. 1, p. 165 seq. : ' Suprema ilia est quae supra omnes Ecclesiae potestates ita eminet, nt nulli istarum subjiciatur/ With Pius VI. (Respons. super Nuntiatnris Apost. c. viii.) the Fathers of the Provincial Synod of Aix, 1850, tit. ii. c. vii., describe it as ' suprema, plena numerisque omnibus absoluta,' and call it 'veri nominis juris- dictio, cui populi populorumqne pastores subjacent, adeo ut in jure eccle- siastico snmmus Pontifex nihil non possit, ubi id exposcit necessitas aut just a Ecclesiae utilitas.' * Potestas ordinaria. Later, iv. 1215, c. iii. e. c. xxiii.de Privil. T. 33 1 70 The Pope and the Bishops. (Rom. Eccl.) : ' Disponente Domino super omnes alios ordinariac potesta- tis obtinet priucipatum.' 8 Ballerini, I.e. n. 7, pp. 170, 171. ~ Potestas immediata. Ballerini, tie Potest. Eccles. Suminor. Pontifi- cum, c. i. 1 et 2, pp. 9-11. Gerson ap. Thomassin, p. i. 1. i. c. vi. n. 14. Also the Cone. Provinc. Burdigaleuse, 1850, tit. 4, c. i. of the Pope : ' That he is summus pastor, qui per universum orbem solus dioeceses instituit vel dividit iisque praeficit episcopos et jurisdictione immediata ubique pollet' (Freppel. de Primatu Rom. Pontif. Taumn, 1870, p. 14). 8 Gerson, de Potest. Eccles. ii. p. 256 : ' Plenitudo potestatis non potest esse de lege ordiuaria nisi in unico summo Pontifice formaliter et subjective. Alioquin ecclesiasticum regimen non esset monarchicum et habere posset multiplex caput ex aequo, quod aperte est haereticum. Nee tamen plenitudo potestatis papalis sic intelligenda est immediate super omnes Christianos, quod pro libito posset immediate jurisdictionem in omnes per se vel per alios extraordiuarios exercere; sic enim praejudicaret Ordinariis, qui jus habent immediatius, imo immediatissimum super plebes cis commissas actus hierarchicos exorcendi. Exteuditur igitur plenitudo potestatis papalis super omnes inferiores solum dum subest necessitas ex defectu Ordinarioruui inferiorum vel dum apparet evidens utilitas Eccle- siae, quemadmodum dici potest de episcopis respectu plebanorum sen propriorum sacerdotuin, quorum possunt supplere defectus.' Cf. Decret. 1. i. tit. 10, de Supplend. Neglig. Praelat. Calixtus III. wrote to the Em- peror Frederick (Aen. Sylv. Ep. 385) : ' Non est, cur aliquis operam nostrarn criminari possit, tamquam latins evagemur quam nobis liceat aut tamquain in alienam messem falcem mittere videamur, cum non hujus aut illius provinciae sedMHt'vemorZus^j'aesitZafiinimapostolicaesedis specula consecuti simus. Quae quuin ita sint scimus tamen, e.os, qui vocati sunt inpartcm sollicitudinis, non esse turbandos suamque cuique jurisdictio- nem, nisi fors item abutantur, servandam esse non ignoramus.' 9 Potestas episcopalis. Theod. Stud. 1. i. Ep. 34. Bernard, de Consid. 1. ii c. viii. n. 15. Cf. Thomassin, r. i. 1. i. c. xi. n. 3. Coustant. Praef. in Epist. Rom. Pont. p. xi. n. 15. 10 Bern, de Consid. 1. iii. c. iv. u. 17. 11 Ballerini, I.e. p. 171, n. 9. Neubauer, in Theol. Wirceb. t. vii. Tr. de Leg. c. iii. a. 5, n. 106, p. 140. 12 Gerson, de Statib. Eccles. Cousid. 4 : ' Status episcopalis non ita subest statui papali, quod ilium Papa possit annullare, sicut nee status papalis posset humauitus destitui.' 15 The words run thus : ' Tantum autem abest, ut haec Snmmi Ponti- ficis potestas officiat ordinariae ac immediataeilli episcopalis jurisdictionis potestati, qua episcopi, qui positi a Spiritu S. (Act. xx. 28) in Aposto- lorem locum successerunt (Trid. Sees, xxiii. c. iv. de Ord.), tamquam ve.ri pastorcs assignatos sibi greges, singuli singulos, pascunt et regunt, ut oadern a supremo et universali Pastore asseratur, roboretur ac viudi- cetnr.' Bishops not merely the Pope's Vicars. 171 2. The Vatican Council has imputed no new powers to the Pope. Before the Council no one hesitated in using the expressions commonly employed by theologians. Thus we read in a paper that obtained the prize 1 offered by the Theological Faculty of Munich in 1868 : ' It is lawful for the Pope to place reserva- tions upon the jurisdiction of bishops.' Whosoever can place reservations upon the jurisdiction of another holds the supreme authority. This power of supreme pastor possessed by St. Pt:ter is an ordinary and immediate power, since it is derived from the lips of Christ Himself. According to the doctrine of the pri- mitive Church, the inheritance of this supreme power conferred upon St. Peter has descended upon the Bishop of Rome. By virtue of this immediate power of jurisdiction, which extends to all the faithful, the Pope has authority to retain and to forgive the sins of the faithful over the whole world. 2 Schulte used to have no hesitation in ascribing to the Pope the plenitude of the power of the priesthood conferred by Christ Himself, 3 and no objection was made when Phillips wrote : 4 ' Christ has given to Peter the full, supreme, and ordinary power extending over the whole Church.' 5 Yet now it is made a difficulty that the Council has adjudged to the Pope the ordinary and immediate power as well over all Churches as over all pastors and all the faithful. 1 Hausmann, Gesch. der Ptipstl. Reservatfalle, Ratisbon, 1868, p. 5 seq. - According to the Cone. Trid. Sess. xiv. cap. vii. de Casib. Reserv. 3 System des Kirchenrechts, Giesseu, 1856, pp. 178, 190. 4 Kircheurecht, v. 201, p. 0. 5 Even Gallicaus, such as Natalis Alexander, recognise the full and ordinary power of the Pope. 3. One of the chief allegations against the third chapter of the Vatican Constitutions is this : that it ascribes to the Pope the ordinary and immediate power of jurisdiction in every diocese, together with the fulness of supreme power ; and it being in- conceivable that there should be two possessors of the ordinary and immediate power of jurisdiction for each diocese, two bishops, 172 The Pope and the Bishops. two spouses, the words can only be taken to imply that the Pope is the bridegroom-general for each and every diocese, conse- quently is properly speaking its only authorised bishop, and the resident bishop becomes merely a dependent of the Pope, an acting intermediary, charged with some of his powers. 1 But as far as this metaphor of marriage is concerned, it is only a metaphor, and the same conclusions cannot be drawn about the mystical spiritual marriage of a bishop with his diocese as about the natural marriage of a man and woman. 2 In this sense each see must have two spouses Christ and the bishop. When the Apostles constituted their disciples, Timothy, Titus, and the rest, bishops of certain places, they still exercising their apos- tolic supremacy, each of these Churches must have had several spouses. The parish priest may also be considered as spiritually espoused to his parish ; but this parish forming part of the dio- cese partakes in the general relation of the latter to the bishop. Secondly, if there were in the same diocese two men having the same spiritual power it would, of course, be irregular and abnormal ; but it is not so of two powers existing at the same time, of which one is subordinate to the other. The parish priest also has an ordinary and immediate jurisdiction, which is sub- ordinate to the bishop, and does not exclude his jurisdiction. 3 Bishops have an ordinary and immediate jurisdiction, which is also subordinate. 4 Just as a judge of a court in which cases are first heard is not the less truly a judge because over him are other judges of higher courts, so a bishop is not the less truly a bishop because he is subordinate to the Pope, the Vicar of Christ. The Pope has been compared by St. Thomas Aquinas to a king iu his kingdom, the bishops to the judges in their special cities. 5 As a king may for just causes (for government should, according to St. Thomas, never be arbitrary) displace a judge from his office, so the Pope, when the safety of the Church de- mands it, can remove a bishop from his see, as Pius VII. did in France after the Concordat of 1801. A king may limit the powers of a judge, and the Pope may, by reservations, partitions of dioceses, and other measures, limit episcopal jurisdiction. 6 Bishops not merely the Popes Vicars. 1 73 As a king imparts of his own full powers authority to his infe- rior officers, so the Pope may by his supreme authority transfer full powers to the bishops, in which case the bishops, as the Council of Trent teaches, may act as delegates of the Holy See. 1 Berchtold, pp. 7, 8. 2 Innocent III., following still earlier usage, often has recourse to this metaphor, especially about the translation of hishops, for example : 1. i. Ep. 326, 335, 447, 490, 1. ii. Ep. 278, pp. 291, 306, 422, 456, 845, c. ii. vii. de Translat. Episcop. i. 7, and even calls the spiritual hond in a certain sense fortius quam carnale, that can only be loosed by divina auctoritate (per Christi vicarium). But the translation of bishops shows that this vinculum spirituale can be loosed. Salmeron (Andries, Alph. Salmeronis Doctrina, p. 192) says : ' Vinculum episcopi cum sua ecclesia, quantum est ex parte utriusquc, indivisibile esse deberet ; sed qnia Ecclesiae aedi- Jicatio exigebat, ut ex variis causis solveretur voluit Deus, ut solubile esset per suum vicarium.' In relation to another matter, Salmeron uses this comparison, p. 237 : ' Sicnt copula matrimonii non toilet vinculum matrimonii, novum inducendo, sed firm at antiquum ; ita etiam consecratio noninducitnovamet superfluam jurisdictionem .... sed stabilit antiquarn datam a Papa (confirmante) ante consecrationem. ' In the act of appoint- ment of the bishop the Pope appears as ratifying the bond in the place of Christ. 3 In their censure upon the work entitled La Defense de 1'Autorite de N.S. le Pape, par J. de Vemant, Metz, 1658, the Sorbonne made this statement in reference to the proposition, p. 44 : ' Les cures ne sont pas immediatement etablis de Jesus-Clmst,' and similar ones, pp. 46 seq., 448, 478: ' Hae propositiones, quatenus asseruntvel inferunt potestatem jnris- dictionis curatoram non esse immediate a Christo, quantum ad institu- tionem primariarn, falsae sunt et decretis S. Facultatis contrariae, salva semper immediata episcoporum in praelatos minores seu curatos et ple- bem subditam auctoritate' (Du Plessis, t. iii. P. i. p. 104). And in 1735 the Sorbonne said : ' Propositio quae tollit ah episcopo immediatum regimen parochiarum suae dioeceseos est ministerii episcopalis eversiva et Verbo Dei contraria' (ib. p. 214). 4 Thorn, in 1. iv. d. 17, q. 3, a. 3, sol. 5, ad 3 : ' Inconveniens esset, si duo aequaliter super eamdem plebem constituerentur, sed quod duo, quo- rum units est alio principalior, super eamdem plebem constituantur, non st inconveniens, et secundum hoc super eamdem plebem immediate sunt et sacerdos parochialis et episcopus et Papa. 1 5 S. Thorn, in lib. iv. sent. d. 20, q. 4, a. 3, ad 3, quaestiunc 4, sol. 3 : ' Papa habet plenitudinem potestatis pontificalis quasi rex in regno, episcopi vero assumuutur in partem sollicitudinis quasi judices singulis civitatibus praepositi.' Cf. in 1. ii. dist. et q. ult. : ' Sicut se habet po- testas Dei ad omnem potestatem proconsulis : sic etiam se habet potestas Papae ad omuem potestatem spiritualem in Ecclesia.' Turrecrem. Sum. de Eccl. 1. ii. c. Ixiv. Cf. Phillips, Kirchenrecht, v. 220, p. 339 seq. 1 74 The Pope and the Bishops. 4. But this comparison has been violently attacked, because it is said to repudiate altogether the divine constitution of the episcopate as well as the continuance, if not the right, of any apostolic succession. To this we reply, first, that a comparison should never be stretched beyond the point of comparison, which in this case is the extension of power, and the question of the origin of the power is wide of the mark ; secondly, that we must never forget to make the distinction between the divine institution of the episcopate and the appointment of each individual bishop, as well as to distinguish between the succession of bishops in the episcopate and that in the apostolate properly so called. Bishops are, indeed, successors of the Apostles, as we learn from the Councils of the Vatican and of Trent, but this does not mean that everything that appertained to each individual Apostle appertains also to each individual bishop, each having the same supreme power. 1 They are their successors, not as being the immediate witnesses and ambassadors of Christ furnished with extraordinary powers, but only as ordinary pastors and guardians of the Church. The individual bishop is not the successor of an Apostle as the Bishop of Rome is the successor of St. Peter ; but the congregation of bishops with the Pope at its head is the successor of the College of Apostles.- The Apostles were not limited to any particular space in the exercise of their power ; the bishops are limited to their dioceses, and this limitation is an arrangement rendered necessary by the constitution of the Church. 3 The opinion of theologians is divided upon the ques- tion of how far the episcopal authority is derived immediately from God ; 4 and this we proceed to inquire into more closely. 1 The Sorbonne in 1617 censured as follows the proposition of M. A. de Dominis (De Rep. Chr. 1. ii. c. i. n. 9, 13, 15), Prop. xiv. : ' Sicut Apos- toli simul et in solidum aristocratice curam gereLant Ecclesiae cum po- testate aequali et universal!, ita episcopi omnes simul et in solidum eandem regunt Ecclesiam, singuli cum plena potestate. Haec prop, est haeretica et schismatica quoad ultima verba " singuli cum plena potes- tate." ' Prop. xv. : ' Episcopi dicuntur Apostolorum successores, quia in Derivation of Episcopal Authority. 175 eorum officio, quod erat Apostolorum omnium commune, succedunt omnes omnibus in solidum. Haec prop, est haeretica et schismatica cum agat de jurisdictionis apostolicae potentate.' Prop. xvi. : ' In potestate uni- versali succedunt episcopi non modo universi, sed etiam singuli. Haec prop, haeretica est et schismatica, ut duac praecedcntes' (Du Plessis, CoU. Jud. t. ii. P. ii. p. 106). * Phillips treats this subject in detail, Kirchenrecht, i. 23, p. 167 seq. Passaglia, de Ecclesia Christi, lib. iii. c. ix. seq., c. xxviii. seq., pp. 124 seq., 329 seq. Cf. Alex. Halens, p. 4, q. 49, membr. 6, a. 3, 2. Thorn, in 1. iv. sent. d. 19, q. 1, a. 3, ad 1. Cajetah, t. i. tract. 3, pp. 42, 43. Dom. a Soto, in 1. iv. d. 20, q. 1, a. 2. Bellarmin. de Rom. Pontif. 1. iv. c. xxv. Petav. de Eccl. Hierarch. 1. i. c. v. ; 1. iv. c. vii. Suarez, de Fide, disp. 10, sect. 1, n. 4. Pignatelli, Consult. Canon, t. i. cons. 14, n. 3 seq. p. 19 seq. Natal Alexander, H. E. saec. 1, diss. iv. 4, n. 3, ad 3, t. iv. p. 240. Petrus Ballerini, de Potest. Eccles. c. i. 4, p. 15 seq. ed. Monast. Schenkl, Syntagma Jur. Eccles. Salisb. 1786, 36, note 2. Card. Gerdil, Apolog. Compend. del Breve super Soliditate, Opp. ed. Rom. xiii. pp. 135, 136. Also Pichler, Gcsch. der Kirchl. Trennung, ii. p. 587 seq. 6. * Gerdil, Animadv. in Febrou. posit, xxv. Opp. xiii. 305 : ' Equidem positi snnt episcopi regere Ecclesiam Dei, non ut singuli toti Ecclesiae regendae incumberent omniaque munia ; quae ad Ecclesiae regimen perti- nent, singuli obirent, quod sine perturbatissima confusione fieri non pos- set, sed ut singuli earn portionem regerent, quae sibi cuique obtigisset, idque non private cujusqne judicio et ai-bitrio, quod nunquam licuit, sed ex legibus, quibus ecclesiastica disciplina continetur, atque ex ejus su- premi capitis auctoritate, quam ad continendos in ordine et officio episco- pas atque ad unitatis vinculum constriugendum prorsus necessariam Bar- thelius agnovit.' Against Sarpi's theory, vid. Pallavicini, Hist. Cone. Trid. 1. vi. c. iii. n. 1 seq. ; 1. xii. c. iii. n. 1 seq. Cf. also Bolgeni, 1'Episcopato, t. i. c. vi. art. 3, p. 212 seq. ed. Orvieto, 1837. 4 Gerson, de Potestate Eccles. Opp. ii. p. 238, de Statibus Eccles. Consid. 2 : ' Status praelationis episcopalis in Ecclesia quoad sui colla- tionem primariam fuit immediate a Christo datus primis Apostolis, sicut status papalis Petro, licet postmodum talis collatio fieri potuerit et facts sit in successoribus per homines.'' PART II. How FAB EPISCOPAL AUTHORITY is DERIVED IMMEDIATELY FROM GOD. 1. Distinction between the power of order and the power of jurisdiction. 2. Jurisdiction received from the Pope ; Council of Trent. 3. Formula of preconisation. 4. Opinion of theologians. 5. Lainez. 6. Objections answered. 7. The appointment of bishops. 8. The Councils of Florence and Basle ; authority of the Councils. 9. Bishops not merely advisers, but judges. 10. Neither the Vatican Council nor the Council of Trent has decided whether episcopal juris- diction is derived from the Pope or immediately from God. i j6 The Pope and the Bishops. 1. There is a distinction made in the Church between the power of order (potestas ordinis) and the power of jurisdiction (potes- tas jurisdictionis). 1 The first is conferred by consecration, the second by the mere appointment. He who dispenses the power of order is only an instrument, but in imparting the power of jurisdiction he exercises authority and dominion. The former can neither be changed nor lost ; the latter can be changed, re- stricted, or removed. 2 If an. heretical bishop exercises his power of order that is if he baptises, or ordains, or says Mass these acts are all valid, whilst acts of jurisdiction exercised by such a one are invalid, 3 because the power has been withdrawn from him. If, for example, a suspended priest dispenses the Sacra- ment of Penance, his absolution is generally invalid, because in dispensing the Sacrament of Penance he exercises not merely the priestly power, but also the power of jurisdiction, and of this his suspension has deprived him. Further, the episcopal power of order can exist without the power of jurisdiction, as, for example, in the case of a bishop consecrated merely for epis- copal acts.* And conversely, jurisdiction can be exercised with- out orders, as by a vicar capitular in a vacant see, or by a bishop nominated by the Pope, but not yet consecrated. 4 By ecclesiastical laws, by Councils, and by the Pope, the power of bishops in the matter of jurisdiction may undergo, and has undergone, many changes. But that which is received im- mediately from Christ must be abiding and unchangeable. Theo- logians teach tli at the power of order of bishops proceeds im- mediately from God ; not so the power of jurisdiction, for this it is given to men to confer. If the power of order and the power of jurisdiction were indivisible, if the latter were con- tained in the former, or both were equal in origin, the power of jurisdiction in the case of all bishops must be equal as the power of order is equal ; there could be no metropolitans or pa- triarchs, 5 and the power of jurisdiction could no more be lost than the power of order. The episcopal power of jurisdiction * i.e. Confirmation, ordination, and certain blessings. Derivation of Episcopal Authority. 177 is therefore not derived immediately from Christ in so far as it exists in individuals ; it has been established by Christ, but is not conferred immediately by Him upon individual bishops ; it is imparted to them by the Head of the Church, or bishops whom he lias authorised. Thus the unity of the episcopate, so much insisted on by the Fathers, is fully upheld ; the Holy See is head, root, spring, origin of the spiritual authority f this agrees with the saying of Optatus of Milan and others, that St. Peter was given the keys of the kingdom of heaven that he might impart them to others. It agrees also with the rights of the Head of the Church to judge and remove bishops, to found new bishoprics, to divide and unite others, or to increase or lessen their power and dignity. 1 S. Thorn. 2, 2, q. 39, a. 3, in 1. iv. d. 19, q. 1, a. 3. Gerson, de Potest. Eccles et Orig. Jar. Opp. ii. 225 seq. Cf. Schwab Gerson, p. 723. Card. Gerdil, de plenitudine potestatis episcopalis an et quomodo singulis episco- pis tribuenda, Opusc. Hi. de Lire ; Opp. t. xi. p. 117 seq. '- Lainez ap. Pallavic. I.e. n. 5, ap. Raynald. a. 1562, n. 124: ' Potestas igitur ordinis a Deo pcndet pront consecvatio et est immutabilis. In alia, qtiae jurisdictiouis est, occurrit etiam potestas hominis, ideoque variatnr saepius et aafcrri potest ab eodem homine non materia solum, sed etiam potestas. Et quamvis jurisdictionis omnis in uriiversutn auctor sit Deus, iainen illam in S. Pontifice tamquam in fonte collocarit, a quo alii omnes earn hanriant, sicut doniinari animantibus et terrae a Deo est, huic vero vel illi loco praesse aliunde hoc dominium pendet aliisque causis adscri- bitur.' According to Salmeron (vide J. B. Andries, Alphonsi Salmeronis Doctrina de Jurisdictionis Episcopalis Origine ac Ratione, Mogunt. 1871, sect. 1, c. iii. pp. 66, 67) the ' potestas ordinis=facultas, qua quis potest exequi quosdam actns eminentes in Ecclesia, qui vel siinpliciter vel saltern ex ordine (ordinarie) non possnnt fieri a non consecrate' is contrary to the ' potestas jurisdictionis=praelatio quaedain sive guperioritas per quam clericus dirigit sibi subditum fidelem in vitam aeternam secundnm legem divinam vel canonicam per actus qnosdam, qui etiam a non consecrato exercere possunt.' Cf. Lainez ap. Pallav. 1. xix. c. vi. n. 6 seq. 3 Gerdil, I.e. p. 118: ' Discrimen ex eo petendum, quod sacramcnta, tametsi hominum niinisterio peragantur, vim tamen efficiendi habent a Deo, quo fit, nt si quis ordinis potestate pollet, cetera adhibeat, quibus sacramenta ilia constant, nihil jam impressam a Deo efficientiam cohibere valeat. Secus quod attinet ad regimen. Nam etsi episcopatus ad Eccle- siae regimen sit a Christo institutus, non ex eo fit, ut quisquis episcopalem ordination susceperit, hoc ipso regendi munus explicare valeat. Quid enim si haereticus ab haeretico in episcopum ordinatur vel schismaticas a schismatico ? Quid si Catholicus etiam quod et f actum quandoque acce- pimus sic ordinatur, at nulli ecclesiae praeficiatur ? Quid si pulsus a VOL. I. N 178 The Pope and the Bishops, sede eua episcopus in alienam dioecesirn immigraverit, num jure suo in ea regendi officium assumet? Quibus plane liquet, potestati ordinis non ita cohaerere facultatem regiminis, ut sejtmgi ab ea nequeat. Cujus rei summa lia,ec est, quod ordinis potestas per sese constare potest velut absolutum quiddam et perfectum, nee aliud requirit praeter subjectam materiam aptam sacramento, in quo vim suam exerat. Contra regiminis facnltas, ut et omnis praefectura, in eorum genere est, quae referuntur seque habent ad aliud extrinsecum quod nisi adsit, nee ilia esse aut intel- ligi possunt, velut nee pater esse aut intelligi potest, cui nou sit filius, aut dominus, qui servum. aut patronus qui clientem non habeat.' 4 Bouix, Tract, de Principiis Juris Canon, p. iv. c. iii. 2, p. 425 seq. ed. Monast. 1853. The Faculty of Cologne censured in 1618 this pro- position of M. A. de Dominis ' Quando iiufertur tota jurisdictio indigno .... tune respondeo etiam ordinem auferri' as a ' propositio plus quam falsa et haeretica' (Du Plessis, t. iii. p. ii. p. 210). 5 Gerdil, 1 c. pp. 123, 124 : ' Sed ex ipsa remotiori antiquitate solidior quaedam suboritur consideratio, quam et ipse Thomassinus opportune attingit. . . . Clamant sc. adversarii, episcopos Apostolorum successores esse idque .... concedimus. At re.moto Petro pares certe planeque ae- quales ceteri fuere Apostoli nee unus aut plures etiam praerogativam ullam sibi arrogare poterant aut vindicare, vi cujus alterum quempiam obstricturn sibi aut ullo gradu inferiorem haberent. Igitur et episcopi, quatenus Apostolorum succpssores vi episcopalis ordinationis, quam ae- qualem omnes perinde suscipiunt, in pari aequalitatis gradu constinuntur, unus parque in omnibus episcopatus, ut nil plus juris uni quam alteri episcopalis ordiuatto tribuere valeat. Unde ergo graduum distinctio. vi cujus, pront ab Ecclesiae primordiis factum est, unus episcopus pluribus aliis epiecopis quocunque tandem nomine praesideret? Non a jure divino : quippe ordo ispiscopatus, ut ipsimet sentiunt, unus est et par in omnibus. Non ab universali consilio : qnippe longe jam ante invaluerat ea distinctio, quam de cogendo universal! consilio cogitaretur. Non a provincialibus sy- nodis : quippe provinciarum distinctionem antecedere debuit ipsa graduum distinctio, qua unus in definita quadam regione ceterisejusdem provinciae episcopis praeesset. Non ex pacto convcnto inter nonnullos episcopos, quibus commoclum visum essct bane hierarchiae formam instituere : nam nee isti minuere poterunt aut alii subjicere auctoritatem sibi divinitus tributam, uec praeter diviuatn institutum alterius cujusvis auctoritatem amplificare, aliunde nee successoribus earn legem praescribere potuissent, cui se ipsi pua voluntate subjecissent. Sed jam redeat providum in fun- danda Ecclesia divinae sapientiae consilium, omnis evanescit obscuritas atque aperta se prodit quaesitae distinct onis origo. Chr. videl cum uno instituendo episcopatu pares potentate ordinis episcopos omnes esse volttit, unurn tamen velut supremum caput in potestate regiminis ceteris omnibus praetulit. Hiuc facile intelligitur, quemadmodum ex hoc apcstolicae ca- thedrae principatu tamquam primario fonte superioris hujusce auctoritatis jura Pontifieio institute in alias sedes cum temporata discretione po- testatis manaverint factumque sit, ut hac inducta graduum inter anti- stites aptissima distributione ecclesiastica hierarchia ordinatissimam cas- trorum spiritualium formam, speciemque praeseferret.' St. Thomas, 1. ii. Derivation of Episcopal Authority. 179 sent. d. ult. q. nit. says briefly: ' Ab ipso Papa gradis dignitatum et dis- ponuntur et ordinantur. Unde ejns potestas est quoddam Ecclesiae fun- damentnm, nt partet ex Matth. xvi. 18.' Benedict XIV. cites the Epistle of Innocent I. , ad Episc. Carthag. C'oncil. (Hard. i. 1025) n. 1, iu which he praises the bishops as 'scientes quid debeatur Apostolicae Sedi ; cum omnes hoc loco positi ipsum sequi desideremus Apostolnm (Petrurn) a quo ipse episcopates ct tota auctoritag nominis hujug emersit.' Also the Ep. ad Victric. 2, n. 2, and before him Siricius, Ep. 5, ad Episc. Afric. : 'per quern ct Apostolatus et episcopatux in Christo coepit exordium. 1 The African bishops wrote to Pope Theodore (Hard. iii. 734) that the Holy See was the ' fons, de quo rivnli prodeunt affluenter, univevsum longissime irrigautes orbem Christianorum.' Leo the Great says with even greater clearness, Ep. 10, ad Episc. Prov. Vienn. <:. i. (c. vii. d. 19) : ' Hujus muueris sacramentum ita Dominus ad omnium Apostolonim officium pertinere voluit, ut in beatissimo Petro Apostolorum omnium enrmno2)ri7icipalitcrcolloca rit, ut ab ipso, quasi quodam capite, dona *ua velit in corpus omne luanare, ut exsortem se mysterii intelligeret essc divini, qui ausus fuisset a Petri soliditate recedere.' Benedict remarks on these words : ' Idque eo sapientissirno cons-ilio a Christo D. factum existi- mat.' D. Thomas, 1. iv. c. gent.c, Ixxvi. : 'Uthoc continue et quasi perenni inflnxu jurisdictionis a capite in membra firrnior et solidior esset omnium <-um illo, nexus et, melius conservaretnr unitas Ecclesiae. Soli, ait Ange- licus, n. 4. loquens de Christi promissione facta Petro, promisit : Tibi dabo claims regni coelorum, ut ostenderetur potestas clavinm per eum ad alios derivanda ad conservandam Ecclesiae unitatem.' The same argu- ments as those of Benedict are used by St. Bonavent. Opusc. Qnarc fratres ruinorcs praedicent, Opp. t. vii. p. 340, ed. Lugd. 1668. Bellarm. 1. iv. de Bom. Pont. c. xxiv. et xxv. Vargas, in toto opere de jurisdiction episcoporum. Suarez, do Leg. iv. 4 p. tot. Fagnan. in c. Perniciosam, n. 20. usque ad tinem, tit. de off. ordin. We may also cite the words of Leo the Great, Serm. iv. de Natal, ips. c. ii. : Petrns ' ab ipso omnium charismatum fonte tarn copiosis est irrigationibus inundatus, ut, cum multa solus acceperit, nihil in quemquam sine ipsius participation tran- sient .... si quid cum eo commuue ceteris voluit esse priucipibus, num- quam nisi per ipsum dcdit quod aliis non negavit.' Cf. ib. c. iv. Here also St. Cyprian's words, de Unit. Eccl. c. ii., may be referred to, where it is said, with regard to a quotation from St. Matt. xvi. 18 seq. and St. John xx. 21 seq.: ' Super unum aedincat Ecclesiam . . . . ut unitatem manifestaret, nnitatis ejusdem originem ab uno incipientem sua auctori- tate disposuit.' Cf. Ep. 73, ad Jubajan. ; Ep. 55, ad Cornel. Also the words of the Fathers of Aquileja, 381, Ep. ad Imp. Constant, p. 554 : ' Inde enim (abEcclesia Romana, totius orbis capite) et in omnes vene- randae communionis jura dimanant.' 2- If episcopal jurisdiction were not derived immediately from the Pope, it must come from Christ in the act of the consecra- tion of a bishop, or from Christ in some other act external to The Pope and tlic Bishops. the act of consecration, or from some other source. But none of these can be asserted. J^ot the first, since before his conse- cration the bishop elect may (as soon as his election has been confirmed by the Pope) exercise the power of jurisdiction. N~ot the second, for there is no other act besides the act of consecra- tion by which any power is conferred immediately from Christ upon the bishop ; such an act would have to be clearly indicated. Lastly, the supposition of any other source would be contrary to the Catholic faith. Although formerly the bishops were chosen by the people, whose choice was confirmed by the higher bishops (metropolitans, primates, patriarchs), the choice of the people conferred no power, and the higher prelates were not ap- pointed immediately from God, but held their power from the Church, and in particular from the Holy See. 1 Thus episcopal jurisdiction can spring directly only from the Pope. The Council of Trent has spoken on this point. It declares that a bishop can be a true bishop only if he has received the requisite consecration and mission from ecclesiastical authority. Mere election by the people or by the civil power or self-in- vestiture of the office makes a man not a pastor and servant of the Church, but a thief and a robber that entereth not by the door- (John x. 1). On the other hand, according to the same Council, those are true bishops who have been appointed by the lloman Pontiff/'' Thus the mission of a bishop proceeds from the Tope ; it is not merely the assignment to him of a certain dominion, of a diocese, but the act by which actual jurisdiction is conferred arid subjects with certain rights and duties placed under him. The form and manner of doing this may have varied at different times ; but the act of appointment can never have been lawful if the Holy See rejected it, and did not agree to it either expressly or tacitly. 4 1 On this subject, Leo M. Ep. 14, ail Auastas. Thessalon. c. xi. says :: ' Cum omnium (Apostolorum) par essct electio, uni tamen datum cst, ut ceteris praeemincret. Do qua forma episcoporum quoque cst orta dis- tiuctio, et magna ordinatioue provisum est, lie omnes sibi omnia vindi- carent, Bed essent in singulis proviuciis singuli, quorum inter fratres haberctnr prima sententia, et rursns quidam in majoribus urbibns consti- tuti sollicitudinem susciperent ampliorem, per qnos ad unam Petri sedem Derivation of Episcopal Authority. 18 nniversalis Ecclcsiae cura conflueret et nihil unquam a suo capite dis- sideret. ' 2 Trid. Sess. xxiii. de Ord. cap. iv. et can. 7. 3 Ib. can. 8. Cf. Pallav. 1. xxi. c. x. n. 4. 4 Gerdil, I.e. p. 127 : ' Ad juvisdictionein requiritur snbjectae plebis assignatio, quae fit non divino, sed hnmano jm-e. Hujusce porro assig- nationis via et ratio, etsi diversis locis ac temporibus pro diversitate dis- ciplinae varia quandoque fuerit, nulla tamen legitima esse potuit, quae Sedi Apostolicae probata uon sit, ex cujns consensione pro plenitudine potestatis per uuiversam Ecclesiam sese fundentis vim roburque acce- perit.' Cf. Thomassin, p. ii. 1. i. c. xlvii. n. 3 : ' Episcopi obtinent illi quidein immediate a Christo jurisdictioiiem suam' (which he endeavours to establish, r. i. 1. i. c. 1. n. 1 seq.), ' sed non ab illo immediate consecuti sunt territorium hoc suum et peculiarem dioecesim, cumhacc partito facta fuerit ab Ecclesia volventibus saeculis nee fieri potuerit ant perpetuari, nisi consensioue capitis, in quo est cardo et centrum eccles. unitatis.' 3. This is quite in accordance with the formula nsed for the preconisation of bishops, in which by virtue of the power of God, of the Prince of tlie Apostles, and of the riding Pope^ those elected or nominated are confirmed by him ; they are appointed to sees and intrusted with the care and administration of them in spiritual and temporal matters. Also in accordance with this is the similarity of the jurisdiction of the ordained priest, who after his ordination must be approved, that is, have faculties given him, by the bishop before he can absolve. He who can withdraw power must have the right of conferring it. 2 The Pope may remove bishops; he must also be empowered to appoint them. 1 The words in the Cacremoniale Romanum are : ' Anctoritate omni- potentis Dei et b. Apostolorum Petri et Pauli ac nostra providemus Eccle- siae N. de persona dilecti filii N.N. , praeficientes illi Ecclesiae in episcopum et pastorem, curam et administrationem illius Ecclesiae in spiritualibus et temporalibus eidcin plenarie committendo in nomine Pa- iris,' &c. : or, ' electionem de persona dilecti filii N.N. electi ad ecclesiam N. canonice factam conrirmamus et approbarnus, praeficieutes enni illi Ecclesiae in episcopum,' &c. - Reg. J. V. 41, c. i. : ' Omnis res, per quascuiique causas nascitur, per easdem dissolvitur.' 4- Before the Council of Trent this opinion was predominant in the schools amongst both the secular and regular clergy, and 1 82 The Pope and the Bishops. throughout Christendom. 1 The supporters of the contrary opin- ion were fewer ; they differed much amongst themselves, and Avere more or less near to the other view. It \vas discussed at the Council of Trent whether the jurisdiction of bishops was de- rived immediately from Christ or from the Pope. Benedict XIV. declared that the latter opinion was more in accordance with reason and authority. At Trent the majority of the bishops ex- pressed themselves of the opinion that episcopal jurisdiction comes from the Pope. The prelates who opposed this started from various points of view. ' Amongst its supporters are : 1. Alexander of Hales. 2. Albertus M. :>. St. Bonaventure. 4. St. Thomas. 5. Richard do Mediavilla. C. Duns Scotus. 7. Durand a St. Porciano. 8. Hervaus Natalis. 9. Petrus de Palude. 10. Alexander a St. Elpidio. 11. Augustine Triurnphus. 12. John Bacon of England, the passages from Andries Salrneroiiis, Doctrina, pp. x.-xii. 112-117. 13. Alvarus Pelagius, De Planctu Eccl. i. c. Iviii. ; Boccab. Bihl. m. Pout. iii. 166. 14. Aegidius Boinanus, Opusc. c. Exemt. c. ii. ; Episcopos per Pontificem vel per Auctoritatem ejus assumtos in Puvtem sollicitudiuis, Lib. de Renunc. Pap. c. viii. 15. Simon Fidatus de Casiia. 16. Thomas de Argentina. 17. Petrus Bertrandus. 18. Thomas Waldensis. 19. John of Capistran. 20. Vincens Ferrerius. 21. John Cappreolus. 22. John Turrecremata. 23. St.Antonin. 24. Laurentius Justiniani. 25. Dionysius Carthus. 26. Hieronynms Savonarola. 27 George Scolarius. 28. Gabriel Biel, Andries, pp. xi.-xiii. 117, 118. 29. Card. Cajetan. 30. Alphons. Tostatus, ib. pp. 117, 118. 31. Sylvester Prierias, De Juridica et Ivrefrag. Verit. Rom. Eccl. Roccab. xix. 235 seq. 246. 32. Stanislaus Hosius. 33. Reginald Pole. 34. Thomas Campeg- gius. 35. Caspar Contareni. 36. William Lindanus. 37. Robert Ar- boricensis. 38. John Faber. 39. John Fisher. 40. Nicholas Sander. 41. John of Louvain. 42. Driedo. 43. Jacob Latomus. 44. Thomas Stapleton. 45. John Eck, Andries, c. pp. xvii. xxviii. 118. 46. Abraham Bzovius. 47. Balth. Nardus. 48. Baldwin Juntus. 49. J. Gretser. 50. Fr. Macedo. 51. Fragosa. 52. Dom Maria Marchese. 53. Angelus Pe- trica. 54. Boverins. 55. Petrus Labat. 56. Vincent Ferre, O.S.D. 57. Em. Schelstrate, Pichler, ii. pp. 705-707. 58. Salmeron. 59. Vargas. 60. Maucler. 61. Canus. 62. Dominicus a Soto. 63. Bannez. 64. Blo- sius. 65. Duval. 66. John a Celaja, 67. Charlas. 68. Coeffeteau. 69. Barthol. Urbinas, O.S.A. 70. Peregrin. Nasellus of Padua. 71. Malder. 72. Lainez. 73. Suarez. 74. Bellarmine. 75. Gregory of Valencia. 76. Franciscus Amicus. 77. Petavius, Andries, p. xix. seq 118. 78. Muzza- relli. 79. Bennettis. 80. Viator a Cocaleo, ib p. xxii. 81. Benedict XIV. 82. Card. Vincent Petra, t. ii. Comment, in Const, ap. Const. 4, Innoc. III. 11. 35, 36, p. 118 seq.: 'In hoc dicitur quod jurisdictio absoluta et in se eonsiderata sit immediate a Christo quoad vero jurisdictionem in actu secundo ecu assignationem subditorum a summo Pontifice, vel, at com- Derivation of Episcopal Authority. 183 munius dicunt, quoad ordinem immediate a Deo episcopalis potestas quoad jurisdictionem vero a Papa.' 83. Prosper Fagnanus, in c. i. Per- niciosam, i. 31, n. 30 seq. 84. Kilber, Theol. Wirceb. t. i. p. 469-476 , tract, i. disp. ii. c. iii. a. 3, n. 180 seq. 85. Schmalzgrueber, in lib. i. De- cret. tit. 31, 4, n. 26. 86. Keiffenstuel (in a. 1. 3, n. 69 seq.), who quotes also Pirrhing, Sannig, Engel, and others. 87. Phillips, K.R. ii. 76, pp. 132-135, coll. i. 13, p. 96, T. 221, p. 363 seq., where reference is also made to Bolgeni, 1'Episcopato, P. i. c. vii. n. 81 seq. 88. "Westhoff, not. in Petri Bailer. Vindic. Potest. Pontif. c. v. p. 184, ed Monast. 1847. 89. Beidtel.Das Canon. Recht.p. 523 seq. 90. Maaszen, Der Primat des Bischofs von Rom. Bonn, 1853, p. 138, n. 4. 5. The General of the Jesuits, Lainez, in his speech at Trent, argues the point in detail. The power of order, he says, is received by individuals always immediately from God. The power of jurisdiction is received immediately from God only in certain instances, as in the case of St. Peter and his successors and the Apostles collectively } but in the case of other bishops it is received immediately from the Pope, who can change and limit their jurisdiction. What God willed to be abiding and unchanged He effected Himself; but He has ordained persons and instruments to effect those things which should be subject to change. 2 The Pope, says Lainez, when he gives to a pastor the sheep to feed, gives him also authority over them. Juris- diction exists before consecration. As all bishops are consecrated alike. 3 all would, if the jurisdiction came from the consecration, enjoy it equally. 4 If the bishops derived immediately from. God their jurisdiction limited to certain places, as the jurisdic- tion of bishops is limited, it would follow as a consequence that the partition of dioceses was divine also, so that the Pope could neither extend nor circumscribe them, if on the contrary the bishops received from God their jurisdiction not confined to any particular place, it would extend over the whole earth, and there would be as many Popes as bishops. If it is said that Christ confers jurisdiction upon the bishops, and the Popes allow of its exercise, this is ascribing to our Lord the conferring of an incomplete and inoperative authority. Either the words ' Feed My sheep' are only addressed to St. Peter and his successors, in 184 The Pope and the Bishops. which case these may be regarded as the source of all jurisdic- tion ; or they apply to all bishops, and then it becomes untrue to say that the object of this jurisdiction was assigned to the Pope for distribution ; and the unity of the Church is broken. 5 1 This is a point of controversy, for many assert that jurisdiction was conferred upon the Apostles by Christ ' per Petrum.' Sahneron, Andries, op. cit. sect. 1, c. iv. p. 72 seq. 2 Pallavic. 1. xviii. c. xv. n. 3, 4. Rayn. d. 1562, n. 124. Salmeron treats in detail the distinction between the wide and narrow sense of the jus divinum. Cf. J. B. Andries, Alphonsi Salmeronis Doctrina, Mogunt. 1871, sect. 1, c. i. ii. pp. 5-56. 3 S. Bonavent. in 1. iv. sent. d. 24, q. 3. S. Thorn. Sum. 2, 2, q. 29, in 1. iv. d. 24, can. Ita Dominus, dist. 19. 4 Raynald. l.c. ; Pallavic. I.e. n. 5, 6. 3 Pallavic. l.c. n. 15-17. Salmeron (Andries, l.c. p. 90 seq.) argues upon the text, John xxi. 15 seq. thus : ' Si omnes Christi oves Petro sunt assignatae, ut ah eo tamquam Christi vicario pascerentur ac gubernaren- tur, efficitur, ut quicunque determinatas aliquas pascendas habeat oves, nonnisi per ilium earum pascendarum curam debeat assumere. Neque enim dubium est quin mitteret falcem in messem alienam qui absque ejus aitctoritate pasceret oves fidei suae non creditas.' 6- Objections were made to the view held by Lainez, which he also answered. One objection was : ' The Apostles receive their jurisdiction immediately from Christ. Therefore, as successors of the Apostles, the bishops also receive their jurisdiction im- mediately from Christ.' To the premise Lainez fully agreed, although others, such as Salmeron, held that jurisdiction was conferred upon the Apostles by Christ through St. Peter ; but he denied the conclusion. It might bs no less logically argued : Adam's body was created immediately by God ; therefore so also are the bodies of his descendants. The bishops are not successors of the Apostles in every relation, and with exactly equal rights. The Church never recognised in the bishops of Antioch and Ephesus that supreme power enjoyed by the Apostles Peter and John who at first were placed over them. When the Church had been established and regulated by the Apostles, the extraordinary powers of the apostolic age were no longer necessary to her. The Pope alone has inherited th Derivation of Episcopal Authority. 185 supreme authority of St. Peter in a manner in which no other bishop has inherited the power of any other of the Apostles. 1 To the objection, that according to St. Basil and St. Ambrose the words ' Feed My sheep' 2 were spoken to all the Apostles, and therefore were to be referred to all bishops, 3 Lainez re- plied : Doubtless the words were spoken to all the Apostles ; but in St. Peter alone. If the words were to be understood as being addressed primarily and directly to all the Apostles, the primacy would be denied, which is heresy. 4 St. Peter in- deed was unable to rule the Church by himself; he had need of the other Apostles ; but he was not subject to them ; they were not to be his pastors to feed him. Holy Scripture too shows that the jurisdiction of bishops was limited (1 Peter v. 2 ; Tit. i. 5). Finally, there may be many degrees of the office of pastor, as Christ, in a far higher sense than His Apostles, feeds His flock and is its Shepherd (John x. 11-14). The Avords (Matt, xviii. 18) in which our Lord conferred upon His Apostles the power of binding, of loosing, and those (John xx. 22) in which He imparts to them the Holy Ghost for the remission of sins, apply of course to the Apostles and their successors. But to say the power of jurisdiction, like the power of order, was by these words granted equally to St. Peter and the other Apostles, is to assert the equality of all the Apostles and to deny the primacy. It may be said that these words convey the power of order as far as conferring the sacramental absolu- tion is concerned, without the full power of external jurisdic- tion. If, however, they refer to jurisdiction at all, it is to a jurisdiction to be imparted at some future time. When Christ spoke these words He had only promised, not yet instituted, the primacy. This was the answer given by Lainez to a third ob- jection. To a fourth he replied as follows: Although bishops were appointed by the Holy Ghost (Acts xx. 28) to rule the Church of God, it does not follow that the Holy Ghost should directly appoint each individual to this or that particular see. 5 A reference to the parable (Matt. xxiv. 45) in which a bishop is called a faithful and wise servant whom the Lord hath appointed over His family, because these words 1 86 The Pope and the Bishops. are used in the consecration service, proves nothing. It suffices for the parable and its interpretation that the bishop is placed by God, whether mediately or immediately, over His family. An objection is made : ' That according to 1 Tim. iii. 5, the episcopate and the authority to govern are inseparably con- nected, and that to govern is the same thing as to have jurisdic- tion.' But in this passage St. Paul does not say whether the power of order and the power of jurisdiction can or cannot be separated. Neither does he say whether the bishop's power of jurisdiction be imparted directly by God; neither does he indi- cate the source whence it proceeds. He speaks merely of the qualifications necessary for him to whom it is intrusted. Granted that some of the Fathers, such as St. Ambrose, St. Basil, and St. Leo, say that bishops and their authority are from God, they nowhere say that this authority is mall its parts and immediately from God. 6 Other Fathers say that on the con- trary it is derived from the Eoman Pontiff. Either the Fathers in this contradict one another a supposition neither well grounded nor reverent or we are to understand them to mean that episcopal jurisdiction is derived from God through the Pope. 1 St. Bonaventure 8 and St. Thomas 9 taught this doctrine, and among the Fathers, Leo the Great 10 and Gregory the Great, 11 the latter of whom refused the title of universal bishop, calling it unright- eous, 12 but only in the sense imputed to it by the present oppo- nents of the Vatican Council, namely, that of being strictly speak- ing the sole bishop. 13 The Pope is bishop in his See of Rome, and must therefore leave their sees to the other bishops. He is, however, also bishop of the Universal Church ; as such he can investigate and pass judgment upon all matters of ecclesiastical jurisdiction ; but he has not the right causelessly to withdraw from bishops the authority which they lawfully possess. 14 He is justly called Bishop of the Catholic, that is of the Universal Church, 15 a title which occurs in the Bull of ratification of the Council of Trent, issued in 15G4 by Pius IV.; also previously in the diplomas of Alexander III., A.D. 1162 and 1169, and as early as 1131 in the Privilegium granted by Innocent II. to St. Bernard. 10 Gregory the Great, in opposition to Byzantine Derivation of Ep iscopa I A uthority. 187 pride, took tlie title of Servant of the servants of God (Servus servorum Dei), 17 but without intending to merge the dignity of his office in the humility of the appellation ; 18 he only refused the title of ' ecumenical' Pope or Patriarch in the sense in Avhich he understood it. He called it blasphemous when assumed by the Patriarch of Constantinople, whose throne had already been occupied by many heretics, and who took to himself what the Eoman Pontiff was not willing to accept. 1 '-' The title of ' universal bishop' was of frequent occurrence as early as the eighth century. 20 In 1413 the Faculty of Paris rejected the pro- position of Huss that the Pope was not universal bishop ; 21 and the theologians of Alcala in 1564 rejected the proposition, 'the Pope is not to be styled universal bishop, since St. Gregory re- fused and abhorred the title,' as a proposition bordering upon heresy ; whilst they clearly prove that Gregory the Great re- jected the title in another meaning, not in the sense of his having power over the whole Church. 22 The Faculty of Paris iu 1565, and that of Cologne in 1617, acted in a similar man- ner. 23 Here again the weapons of old heretics are used to light the battle of a new heresy. 1 Pallavic. I.e. n. 9. Laincx lays down the rule : ' Non requiritnr in subrogato natura illius, ciii subrogatur, nisi secundum id quod satis est.' Cf. Salmerou, I.e. pp. 91, 92. 2 M. A. de Dominis asserted, 1. i. c. viii. n. 3 : ' Quod uni Petro et seorsum dicitur : Pasce ovcs mcas mystevium tantumest, ut discant omnes Apostoli et miuistri Christi, etiamsi siut innuraerabiles unicam tamen omnes et eamdem exercere pasturam et omnes simul ac in solidum unicum cos deberc esse pastorem. ' The Faculty of Cologne censured this prepo- sition as ' propositio haerctica ct Scripturae violenta expositio' (Du Plessis, t. iii. P. ii. p. 198). 3 The testimony of these and 'other Fathers is cited in detail by Sal- mcron, I.e. sect. ii. c. v. pp. 154-159. * Pallavic. I.e. u. 7. 5 It is certainly concluding too much if from similar texts from Scrip- ture and passages from the Fathers (such as St. Ignatius, St. Basil, St. Chrysostoin, Theodoret) without further inquiry the following conclusion is arrived at : ' Est igitnr episcoporum potestas immediate a Christo. Nihil ergo moror eorum argutias qui controversias, non solum contra haereticos, sed ctiam contra orthodoxos plerumque tractant. Phrasim Scripturae loquor et SS. Patrum.' Also Isaac Habcrt, Archieraticou gr. Paris, 1676, ad p. vii. Lit. Observ. 4, p. 87, who beyond this adds : ' Im- probus autem sit veterator, quisquis ex eo calumniabitur nos S. Pontificis The Pope and the Bishops. supra oinnes episcopos divinitus institutain potestatem labefactare, quum illam eo firmius stabiliusque fuiidatam profiteamur quo apcrtius exponi- mus, institutes ab ipso Christo immediate ceteros episcopos hac lege divinoque jure, ut Petri sese subordinates ac subditos intelligant.' 6 For particulars on tbis point vide Salmeron, I.e. sect. ii. c. vi. pp. 168-173, 177-179. 7 Pallavic. I.e. n. 12. 8 Bonavent. Breviloq. p. vi. c. xii. p. 250, ed. Hefele, iii. : ' Qui Papa merito appellatur, tamquam unus primus et summus pater spiritualis omnium patrum imo (pastor in ed. Yen.) omnium fidelium et hierarcha praecipuus sponsus unicus, caput indivisum, Pontifex summus Christ! vicarius, fans et origo, reyula citnctorum principatuwn ccclcaiasticorum a quo tamquam a summo derivatur ordinata potestas usque ad infii-ma Ec- clesiae membra, secundum quod exigit praecellens diguitas in ecclesiastica liierarchia.' 9 S. Thom. in 1. iv. sent. d. 24, q. 3, a. 2. Durand. Comment, in 1. iv. d. 24, q. 5. 10 Vide passages cited, 1, note 6, and 2, note 1, supra. 11 Greg. M. ad Job. Subd. 1. ii. Ep. 30 (c. x. d. 63) : ' Quanto Apostolica sedes Deo auctore cunctis praelata constat ecclesiis, tanto inter multiplices t-uras et ilia nos valde sollicitat, ubi ad cousecrandum antistitem nostrum expectatur arbitrium.' 12 Greg. M. 1. v. Ep. 18, 19, 20 seq. 1. vii. Ep. 30, and elsewhere. 13 Cf. Salmeron, I.e. pp. 196, 197. Thomassin, p. i. 1. i. c. xi. Bal-~ lerini, I.e. c. iii. n. 11, p. 174. 14 Pallavic. Lc.n. 13. 15 Pallavic. 1. xix. c. xv. n. 3. Further transactions, ib. 1. xxi. c. iv. n. 12 seq. 16 Bern. Ep. 352, Migne, clxxxii. p. 556. 17 Job. Diac. Vita Greg. M. 1. ii. c. i. 18 Greg. M. 1. ix. Ep. 59. 19 Greg. M. 1. iv. Ep. 32, ad Mauric. Imp. 20 Cod. Carolin. Ep. 15, p. 143, ed. Cenni. 21 Natal. Alex. H. E. saec. xv. et xvi. c. ii. art. 3, n. 6, t. xvii. p. 167. The Sorbonne used it in the year 1388. Du Plessis, t. i. P. ii. p. 85. - Du Plessis, t. iii. p. ii. pp. 105-107. 23 Ibid. t. iii. p. ii. p. 194, n. 6. It was supposed that the strongest argument against Laine/ was that the doctrine he upheld was unknown for the first ten centuries, and that during that time there was no trace of any interposition on the part of the Pope with regard to the making of bishops. 1 But his interposition is shown in the action of provincial bishops, archbishops, and others. 2 No one has main- tained that each bishop was appointed immediately by the Derivation of Episcopal A uthority. 189 Pope. The Pope certainly exercised authority over the patri- archs of the East; 3 the jurisdiction of these patriarchs was in every case derived from Peter. 4 In many countries the Popes exercised a great deal of their authority through their vicars- apostolic, the primates and other hierarchs who in their name appointed and confirmed bishops, 5 whilst in other countries, as in Italy for example, the appointment was made directly. 6 In countries Avhere heresy was predominant the Popes inter- fered personally. Thus Martin I. in 649 gave Bishop John of Philadelphia, by virtue of the supreme power conferred upon him by Christ through St. Peter, authority in the patriarchate of Antioch and Jerusalem, as legate extraordinary of the Holy See,. to appoint bishops, priests, and deacons. 7 The bishops originally consecrated by the Apostles had through these their jurisdiction from Christ Himself; the archbishops, who in earlier times ap- pointed the bishops, had received their authority with the con- sent of the Pope, who had conferred upon them the pallium. The appointment of lawful bishops has always been made with the consent of the Pope, either expressed or understood ; that is the appointment has always proceeded immediately or mediately from him. 8 In the West the Pope was the only patriarch, and almost all the greater Churches were founded by him for instance the German Church, the Hungarian, the Scandinavian, the English, and others and amongst the patriarchal rights were in- cluded those of consecrating, or causing to be consecrated, the bishops, or at least the archbishops. The intermediate steps between the Pope and the bishops are to be regarded as so many copies of St. Peter's privileges, 9 and only from its connection with the Holy See could every mode of appointment not pro- ceeding from the Holy See bo lawfully possible. The ancient mode of proceeding did not neutralise, but rather presupposed, the divine right of the Pope ; and was besides capable of altera- tion as soon as the needs of the Church required it, as we have seen in a special manner since the decline of the power of metropolitans. 10 To say that St. Peter was only primus inter pares, is to deny altogether the primacy. 1 go The Pope and the BisJiops. 1 Bossuet, Defens. Decl. Cleri. Gall. p. iii. 1. viii. c. xi. p. 95 ; c. xv. p. 105. Schenkl, Syntagma, 37, not. 2, n. 3. 2 Thomassin, P. i. 1. i. c. liv. n. 5 seq. ; c. Iv. n. 1 seq. ; p. ii. 1. ii. c. i. seq. 3 Dollinger, Lehrlmch iler K. G. i. p. 183 seq. Bianchi, t. iii. 1. i. c. ii. $ 2, p. 1 seq. 4 Thomassin, p. i. 1. i. c. vii. n. 11 seq. ; c. viii. n. 1 seq. Charlas, tie Libert. Eccl. Gall. 1. viii. c. iii. iv. Selvaggio, Antiqu. 1. i. c. xvii. prop. 4, 11. 23 seq. Phillips, Kirchenrecht, ii. 69, p. 30 seq. 5 Constant, Praef. in Ep. Rom. Pont. n. 22 seq. p. xviii. seq. Tho- massin, I.e. c. xxx. seq. ; 1. ii. c. cvii. seq. Numerous proofs exist in the Briefs of Gregory the Great, for ex- ample : 1. ii. Ep. 30, 31, 35 ; 1. iii. Ep. 26 ; can. 23, c. xvi. q. 1 ; cap. vi. ile Praesumpt. ii. 23. ' Martin, i. Ep. 5. Dollinger, I.e. pp. 188, 189. The Faculty of Co- logne in 1618 expressed themselves against M. A. de Dominis, who (1. iii. c. xii. n. 58) saw in this an encroachment (Du Plessis, iii. ii. p. 223). Salmeron, I.e. p. 187 seq. For particulars vide Phillips, K. B. v. 221 seq. p. 361 seq. 9 Thomassin, p. i. 1. i. c. ix. n. 12; c. xxvi. n. 5; 1. ii. c. viii. n. 7 ; 1. i. c. xiv. n. 4 ; p. ii. 1. ii. c. Ixi. n. 19. 10 Phillips, I.e. p. 366 seq. The appeal to the Councils of Constance and Basle, accord- ing to which the bishops assembled at a General Council derive their power immediately from God, proves nothing; for (1) the decision of the Council of Constance can only refer to the case of a great schism j 1 (2) these decrees have none of the authority of ecumenical definitions ; e (3) moreover, it is not the same thing to say : ' The Council has authority immediately from God ;' and to say, ' Individual bishops have their authority immedi- ately from God.' 3 A true Ecumenical Council is a Council in union with the Pope. It derives its authority immediately from Christ. Without the Pope it is not an Ecumenical Council, and has no universal authority. It seems to follow from this again that the Pope alone derives his jurisdiction immediately from Christ ; and that the bishops do not, because separated from the Pope they cannot compose a General Council. We must remember to keep these two questions quite dis- tinct : first, whether General Councils are convened and held by divine authority ; and second, whether the authority of their Derivation of Episcopal A uthority. 191 decrees and the power which they exercise are derived imme- diately from God. To the first question theologians reply in the negative. 4 There is no divine command for General Councils. Many centuries have passed in which none were held, and if they were an essential part of the constitution ordained by Christ for the Church they would not have been left without care, their taking place would not be dependent upon external cir- cumstances. 5 The constitution of the Church is not an aristo- cracy, but a monarchy ; the Pope above the bishops is the head of a General Council, which is not conceivable without him. 6 But with the decrees of a General Council it is another matter : their authority comes from God ; the Council only arrives at its decision with the assistance of the Holy Ghost ; to it apply the words (Acts xv. 28), ' It hath seemed good to the Holy Ghost and to us.' But the authority of the Pope and of the Council is really one and the same." The gift of infallibility is imparted to the Church by its visible Head. And the Church is not infallible, save in union with the Pope. The Council possesses infallibility only with and through the Pope; without him and unconnected with him it has none. 8 1 Turrecremata, Apol. in Cone. Flor. Relata et Sum. de Eccl. 1. ii. c. xcix. c. Aeneas Sylv. Or. Viemiae habita. Driedo, Dogm. 1. iv. Schel- strate, de Sensu et Auctor. Deer. Cone. Const. Rom. 1686. Beidtel, p. 394. 2 Petr. do Alliaco ap. Gerson, ii. 9-10. Cajetan, dc Auct. Pont, et Cone. c. viii. ix. Gregor. de Yalentia, disp. i. q. i. punct. 7, 44, p. 370, ad Tin. ed. Ingolst. 1595. Bennettis, p. i. t. i. p. 377. Ballerini, de Pot. Eccl. c. vii. p. 101. Phillips, K. R. i. S 31. 3 Salmerou, I.e. p. 188, iv. 2. 4 Salmeron, t. xii. tract. 77 (Audries, I.e. p. 284 seq.) : ' Nos tamen illi sententiae magis assentimur, Concilium inventum esse Spiritus S., tacitc suggestum S. Petro . . . . et ejus successoribus tamquam remedium certis teinporibus opuortunum ad terminandas vel extingueuilas de fide vel sacramentis controversias vel ad abusus (disciplinae) exstirpandos . . . ita tainen ut haec suggestio non efficiat jus stricte diviiiuin, sed jus tantum canonicum s. ecclesiasticuni.' s The greater number of theologians have declared against the neces- sity of General Councils maintained by Febronius and others (de Statu Eccl. t. i. c. vi. 7). ' Greg, dc Yalentia, I.e. p. 360 seq. Salmeron, I.e. p. 282 seq. 192 The Pope and the Bishops. 7 Canus, de loc. Theol. 1. v. c. v. seq. 171 : ' Ecclesiae vero auctorita- tem earn nunc appello, quae synodoruin etiam generalium ac sumini Pon- tificis est. Haec enirn est una res prorus, ut non differat multum inter Ecclesiae, Conciliorum Sedisque Apostolicae judicia, propterea quod con- nexa haec et colligata sunt, quern admodum esse videmus humanum corpus et caput.' Cf. Gregory of Valentia, I.e. p. 363. Thus spoke, 011 the 1st March 1438, Bishop Peter of Digne before Eugenius IV. : ' Quamquam una et eadcm atque indivisa sit potestas Papae ex Concilii generalis, tamen aliter et aliter. . . . Dixi quod aliter et aliter eadem potestas est in utroque quia in Ecclesia fundamentaliter et in habitu in Papa vero actualiter in exercitio' (Cecconi, Stiidii Storici sul Concilio di Firenze, vol. i. p. dlxviii.). 8 Vide Schiizler, Die Papstliche Unfehlbarkeit aus dem Wesen der Kirche bewiesen, Freib. 1870, pp. 91, 92. Cf. the whole of the tenth chapter, p. 89 seq. 9. Are, then, the "bishops still really judges, and not merely advisers of the Pope 1 The bishops assembled at the Council are judges. 1 1. Because with the Pope they represent the whole apostolate of the Church, which in the Council of the Apostles at Jerusalem pronounced a judicial judgment. 2. Councils at- tribute to themselves this office of judging ; the Pope recognises it in the confirmation of decrees, which are signed by all the bishops. 2 3. If the bishops were merely counsellors, there would be no reason to limit the right of speech only to bishops and to persons endowed with some part of the episcopal authority ; it would more fitly belong to learned theologians and canonists. In so far as the Pope takes counsel of the bishops in preparing a definition may they be considered coun- sellors f' but they must not be regarded as mere counsellors. 1 Vide Schiizler, Die Papstliche Unfehlbarkeit, I.e. p. 103 ; the fol- lowing also teach it : Turrecremata, Sum. 1. iii. c. Ixiii. Ixiv. ; Canus, I.e. q. 2 seq. 163; Bellarmin. de Cone. 1. i. c. xviii. ; Salineron, tract. 79 (An- dries, p. 283, note) ; Bened. XIV. de Syn. Dioec. 1. xiii. c. ii. n. 3. The introduction of the Const. Vat. Dei Films, of 24th April 1870, has the words : ' Sedentibus nobiscum et judicantibus universi orbis episcopis.' - Upon the formula in which the bishops confirm the decrees of the Council vide Hefele, Cone. i. p. 18 seq. 3 Greg, de Val. I.e. p. 367 ad 4 : ' Quodsi quis propterea quod Pontifex hujusmodi Patrum opera atque judicio in determinauda fidei sententia utitur, quis putet Pontificis consiliaros eos appellari posse, non est de vo- cabulo magnopere laboranduin,.' Power of the Pope not arbitrary. 1 93 10. Neither the Council of Trent nor of the Vatican has decided the question whether episcopal jurisdiction, is derived from Christ immediately or mediately through the Pope. The majority of the Fathers at Trent \vere of opinion that it was communicated immediately from the Pope. The Pope charged his legates, for the sake of peace, to leave this question untouched, since a decision on the subject was not then necessary against heretics. 1 The Vatican Council only teaches that the Pope has the supreme and immediate episcopal authority over all Churches and all the faithful, according to the teaching of the majority of theologians for centuries ; that from the JHoly See all power in the Church is transmitted to pastors and flocks. 2 1 Dr. Friedrich is quite unauthorised in saying (Tagebuch, Supple- ment, p. 437 seq.) that at Trent the judgment contained in the Creed of the Second Council of Lyons and the propositions of the Fifth Lateian Council were unrecognised, that the Council of Florence was repudiated (p. 199), and that ' the claims of the Curial system were not heard' (p. 214). - Cf . Andries, op. cit. p. xxvi. seq. PART III. THE POWER OF THE POPE is NOT THE OXLT POWER ; IT IS NOT ARBITRARY AND ABSOLUTE. 1. The power of the Church not solely vested in the Pope. Council of Trent. 2. The opponents of the Council repeatedly contradict them- selves. 3. Restriction upon the power of the Pope. 4. No change made hy the Vatican Council in this matter. 5. Apprehensions founded upon mere suspicion. 6. National Churches and bishops as vicars of the civil power. It has been asserted that, in opposition to the Tridentine canon, according to which there exists a divinely appointed hierarchy of bishops, priests, and deacons, the decrees of the Vatican Council say that the Pope is the only divinely ap- pointed bearer of any church authority. But first, the Vati- can Council does not say this ; on the contrary, it expressly states that the bishops -are appointed by the Holy Spirit; and secondly, the Tridentine canon 1 speaks- of the hierarchy of order, VOL. i. 194 The Pope and the Bishops. but not of the power of jurisdiction, neither of the relation of the three grades to one another, nor of that of the bishops amongst themselves. Although the Pope possesses the fulness of power in the Church, he does not alone possess all power. Although it may be within his authority to limit the jurisdic- tion of a bishop, the bishop does not on this account become a mere deputy or vicar of the Pope. The bishops now, as ever, are called, and are, Ordinaries. 2 They possess an ordinary power, which they exercise by virtue of their office, and which they can impart to others. The Council of Trent makes a distinc- tion between the ordinary power of bishops (potestas ordi- naria) and the special power delegated to them by the Pope, As long as the episcopal office is an essential element in the organism of the Church, which it will be till the end of the world, so long will bishops be no mere Papal vicars.-" 1 Scss. xxiii. can. 6, tie Orel. - S. Thorn. Opusc. de Perfectione Vitae Spiritualis : ' Notandum, quod ordinarimn ab online dicitur ; unde ordinarium videtur importare id, quod secundum comnnmem ordinem in rcpublica fit semper ; propter quod illud, quod competit diversis gradibus et statibus in republica ordinatis ordi- narium dicitur. Unde potestates cornpetentes in Imjusmodi institutis, in ecclesia sc. patriarchal!, archiepiscopali, episcopal!, et parochial!, dicuntur ordinarii, et illi, qui simpliciter in talibus statibus et gradibus statuuntur, \it regant populum per se vel per alium secundum gradum et statum, in quibus statuuntur, dicuntur ordinarii. Potestas autem commissarii pro- pric loquendo videtur dici quando alicui ab aliquo committitnr eadem po- testas quac est sua ordinaria, secundum quam vice ejus aliquid agat. Unde collatio tails potestatis non dicit novum gradum potestatis, sed dicit com- missionem ejusdem potestatis ab institute in ipsa potestate, ita quod po- testas commissioneni ejusdem potestatis ab instituto in ipsa potestate ita quod potestas cornrnissaria est commissa ab instituto in gradu potestatis simpliciter. Et ita patet, quod praelati isti a Papa positi non sunt com- missarii sed vere ordinarii.'' 3 Vide Schazler, Die Piipstlicho Unfehlbarkeit aus dem Wesem der Ivirchc bewiesen, Freib. 1870, p. 45. 2. The opponents of the Council are on this point full of con- tradictions. In 18G8 Schulte wrote, ' Scarcely any trace remains of the strife between so-called episcopalism and papalism.' Yet now he says that, by the Vatican definition of the 18th July Power of tJie Pope not arbitrary. 1 95 1870, the bishops have been degraded into Papal deputies and diocesan vicars; 1 and that this degradation of the bishops is contained in their oath to the Pope, which is now, he says, recognised as a real vassal's oath. 2 But the form of the oath now standing in the Pontificate is more than two hundred years old f its matter existed in the formulas of Gregory VII. 4 .Schulte thinks ' that many bishops may not have been ac- quainted with the consecration oath, anyhow may not have properly considered it when it was read over to them, many may not have understood it.' 5 But this would have very little importance as fur as regards the question of right. It is alleged that bishops are degraded by holding as distinctions the titles conferred iipon. them by the Pope of * assistant at the Papal ihrone, domestic prelate,' &c. But would it be considered also n degradation if a bishop were to become knight, companion, or .grand cross of this or that civil order, privy councillor, &c.? Bishops in using in their title the words ' by the grace of God and i'avQur of the See Apostolic,' words of frequent iise in the thirteenth century, clearly express that they are indebted to the See of Eome for their office. 7 The opponents of the Vatican Council pretend that they desire the Church to be ' such as she was before the 18th July 1870 ;' and in reality they desire her to be such as according to the opinion of Febronius she was in the first six centuries, with a complete abstraction of mediaeval developments, and a continual movement in favour of a national Church. Janufi, the prototype of all Xew-Protestant literature, proves this, as well as the newspaper articles of the same party, and the publications of Friedrich and Schulte. The latter assumes that since the time of Gregory VII. the Church has undergone a complete change. ' The episcopal authority has been annihilated, crushed by Papal omnipotence.' 8 And yet this change is said to have begun on the 18th July 1870 ! And those who now assert this could be good Catholics until that 4 fatal July day' ! But if the life of the Church during long centuries was not according to her true constitution ; if she found herself again at Constance and at Basle, having, therefore, lost Jierself both before and since, 9 she could not be the true Church. 10 196 The Pope and the Bishops. She would long since have ceosed to be the Bride of Christ, and would have been without divine assistance ; the greater number of bishops and theologians would have erred in faith, and the separation of Protestants from Catholics would have been a lawful act. Wicliffe, like the opponents of our day, called the Pope ' Antichrist ;' n but the whole Church has branded him and all his followers. Marcus Antonius de Dominis urged that the spiritual power of the Pope was a late development ; 12 but all Catholics have judged him to be heretical. 1 Schulte, ii. p. 75. 2 Schulte, ii. p. 45. 3 Cf. Phillips, Kirchenrecht, ii. 81, p. 193 seq. 4 C. iv. de Jurejur. ii. 24, Mansi, Cone. xx. 526. 5 Schulte, ii. 52, 53. d Zaccaria, op. cit. t. ii. dissert. 12. 7 Upon the words of Gregory I. 1. i. Ep. 38, ad Petr. Suhd., in which he says to the bishops of Sicily, ' in B. Petri Ap. principis natalem (Eomam) conveniant, ut ei, ex cujus largitate pastores sunt, gratiarum actioues sol- vant,' the remark : ' Idem profitentur antistites, dum se suis in epistolis et commonitoriis praefantur Apostolicae Sedis gratia episcopos. Sedem enim Apostolicam pro S. Petro usurpari et vice versa norunt eruditi onmes.' 8 Schulte, ii. p. 68. 9 Friedrich, p. 141. This is just the language used by Edmund Richer (Du Plessis, t. ii. p. ii. p. 305) of the ' veritas justi regiminis Ecclesiae jure postliminii in Constantiensi et Basileensi Couciliis; restituti.' 10 In 1644 the Sorbonne condemned several propositions of Brachet de la Milletiere, 'in quantum dauinant disciplinam et consuetudinem ecclesi- asticam ah omnibus cath. communionis ecclesiis receptam, quantumcum- que diuturnarn tamquam abusivam et institution! Christi ac evangelicae doctrinae contrariam,' as ' propositiones temerarius, Ecclesiae injuriosis et haereticas' (Du Plessis, t. iii. p. i. p. 20). The censure passed by the Faculty of Cologne upon the apostate De Dominis is also to the point (ib. p. ii. p. 192 seq.). Upon the first proposition, ' Mulierfortissima Ecclesia, miserandum in modum delituit,' it is said : ' Propositio haeretica, visibili- tati Ecclesiae, quae nullo unquam tempore delituit, repugnans.' The further one, ' Ecclesia sub Romano Pontifice non est amplius Ecclesia sed respublica quaedam humana sub Papae Monarchia tota temporali ; vinea est ad solum Noe inebriendum,' was called ' Propositio haeretica et maledica.' The Sorbonne said upon the same proposition (ib. t. ii. P. ii. p. 105) : ' Haec prop. 1 parte est haeretica ; dicit enim veram Ecclesiam, cum non alia sit quam quae Romano Pontifici paret, jam desiisse ; pro re- liqua vero parte est calumniosa et scandalosa.' 11 Du Plossiy, t. i. p. ii. p. 40. Power of tlie Pope not arbitrary. 197 12 De Dominis, de Rep. Chr. 1. iv. c. vi. n. 7 ; c. vii. n. 38, 53 ; c. ix. n. 19 ; c. x. n. 53 ; also the Censura Coloniensis (Du Plessis, t. iii. P. ii. pp. 225, 226). 3. Like these, Dollinger, Schulte, and their followers pretend that the supreme power of the Pope is omnipotent, arbitrary, and absolute. In the Middle Ages, John of Salisbury, a supporter of the Papacy and friend of Adrian IV., said: 'That the Pope was truly the " servant of the servants," and encompassed by cares and toil j 1 that the very elevation of his dignity restricted his actions; 2 and that he had no right to overstep the law of God.' 3 This last has been frequently expressed by Popes Alexander III. and Innocent III., 4 by many of their successors in various utter- ances, 5 and is the common doctrine of theologians and canonists. 6 As Walter 7 the canonist shows, the Pope is, above all, circum- scribed by the consciousness of the necessity of making a righteous and beneficent use of the duties attached to his privileges, and that the Popes have always listened to the most plain-spoken admonitions of learned and pious men. 8 The Pope is also circumscribed by the spirit and practice of the Church, by the respect due to General Councils 9 and to ancient statutes and customs, 10 by the rights of bishops, 11 by his relation with civil powers, 12 by the traditional mild tone of government 13 . in- dicated by the aim of the institution of the primacy ' to feed,' finally by the respect indispensable in a spiritual power towards the spirit and mind of nations. 14 Let us hear Dr. Dollinger: ' Out- side the Catholic Church it has become almost customary to designate the Papal power as a boundless and absolute power which recognises no law superior to itself, and we hear much of Papal omnipotence, or at least of a never-abandoned claim to universal dominion. All these ideas and charges are untrue and unjust. From one point of view, the Papal power is the most restricted power imaginable ; for its first duty, as Popes have repeated times without number, is to watch over the laws and ordinances of the Church, and guard them from infringe- ment. The ordinances of the Church have been long established 1 98 The Pope and the Bishops* and its legislation lias been carried into the most minute parti- culars. The Papal See is also especially bound to be governed by. the most careful consideration of the decrees of the Church. Only upon these conditions can the Pope reckon upon the obe- dience of Churches, and the confidence and respect of the faith- ful. Hence any one with a knowledge of church legislation could foretell in most cases with certainty how a Papal decision would turn. Catholics hold that a considerable portion of the ordinances of the Church rest upon divine command ; are there- fore not to be touched by Papal or any other authority. No Pope can dispense what God has ordained. This is acknow- ledged universally. What can restrain the Pope? de Maistro inquires. Evert/thing : canons, laws, national usages, sovereigns,, courts, parliaments, prescription, remonstrances, treaties, duty, fear, wisdom, and above all public opinion, the queen of the- world.' 15 1 John. Saresb. Polycr. 1. viii. c. xxiii. p. 811 : ' Qui Romanus Pontifex est eumdem pro conditione Ecclesiae, quae nunc estesse servum servorum,. necesse est. Non equidem nuncupative ad gloriam, ut quidem opinantur sed substantive utpote qui servis Dei serviet vel invitus. Adeo quidem ut nisi servierit aut expontificem aut exronianum esse necesse sit. Quis ergo eurn servum servorum esse ambigit ? Doininum Hadriannm .... Lujus rei testem invoco, quia Romano Pontifice nemo miserabilior est r conditione cjus nulla miserior. Et licet nibil aliud laedat, necesse est ut citissime vel solo labore deficiat.' - Ib. p. 813 : ' Si in summa potentia minima licentia est, profecto- qui legibus praeest, nulli subjicitur, sed ab illicitis arctius coarctatuv. Ergo et Romano Pontifici minimum, eo ipso quod plurimum, licet.' 3 Id. 1167, Ep. 198, ad Alex. III. Pap. p. 218 : ' Fateor, et verum est r omuia Romano licere Pontifici, sed ea dumtaxat, quae de jure divino ec- clesiasticae sunt concessa potestati. Liceat ei nova jura condere, vetera abrogare, dum tamen ilia, quae a Dei Verbo in Evangelic vel Lege per- petuam causam habent, mutare noii possit. Ausim dicere, quod nee Pe- trus ipse perseverantem in scelere quemquam et voluntate peccandi posset absolvere, nee claves acccpit, quibus regni januam posset impoenitentibus- aperire.' 4 Alexander III. c. iv. Super eo, v. 19, de Usuris. Innoc. III. c. Literas 13, de Restitut. Spoliat. ii. 13, ad Bituric. 1. xv. Ep. 106, p. 617, Philippo Regi Francoram : ' Cum contra .... veritatis sententiam nostra non possit auctoritas dispensare.' Huber, page 18, cites a passage from- 1. i. Ep. 127, p. 116, ad Capitul. Gamer., according to which, he says, In- nocent III. concluded that from the plenitude of his power the Pope was- independent of right. The passage is simple enough : ' Licet autem in- Power of the Pope not arbitrary. 199 tentionis nostrae non sit, investituras de vacaturis facias contra canonuin instituta ratas habere qui secundum plenitudinem potestatis de jure pos- sumus supra jus [Coll. iii. has super his] dispensare,' &c. It treats of the appointment to a canonical office, and is not a general proposition. ' Super his' is the best reading ; but even if ' supra jus' be preferred, there is no question of ' jus divinum,' which it would have been necessary to have especially named. A dispensation also is a concessio ultra (supra) or contra jus. * Bened. XIV. de Syn. Dioc. 1. xiii. c. xxi. n. 7, says of the dispensa- tiones in radice matrimonii, that they were granted ' tune solum, cum im- pedimentum, propter quod matrimonium irriturn fuit, nequaquam ortum habuit a jure divino, vel naturali, sed a lege dumtaxat ecclesiastica, quam positivam vocant et cui summns Pontifex derogare potest.' Also the decree of the same, of the 13th Sept. 1755 : ' Quum super matrimonio' (Cone. Trid. ed. Richter, p. 274). 6 Barbosa, de Offic. et Potest. Episcopi, p. i. c. i. n. 28. Reiffenstnel, Jus Can. 1. i. tit. 2, 18, n. 455. Schmalzgrueber, 1. i. tit. 2, 8, n. 57. Phillips, K. R. v. 212, p. 180. ' Walter, K. R. 126, pp. 241-243, xi. ed. 8 Innocent IV. caused a very candid memorial from Bishop Robert of Lincoln on the faults of the Papal Court to be read in presence of the cardinals, and gave the author all proofs of his esteem (Brown, Fascicul. ver. Expet. ii. p. 250; Rob. Ep. 113, 114; Lingard, Eng. Hist. iii. p. 207, n. 1, Germ. Trans.). Hadrian IV. also gave willing ear to the candid ex- pressions of John of Salisbury (Polycr. 1. vi. c. xxiv. pp. 623-625). Also Paschal II. A.D. 1111, and Pius VII. A.D. 1813, listened meekly to the re- proaches made them. The Popes in so doing followed the example of St. Peter, who suffered St. Paul's reproofs with meekness and charity : ' Erat objnrgatore suo ipse qui objurgebatur inirabilior et ad imitandum difficilior.' Aug. in Gal. c. ii. Cf.Ep.89,adHieron. Cypr.Ep. 71,ed.Baluz. Maucler, de Monarchia Divina, pp. 251, 461. Phillips, K. R. i. 30, p. 244. Petrus Venerabilis wrote to Innocent II. (1. ii. Ep. 28, p. 246) : ' Cum jure majestas apostolica omnibus dominetur ; soli tantum ration! subjici gloriatur.' 9 Of course those meant are such as have been recognised as general, and have been confirmed by the Holy See, as is shown by the quoted passage of the Decretal, c. vii. xiv. 1 ; C. xxv. q. 1, c. xvii. ; C. xxv. q. 2. 10 Bellarmin. de Rom. Pont. c. vi. vii. C. xxv. q. 1 ; c. xxi. 19. ; C. cad. q. 2. 11 Bellarmin. de Rom. Pont. 1. i. c. iii. says bishops are not vicarii Pontificis maximi. Also Petrus Ballerini, I.e. n. 9, p. 171. 12 It is clear that this has become much more difficult now since there no longer exists any Catholic State, and the Church has become subjected to jura majestatis in sacra that were unknown formerly. None the less it is nowadays more true even than formerly, quod eminentiae regnlis obtentu quandoque rigor temperatur ecclesiasticus et canonum severitas mansuescit. Petr. Bles. Ep. 164, p. 459. 13 Greg. M. 1. viii. Ep. 30, serves as a special example. Vide also Maucler, I.e. p. 248 seq. 200 The Pope and the Bishops. 14 Cf. Phillips, I.e. p. 245 : ' As a ruler acts wisely in examining the means which are to serve him in accomplishing the objects he aims at in his line of government, so the Pope must also examine and weigh the means furnished him hy the epoch in which he lives for the increase and sti'engthening of the kingdom of Christ upon earth. In this sense we can say with truth that it is the duty of the Pope to consider the spirit of the age.' Innocent III. writes as follows to the bishops of Sardinia, lib. vi. Ep. 16 (Migue, ccxv. p. 23) : ' Sic Apostolica Sedes auctoritatem propriam moderatur, ut plus quod expedit quam quod licet attendens potentiam suam publicae utilitati conformet.' 14 Kirche und Kirchen, pp. 38, 39. At p. 41 are cited the utterances of Card. Gonsalvi and of Archbishop Kenrick. Cf. the same author, Ueber gemischte Ehen, p. 65. 4. "Was all this changed at one blow on the 18th July 1870? Surely not, or it had been the greatest wonder the world's his- tory had ever seen, especially as rather more than eight weeks later the Pope was deprived by an unparalleled breach of faith of all the earthly support of his power. The defenceless Pope has still to face sovereigns, courts, parliaments, and national usages. Remonstrances and treaties have not lost their signifi- cance. The influence of duty, fear, and wisdom is still felt. Public opinion, far from having lost its force, has in many places gained the strength of insanity. The canons and laws of the Church are still in full vigour, and she is bound as of old by agreements and by legislation. Has the Pope acquired the right to revoke or change the commands of God ? Can he de- fine a doctrine that is not part of revelation ? Can he abolish ancient dogmatic definitions I 1 A definition once made remains unchanged and unchangeable for all time. Has a change taken place in the Pope 1 ? Has Pius IX. any powers not held by Pius VII. 1 All Popes have presupposed the infallibility of their doctrinal definitions, and have ascribed to the Holy See the possession of the plenitude of the power of the Church, recognising at the same time the limits of their authority, and distinguishing between their personal unworthiness and the dignity of their office. 2 They know full well that the Church's true Head is Christ, whose vicars they are, and to whom they will shortly have to render a strict account of the manner in Power of the Pope not arbitrary. 20 1 which they have performed their trust. It is the iittermost perversion of the doctrine of the Church to speak of the ' omni- potence' ascribed to the Pope by the Vatican decrees, and to say ' that the Pope might in one day abolish all the established dogmas of the Church, and alter all its discipline ; that there is no longer any firm dogma.' 3 1 The Council speaks clearly, Vat. Const, c. iv. : ' Neque enim Petri Buccessoribus Spiritus S. promissus est, ut eo revelante novam doctrinam patefacerent, sed ut eo assistente traditam per Apostolos revelationem seu fidei depositum sancte custodirent et fideliter exponerent.' 2 Vide Innocent III. 1. i. Ep. 85, ad Archiep. Mediol. p. 74 : ' Licet et peccatores, simus et nati de peccatoribus, illius tamen et vices agimus et locum tenemus, qui peccatum non fecit,' &c. Cf. Ep. 88, p. 75. 3 Schulte, ii. p. 75 seq. 5. At the bottom of all the extravagant assertions which we hear nowadays for example that the Vatican Council has made * the boundless absolutism of the Papacy into an article of faith' lies in point of fact (apart from perversions of the dogma) no- thing more or less than a dread lest Papal Infallibility and the supremacy of jurisdiction be misused to overthrow the existing ordinances of Church and State. Such a dread shows an entire absence of Catholic faith. It was of faith before the 18th July 1870, that Christ had conferred upon St. Peter the supre- macy of jurisdiction for the well-being of the Church. The Council of Florence had defined this doctrine, and it had been taught universally. It was also of faith, upon the ground of the Catholic interpretation of Holy Scripture, that the whole Church would not be suffered to fall into error. Faith in these doctrines precludes the idea that the Pope, as supreme guardian of revela- tion, could ever commit the Church to a doctrinal error, or that civil authority could suffer from a power that has always taught, and will always and does always teach, that civil authority is from God, and that obedience towards it is a duty. No injury can ever be done to the faith by the Holy See, to which every age of Christianity has looked to confirm its faith. Bossuet says that its energy at the time of Leo the Great (in the fifth 2O2 TJie Pope and the Bishops. century) appeared to him so wonderful, that he thought in suc- ceeding ages it must have lessened rather than increased. 1 The power of the Church has never been an absolute power, for she has always possessed in the Gospels and in tradition a fixed code of laws. The necessity of obeying these laws has given her a constitution, and the divine assistance is her sure guide. 2 Groundless, therefore, and unnecessary is any fear lest the Church should injure the State, and fears with regard to the future position of bishops are equally untenable. Even humanly considered, and setting aside the divine ordinances in the insti- tution of the episcopate, the autonomy of several hundred bishops without a head would be likely to be the cause of far graver abuses than a strong central power. 1 Corollar. Defens. 10, t. ii. p. 318 : ' Haec habens et exercens Apos- tolica Sedes tauta autiquitus auctoritate viguit, ut (ficlens dixerhn) immi- mita magis quain aucta esse videatur. ' "- Liberatore, Lo Stato e la Chiesa, c. ii. a. 3, p. 160. 6. The supposed design of making the bishops vicars of the Pope leads us to consider another design of an opposite cha- racter, that of making them vicars of the civil power. 1 J. N. Nuy tz aimed at this when he wrote that the decision of a National Council admits of no further discussion, and the civil power can settle an affair as decided by such National Council (Syllabus, Prop. 36). A French pamphleteer and an Italian Liberal, who thought that national Churches could be established after being withdrawn and separated from the authority of the Eoman Pontiff 2 (Prop. 37), had the same object in view. It Avas also intended by J. 1ST. Nuytz and others, who declared that bishops were possessed of a double power one purely ecclesiastical, limited to their authority to ordain and teach; the other, referring to jurisdiction and temporal matters in the widest sense of the words, and granted expressly or tacitly by the civil power, which could revoke it at pleasure (Prop. 25). :! The same end is in- dicated by the assertion that the State possesses as inherent in itself the right of presenting bishops, and may require of them Power of the Pope not arbitrary. 203 that they take possession of their dioceses in virtue of their no- mination before having received the confirmation of the Holy See 4 (Prop. 50) ; further, that the lay government has the right of deposing bishops from their pastoral functions, and is not bound to apply to the Pope nor obey him in those things that relate to- bishops' sees and the institution of bishops 5 (Prop. 51). In Germany bishops have already before this been regarded as ' anointers' appointed by the State, and now again the former idea of a national Church has found favour in many quarters. 6 It has been hoped, by means of State authority and penal laAvs against Catholics, to found at last a State Church. But the faith of the bishops, priests, and people is unshaken, and although much assistance has been given and material power has lent its aid, the high-sounding preparations for a national Church have served only to found a new and small sect, which has been joined by a few apostate priests who have sought to win over bishops and kings by exaggerating the episcopal and royal power. The national or imperial Church would convert the bishops into vicars of the State. The Universal Church alone maintains them in their true position. 1 In old times also measures were taken to bring this about. Vide Hugo Grotius, Commentar. Posthumus de Imperio Summarum Potestatum circa Sacra, c. ii. n. 2 : ' Ecclesiarum pastores, qua tales sunt, i.e. qua- tenus munere funguntur docendi et declarandi verbum Dei auditoribus suis s. fidelibus, non esse summarum potestatum vicarios.' He asserts, nevertheless, that they : ' Quatenus praeter pastorale munus aliquid im- perii aut jurisdictionis accipiunt, ejus accessionis ratione verissime dici summarum potestatum vicarios aut delegates.' Vide on this subject the work, De Finibus uti-iusque Potestatis, Ecclesiasticae et Laicae, Comment. Auctore D presbytero monacho Ord. S. Bened. e Congreg. Casin. et jurisprud. eccl. prof. Primum Lugani, dein Eatisbonae editus impensa J. M. Englerth, 1781, iv. cap. i. p. 4 seq. 2 Alloc. Multis gravibusque, 17 Dec. 1860, and Jam dudum ceniiinus, 18 March 1861. 3 Lit. Ad Apostolicae Sedis, Syll. Prop. 25. 4 Alloc. on South America, 15 Dec. 1856, Nunquam fore, Syll. Prop. 50. Those who being elected or nominated enter upon their office before their appointment has been confirmed are, according to the law of the Church, ' intrusi,' even if they act as procurators or stewards. Greg. X. in Cone. Lugd. ii. (c. v. Avai-itiae, i. 6, de Elect, in 6). Bonifac. VIII. Const. Ad Reformandum, 5 Aug. 1485. Julius II. Const. Romani Ponti- ficis, 28 Jul. 1505. Julius III. Const. Sanctissimus ; cf. Reiffenstuel in 204 The Pope and the Bishops. 1. i. Decret. tit. 6, 2, n. 40 seq. Clem. XI. Const. In suprema, 24 Aug. 1709 ; Ubi nobis, 7 Mart. 1710. Pius VII: Briefs to Cardinal Maury, 5 Nov. and to Mgr. Corboli, 2 Dec. 1810. 5 Alloc. Lit. ap. Multiplies inter, 10 June 1851, against Vigil. Alloc. Acerbissiinum, 27 Sept. 1852, on New Granada. 6 Especially with the Augsburg Allgemeine Zeitung. e.g. Supplement, 31 Aug. 1870. It saw in Prof. Leopold Schmidt, who died out of the Church, and who was once a candidate for the bishopric of Mayence, a forerunner of the new national Church. ESSAY V. THE SYLLABUS AND MODERN STATES. THE Syllabus published with the Encyclical of December 8, 1864, is a collection of the principal errors of our day. It is frequently attacked as containing new doctrine, laying down, in- fallible rules, and declaring war to the death with all modern States and modern constitutions. Yet, on impartial examina- tion, any one acquainted with ecclesiastical matters could see plainly that it taught nothing new. The propositions are all in effect contained in the Encyclical 'Mirari vos' 1 of Gregory XVI., August 15, 1832, which at the time no Catholic ventured to attack, but which some now call ' ill-famed ;' in the first Ency- clical of Pius IX., dated November 9, 1846 ; 2 and in later Allo- cutions and apostolic writings. 3 Neither is it correct to say that the Encyclical of December 8, 1864, only refers generally to the condemnation of several pernicious opinions, whilst the Syllabus appended to it is the first decidedly to denounce them. The Encyclical contains many separate condemned propositions, and the two mutually complete each other. We will proceed to consider: 1. The general and legal aspect (the formal signi- ficance) of the Syllabus ; 2. Its separate propositions. 1 Bull. Rom. Cont. t. xix. pp. 126-132, Const. 167. 2 Acta Pii IX. vol. i. Romae, 1854, pp. 4-24. 3 They are collected in a volume, published by Pustel at Ratisbon in 1865: Ss. D.N. Pii P.P. IX. Epistola Encyclica, data die vin. Dec. 1864 ; accedit Appendix antiq. mora et novissima documenta conti- nens, &c. PART I. FORMAL SIGNIFICANCE OF THE ENCYCLICAL OF 1864 AND OF THE SYLLABUS. 1. Difference between the propositions of the Syllabus and ecclesiastical censures. 2. Has it dogmatic force ? 3. Examples. 2o6 The Syllabus and Modern States. 1- Our opponents are quite wrong in supposing that all the propositions contained in the Syllabus are condemned as false and heretical, and that therefore all the propositions contradic- tory to these are so many articles of faith. On reading the whole eighty propositions, very little impartiality would suffice to discover great differences between them. The Pope has no- where declared all these eighty propositions to be heretical, and only the contradictory of an heretical proposition can be consi- dered as dogma. 1 Each separate proposition is not described as heretical nor qualified in any other way ; they are only con- demned collectively as false and perverse opinions. Propositions may be distinguished as heretical, erroneous, rash, impious, scandalous, dangerous, &c. 2 In ecclesiastical judgments either each individual proposition is qualified, as, for instance, in the Bull of Pius VI., 'Auctorem fidei,' 8 August 28, 1794, or a set of propositions are rejected as a whole, with- out a determinate theological censure being applied to each separate proposition, as in the Bull ' Unigenitus' of Clement XL, September 8, 1713. 4 Now and then only a minimum of the deserved censure will be expressed in the wording ; for ex- ample, Alexander VII. condemned many tenets in 16G5 and 1G66 as 'at least scandalous.' 5 A Pope or a Council can even deliver a dogmatic judgment "in different ways, either simply rejecting what is evil, or also determining the degree of the evil, which may be very different, for this reason amongst others, that an error may be either directly or only indirectly opposed to faith. 6 1 Cf. Opinion of the Theological Faculty of Wiirzburg of 7 July 1869, Fr. i. 1, p. 2. 2 Melchior Canus, cle Locis Theologicis, 1. xii. c. x. Gauthier, Pro- drom. ad Theol. Dogin. Schol. in Thes. Theol. ed Zaccaria, t. i. 53. Denzinger, Enchirid. definit. et symbol, ed. iv. Wirceb. 1865, Praef. p. ix. Reinerding, Theol. Fuudam. t. i. p. 235, n. 406. Kilber, Theol. Wirceb. t. i. disp. 3, c. ult. Append, ii. n. 252, p. 682 seq. 3 Denzinger, I.e. pp. 388-422. Denzinger, I.e. pp. 351-361. s Bnllar. Rom. ed. Lux. t. vi. Append, pp. 1, 2. Denzinger, I.e. The Syllabus as a whole. 207 pp. 317-32-2. Cf. ZaUwein, Princip. Jur. Eccl. t. i. q. 4, c. ii. 652, 6. Phillips, Lehrbuch des Kirchenrecht, 246, p. 802, i. edit. Aichner, Com- pend. Jur. Eccles. 144, p. 447. Specially appropriate to this is Do- minicus Viva Damnatae Theses ab Alex. VII., Innoc. XI. et Alex. VIII. ad theologicain trutinam revocatae, Patavii, 1732. 6 S. Thorn. Lect. iv. in 1 Cor. c. xi. Opp. xvi. p. 74, ed. Roin. 1570 : ' Pertinet aliquid ad doctrinam fidei dupliciter : iino inodo directc, sicnti articuli fidei, qui per se credendi proponuntur .... quaedain vero indirect^ .... in quantum ex uegatione eorum sequitur aliquid contrariuru fidei, sicut si negatur Isaac fuisse filium Abrahae, sequitur aliquid contrarium fidei, sc. S. Scripturain continere aliqflid falsi.' 2- The propositions which are contained in the Syllabus are, then, condemned in the mass (in globo) ; nothing further is de- termined than that these propositions must not be held or main- tained. The faithful have to submit to the decision of the Church as it is given to them. It has not been decided that the propositions as a body are heretical, but only that they must be rejected; not that they all militate directly against faith and morals, but only that collectively they endanger them. !None of the propositions cited in the Syllabus are entirely free from theological censure; each one is censured in one way or another, but certainly not each one in the same way. 1 The En- cyclical of December S, 18G4, and the Syllabus appended to it lay down no rules of faith in a strict sense, 2 but they are cer- tainly dogmatic decisions as well as the above-mentioned Bull of Clement XI. Otherwise the decision of the Council of Con- stance against the doctrines of Wicliffe and Huss 3 would not be dogmatic ; neither the Bull of Leo X. against Luther, 4 nor that of Pius Y. against Baius, 5 or that of Innocent XI. against Michael Molinos/ or of Innocent XII. against the twenty- three propositions from Funelon's book (Maxims of the Saints).' All these decrees and constitutions condemn propositions in a mass (in globo), and yet to Catholics they are all dogmatic. Martin Y., after the publication of the Bull in which he ap- proved of the Council of Constance, desired that any one sus- pected of heresy should be asked, among other things, whether he believed in the truth of the decision of the holy Council of 208 The Syllabus and Modern States. Constance concerning the forty-five propositions of Wicliffe and the thirty propositions of Huss, by which these sets of forty-five and thirty propositions were declared not to be Ca- tholic, some of them notoriously heretical, some false, some in- solent and seditious, and some offensive to pious ears. 8 This condemnation of propositions in globo is rightly and wisely done, 9 in order to prevent any of them being de- fended or held, although they,do not all deserve the same cen- sure. 10 A considerate doctor wisely forbids his patient to partake of the dishes spread out on a richly-supplied table, because all are hurtful to him ; although he does not pronounce in what way each one would hurt him, and which would hurt more and which less. Some consider that these condemnations in a mass are a novelty in Church discipline. Even were it so, this would be no reason for Catholics not to respect them. But in fact they are no novelty. When the writings of Arius (especially his Thalia) were condemned by the Council of Xice, everything therein contained was not considered in the same light. When the works of Origen were condemned by Theophilus, Epiphanius, and Pope Anastasius, everything that Origen had written was not equally disapproved. At the con- demnation of the Three Chapters, in the fifth Ecumenical Council, the whole contents of the letter of Ibas to Maris the Persian, the writings of Theodore of Mopsuestia, and those of Theodoret against Cyril were not considered deserving, in all their parts, of the same censure. In the Sixth Council the let- ters of Honorius to Sergius and of Pyrrhus of Constantinople to Pope John IV. were condemned. Who can believe that evemjthuiy found in these could be proscribed in equal measure? If that had been the case, articles of faith, theological and per- fectly correct propositions, must have been likewise condemned. The distinction between dogmatic judgments which enjoin the acceptance of certain propositions and give a precise rule of faith and those which are only dogmatic judgments in a voider sense, inasmuch as they reject certain propositions in general, solves the apparent contradiction among theologians,, some considering the Syllabus a-r;ong the Papal dogmatic deci- The Syllabus as a whole. 209 sions in the sense of the Vatican Council, others disputing it. When the Church censures a doctrine without stating the kind of censure, we are bound to consider it worthy of censure, hut not necessarily of the highest degree of censure. 11 1 Kilber, Theol. Wirceb. t. iv. tract. 3, disp. 4, c. ii. a. 7, n. 244, p. 349 : ' Bullae Unigenitus non deest character definitions dogmaticae ex eo, quod contra Quesnelli propositiones latae fuerint censurae, ut aiunt, in globo. Eatio est, quia hie defectus nee est juris nee facti. Non est defectus juris : quia per ejusmodi censuram in globo imprimis propositio- nes omnes constat rejiciendas, deinde intelligitur, nullam esse censuram, quae alicui saltern proposition! non conveniat. Unde postremo, quamvis "vi Bullae et condemnations distingui nequeat, quaenam nota cuilibet ex damnatis propp. debeatur, tamen id Theologorum studio et industria facile cognosci potest, et nullatenus ad rationem dogmatici judicii necesse est, ut applicationem qualificationum ulterius determinet .... atque ex eo {quoque constat), quod non summa claritas ei individualis quasi determi- natio in condemnationibus requiratur. Nee est defectus facti, quia con- suetudinis ecclesiasticae est similis condemnatio, ut patet ex decretis.' Cone. Constant, adv. Wicleffum et Hussum, ex Bulla Leonis X. adv. Xoitherum, ex Constit. Pii V., Gregorii XIII. et Urbani VIII. adv. Bajum et Jansenium. 2 Kilber, I.e. n. 245, pp. 350, 351 : ' Equidem ex his conficitur, Bullam Unigenitus non esse fidei regulam in scnm stricto; est tamen judiciwn 'dofjmaticum quod servit ad dirigendos fideles in ordinc fidei, prout Cardi- nales archiepiscopi et episcopi Parisiis a. 1728 congregati pronunciarunt de judiciis Ecclesiae qualificationes tantum respectivas continentibus.' The Bull and also the Popes describe as dogmaticum S. Sedis et universalis Ecclesiae decretum S. judicium : for example, Clement XIII. in the Brief of Jan. 23, 1765, to the Bishop of Liittich ; also the Sorbonne, in the De- cree of Dec. 15, 1729 (Du Plessis, t. iii. P. i. p. 184). 3 Denziuger, Enchirid. ed. iv. pp. 186-193, n. 477-550. 4 Ib. p. 220 seq. n. 220. 5 Ib. p. 302 seq. n. 881 seq. Ib. p. 333 seq. n. 1088 seq. " Ib. p. 348 seq. n. 1193 seq. 8 Art. 11 ex Const. Inter cunctas, I.e. p. 194, n. 555. 9 Cf. Bossuet, Second Edit sur le Livre do Mgr. Fenelon, n. 2. 10 Pallavic. Hist. Cone. Trid. 1. i. c. xxi., and Tournely, Praeleet. Theol. de Censuris, art. 1, t. iii., where many testimonies support this opinion. Eck observed at the disputation at Leipzig, 1519, with regard to the propositions of Huss condemned at Constance : ' Quoniam aliquam certe censuram merentur singulae et ex iis reliquis censuris (praeter no- tam haeresis) per disjunctionem a coucilio inustis, nimirum vel esse erro- ncas vel scandalosas vel temerarias et alia hujusmodi' (Pallav. I.e. c. xvi. n. 9). Vide particularly Car. Du Plessis d'Argentre, Coll. de Nov. Errori- bus, Paris, 1724, t. i. p. ii. p. 53 seq. 11 The letter of Cardinal Antonelli which accompanied the Syllabus VOL. I. P 210 The Syllabus and Modern States. only speaks of errores ac perniciosas doctrinas, quae ab ipso (Summo Poni- tifice) reprobatae ac proscriptae sunt. 3. It follows that we must not regard the contradictory of each' separate proposition condemned by the Syllabus as a dogma of the Church. A dangerous or offensive proposition may be as dangerous or offensive, Avhether the predicate be denied or affirmed. A clear though coarse example will make this plain. When Pr. Abraham a Santa Clara said in a sermon, ' Ladies who bare their necks are not worthy to be spat upon,' he was called upon to retract, because it would apply to some of the persons at court. He is said to have replied by the contradic- tory proposition: 'They are worthy to be spat upon.' Whether the story be true or false, it is a good illustration of our mean- ing. The proposition of Quesnell was dangerous and offensive when, treating excommunication as unjust and disobeying the teaching of the Church, he imagined it his duty to pro- pagate his heresy (prop. 91-93), and accused the Church of ignorance and tyranny in matters of faith (prop. 94-95). But it is impossible to derive from his condemnation the doctrine, that fear of unjust excommunication must sometimes (or always) deter us from the fulfilment of our duty. The twenty-fourth proposition of the Syllabus contains two negative errors : 1. The Church has no right of coercion ; 2. she has neither direct nor indirect temporal power. In rejecting this second propo- sition the doctrine cannot be deduced that the Church has fi direct and also an indirect temporal power, but only it is false to say that the Church has no temporal power, whether direct or indirect. Again, Berchtold is altogether wrong in saying that according to Pius IX. it is heresy to believe that the Popes have ever exceeded the limits of their power. That by no means follows from the twenty-third proposition of the Syllabus. 1 This proposition can be subdivided into three or, if the Pope and the Council are to be divided, into six asser- tions : ' 1. The (a) Eoman Popes and the (&) Ecumenical Conn- T/ic Syllabus as a whole. 2 1 1 cils have exceeded the limits of their power ; 2. usurped the rights of princes ; and 3. erred in the definitions of doctrines of faith and morals.' The first and second propositions do not refer to a truth revealed by God, but only to historical matters of fact, princi- pally of the Middle Ages ; 2 they cannot therefore be described as heretical propositions, but as insulting to the Church and the Holy See, as presumptuous and false ; in so far as they im- ply that unjust interferences and usurpations were habitual, and not merely occasional and exceptional, they are certainly quite untrue. The condemnations of the assertions 2 and 3a in no way necessitate the supposition that in the exercise of their power Popes have remained free from all faults and mistakes, especially in administrative and private matters. The Brief ' Multiplices inter' of June 10, 1851, from which prop. 23 is taken, mentions the judgment of the Congregation of the Holy Office on the book of Vigil, but does not qualify each separate proposition contained in it. 3 Ecclesiastical jurisdiction with regard to marriage, the right of confirming the election or no- mination of bishops, the claim to the free intercourse of the Pope with the bishops and the faithful, were given by Vigil as examples of how Popes and General Councils exceeded the just limits of their authority, and he had spoken in so mischievous and frivolous a manner that this alone would have justified the censure of these propositions. As regards the third assertion, in- asmuch as it denies the infallibility of General Councils it is plainly heretical ; and inasmuch as it unceremoniously denies Papal Infallibility, it could, before July 18, 1870, have been declared approximate to heresy, arid at all events presumptuous and insulting to the Holy See. 4 Therefore the same condem- nation would not at all have suited each point of the twenty- third proposition, although each deserved one or other of the ecclesiastical censures. There can be no question of calling the whole Syllabus dogma, in the sense that all these propositions are heresies. The learned opponents of the Vatican Council must know this very well, even though their theological acquirements be some- 212 The Syllabus and Modern States. what slender. Thus, for example, prop. 12 of the Syllahus, ' The decrees of the Apostolic See and of the Roman Congrega- tions hinder the progress of science,' can be censured as false, presumptuous, scandalous, insulting to the Holy See and to the whole Church ; but not as heretical, since it does not imme- diately or directly militate against revelation nor the truths de- fined by the Church, and the Pope has never defined it as here- tical. So also prop. 38, ' Many Roman Pontiffs have by their too arbitrary conduct contributed to the division of the Church into Eastern and Western,' is not heretical, but a false assertion, 5 insulting to the Apostolic See. It is the same thing with Pro- fessor Xuytz's condemned assertion, 6 that Boniface VIII. had first pronounced that the vow of celibacy taken at ordination made marriage null. That is historically false; for the question had been settled long before by St. Thomas 7 and St. Bonaven- ture, 8 and before these by the several Councils of the eleventh and twelfth centuries, 9 and earlier still by the legislation of the East. 10 It is likewise incorrect that the doctrine by which the Pope is compared to a sovereign prince was first authorised in the Middle Ages. 11 1 Prop. 23 : ' The Roman Pontiffs and Ecumenical Councils have ex- ceeded the limits of their power, have usurped the rights of princes, and have even committed errors in defining matters of faith and morals.' - Fessler, Unfehlbarkeit, p. 35. 3 The book is described as ' continens doctrinas et propositions respec- tive scandalosas, falsas, temerarias, schismaticas, Romanis Pontificibus et Conciliis oecumenicis injuriosas [that exactly applies to the assertions we are considering] , Ecclesiae potestatis, libertatis et jurisdictiones ever- sivas, erroneas, impias et haereticas.' 4 Cf. Prop. 29 Damn. 7 Dec. 1690, ah Alex. VIII. Denzinger, p. 345, n. 1186. 5 Cf. Bennettis , de Privileg. B. Petri. P. ii. t. iii. p. 720 seq. 6 Prop. 72 of Syllabus : ' Boniface VIII. is the first who declared that the vow of celibacy pronounced at ordination annuls marriage.' 7 Sum. 2, 2, q. 88, a. 7, 11. 8 In Libr. sent.iv. d. 38. q. 2. 9 Hefele, Cone. v. pp. 175, 260, 262, 319, 340, 391. 10 Zsishman, Oriental. Eherecht, p. 475 seq. 11 Prop. 34 of the Syllabus : ' The doctrine of those who compare the Sovereign Pontiff to a free sovereignty acting in the Universal Church is a doctrine which prevailed in the Middle Ages only.' The Propositions of the Syllabus. 213 PART II. THE PROPOSITIONS OF THE SYLLABUS. 1. Prop. 1-18, 77-79. 2. Independence of the Church as a perfect society. 3. State interference. 4. Indirect negative power in religious matters. 5. The Placet. 6. Appeal from a spiritual to a temporal judge. 7. Power of the Church over temporal matters. 8. Immunities. 9. Instruction and education. 10. Princes. Civil and ecclesiastical law. Ordination vows. 11. Marriage. 12. The family. Limits of State authority. 13. Divergence of civil laws from ecclesiastical. 14, 15. Non-intervention. 16. Revolu- tion. 17. Sovereignty of the people. 18. Practical materialism. 19, 20. Liberalism. 21. Errors of modern society. 22. Folly of the conclusions wrongly drawn from the Syllabus. We are primarily concerned with those propositions of the Syllabus which treat of the authority of Church and State and their relations to each other. Xo one will maintain that the propositions 1-7 against pantheism, naturalism, and absolute rationalism are dangerous to the State, unless he identifies the modern State with these systems, denies any divine influence on the world, and considers Christianity itself a danger to the vitality of the State. Again, either propositions 8-14, con- cerning moderate rationalism, will not be considered dangerous; or Frohschammer's science or philosophy must be considered in- dissoluble from modern States, and these must feel themselves appointed to enter the lists as its champion. The propositions about religious indifference and latitudi- narianism (15-18) will be spoken of in Essay XVII., as well as the kindred propositions about. modern Liberalism (77-79); and propositions 21-23 will also be considered there and else- where. The fourth section refers to ecclesiastical condemnation of socialism, communism, secret societies, Bible societies, and of the clerico-liberal unions begun in Italy. The Popes have at all times pointed out the dangers which arise from secret socie- ties ; and many rulers refusing to give heed have too late expe- rienced their disastrous effects. When it was asserted that the Papal constitutions against the Carbonari and Freemasons were powerless where these societies were tolerated by the civil go- 2 1 4 The Syllables and Modern States. vernnient, 1 tlie following facts were entirely overlooked, viz. that the excommunication attached to these constitutions is purely an internal action of the Church, and operates in the ecclesiastical sphere even where unsupported by civil disabili- ties; that the Church steps in as the real guardian of morals, when such brotherhoods, shrouding their superiors, their aims and objects, in deepest mystery, impose unbounded obligations by fearful oaths. The Church is obliged to oppose the Protest- ant Bible societies, on account of the propagation of defective and falsified translations and tracts contrary to the faith. Unions of the liberal clergy, as they were formed in Italy, fos- tered disobedience against the Pope and the bishops, propa- gated principles opposed to those taught by the Church, and proved themselves thoroughly schismatical, so that even the Italian Government, which they desired to serve, withdrew its support. 1 Encyclica Quanta cura, At vero alii of the Prop. ' constitutiones apostolicas, quibus dainnantur clandestinae societates, sive in eis exigatur sive non exigatur juramentum de secreto servando, earumque asseclae et fautores anathemate muletantur, nullam habere vim in illis orbis regioni- bus, ubi ejusmodi aggregationes tolerantur a civili gubernio.' 2. Offence was likewise taken at the idea that the Church claims recognition as a divinely authorised, true, perfect, and indepen- dent society ? that she will not allow that temporal authority can determine what her rights are, and within what limits she may exercise them (prop. 19). 2 Supposing this proposition to be correct, the universality of the Church would be abolished, since different States could give her different rights and set arbitrary limits to her power. Either the Church has received a special and perpetual authority from Christ, in which case she cannot admit that the State has power at will to extend and retrench her authority, or she has not received such divine authority, and then all claim to it is un- tenable, the whole Church must be rejected, and no one can call himself a Catholic. And is this claim anything new on The Propositions of the Syllabus. 215 the part of the Church ? Do not all the works on canon law treat of the essential rights of the Church? Have not the Apostles and bishops exercised such rights before they met with recognition from the State ? 3 Have not the Fathers of the Church already rejected with vehemence the interference of the civil power in the domain of ecclesiastical rights] 4 Has the Church ever admitted prop. 20 : ' Ecclesiastical power must not be exercised without the permission and consent of the civil government' 1 Did the Apostles 5 recognise this proposition ? If they had, would not the conversion of the Roman Empire have been impossible 1 "Would not the Church have become a mere servant of every government 1 That there may be particular circumstances in which it is advisable or necessary to have the consent of the civil government for this or that act of ecclesias- tical authority is quite a different thing from the general prin- ciple that this consent and permission is absolutely necessary in all cases. The bishops of the Church have not received any of their privileges from the civil authority, nor can this authority depose or appoint bishops. 7 The Church with her divinely appointed hierarchy does not receive her right of existence from the State ; she was established by God by the side of the State and in spite of the State, at a time when the State was hostile to her. As the Church has the right of existence from herself and not from the State, she must in herself have the right of possessing and acquiring property. 8 The Church can as little part with her divine right as she can change the institution of the primacy ordained by Christ, and transfer it from the successors of St. Peter to any other bishop, 9 or as that there can be Catholic national Churches independent of the Roman Pontiffs. 1 Vid. supra, pp. 24, 25. - Syll. Prop. 19 : ' The Church IB not a true and perfect and inde- pendent society; she does not enjoy peculiar arid perpetual rights con- ferred upon her by her Divine Founder, hut it appertains to the civil power to define what are the rights and limits within which the Church may exercise authority.' 3 Phillips, Kirchenrecht, ii. 111, pp. 550 seq. 554. 4 Hosius Cordub. Ep. ad Const, ap. Athan. Hist. Aiian. 41 (Opp. i. 2 1 6 The Syllabus and Modern States. p. 745, Migne). Athanas. I.e. 52 (ib. p. 756). Basil, ap. Theod. H. E. iv. 17, 19. Ambros. Ep. 51, n. 5 seq. de Obitu Theod. n. 34. Soz. vii. 25. Many proofs of tbis may be found in Mamachi, Antiqtr. t. iv. p. 68 seq. 5 S. Hilar. adv. Auxent. : ' Quibus nam suffragiis ad praedicandum Evangeliuin Apostoli missi sunt ? Quibus adjuti potestatibus Christum, praedicabant ? .... Anne aliquam sibi assumebant e palatio auctorita- tem ? Edictisque regis Paulus Christo Ecclesiam congregavit ? Nerona se, credo, aut Vespasiano aut Decio patrocinantibus tuebatur?' s Syll. Prop. 25 : 'In addition to the authority inherent in the epis- copate, further temporal power is granted to it by the civil authority either expressly or tacitly, which power is on that account also revocable by the civil authority whenever it pleases.' 7 Syll. Prop. 50 : ' The lay authority possesses as inherent in itself the right of presenting bishops, and may require of them that they take pos- session of their dioceses before having received canonical institution and the apostolical letters of the Holy See.' Prop. 51 : 'And, further, the lay government has the right of deposing bishops from their pastoral functions, and is not bound to obey the Roman Pontiff in those things which relate to bishops' sees and the institution of bishops.' 8 Syll. Prop. 26 : ' The Church has not the natural and legitimate right of acquisition and possession.' 9 Syll. Prop. 35 : ' There would be no obstacle to the sentence of a General Council or the act of all the universal peoples transferring the Pontifical Sovereignty from the Bishop and city of Rome to some other bishopric and some other city.' 10 Syll. Prop. 37 : ' National Churches can be established after being withdrawn and separated from the authority of the Roman Pontiff.' Prop. 36 : ' The definition of a National Council does not admit of any subsequent discussion, and the civil power can settle an affair as decided by such National Council.' 3. Other propositions appear even more important, in particu- lar prop. 44 : ' The civil authority can interfere in matters relating to religion, morality, and spiritual government. There- fore it has control over the instructions for the guidance of con- sciences, published conformably with their mission by the pastors of the Church ; indeed it can decree in the matter of adminis- tering the holy Sacraments and the dispositions necessary for their reception.' This is purely a religious question, in which surely civil authority has no right to interfere. In such cases reference was made to the example of King Ozias, 1 who was punished for exercising priestly functions (2 Par. xxvi. 1-21). 2 The Propositions of the Syllabus. 217 The express mention of the direction ' for the guidance of con- sciences,' as well as the mention of the administration of the Sacraments, shows that it is primarily a question of moral theo- logy, 3 with which certainly the State cannot interfere. If the question is asked : May not the State protect morality by penal laws, and not simply execute ecclesiastical punishments, the Syllabus does not forbid us to answer in the affirmative, es- pecially if Christian and not heathen morality be presupposed ; morality makes common ground between Church and State, These two must not be hostile to each other; they should work in harmony; and this is why the Church rejects 4 the prin- ciple of the separation of Church and State. The teaching of the Church can never be detrimental to the well-being of society or of the State. 5 1 Innoc. III. 1. viii. Ep. 5, pp. 562, 563, ad Archiep. Cant. : ' Si dili- genter attenderent, quod Ozias rex Judae fuit in facie lepra percussus pro eo, quod indutus Ephod incensum adolere praesumsit, non praesumerent saeculares super rebus ecclesiasticis, quae ad ipsos non spectant, jurisdic- tionem aliquam exercere.' Thus even earlier, Petrus Bles. Ep. 10 (Migne, ccvii. p. 30), the Glossa Administrationis to c. v. Imperium, d. 10, and others. Hosius, ap. Athan. adMon. 41, alludes to this, and Chrysosto- mus, de Verb. Isai. c. vi. n. 1 (Migne, Ivi. p. 68), and Facundus of Her- miane (pro Defens. iii. capit. 1. xii. c. iii.) treat of it. 2 Protestant Version, 2 Chron. xxvi. 1-21. 3 Cf. Flor. Riess, Staat und Kirche. 4 Syll. Prop. 55 : ' The Church ought to be separated from the State, and the State from the Church.' 5 Syll. Prop. 40 : ' The teaching of the Catholic Church is opposed to the well-being and interests of society.' The forty-first proposition, that the civil government, even when exercised by a non-Catholic sovereign, possesses an in- direct negative power over religious matters, is, in the sense used by Professor Nuytz of Turin, who propounded this pro- position, certainly of a kind to deserve ecclesiastical censure. For, first, this ' negative' power is something very positive, viz. giving to civil rulers the right at pleasure to render in- operative or to hinder all that belongs to spiritual govern- ment ; it includes all the measures which were executed in 2 1 8 The Syllabus and Modern States. the kingdom of Sardinia against the Church from 1848 to 1851, from which she had to endure that the State should arbitrarily determine what was and what was not under her dominion. 1 Secondly, it is an assertion which far exceeds Gallicanism, which at least presupposes the ' most Christian' king, and does not adjudge such a power to a non-Catholic prince. Thirdly, from this assertion is derived not only the right of ' exsequatur' or ' placet,' but also the right of ' appel comme d'abus,' which the Church never has acknowledged and never can acknowledge. The Church can never admit that ec- clesiastical ordinances receive their validity from the civil power ; that apostolical letters, even apostolical dispensations, require the sanction of the State to make them valid " that the civil power has the right to prevent the free intercourse of the faith- ful and bishops with the Head of the Church. 1 Riess, I.e. 125 seq. p. 120 seq. Opinion of the Wiirzburg Theol. Faculty of July 7, 1869, ad ii. 38, p. 32. - Syll. Prop. 28, 29 : ' Bishops have not the right of promulgating even their apostolical letters without the sanction of the government' (28). 'Dispensations granted by the Roman Pontiff must be considered null, unless they have been requested by the civil government' (29). 5. Both these ' rights' are of quite recent origin. The Placet (placetum regium), by which the promulgation and execution of ecclesiastical publications were made dependent on the approval of the State, appeared in many countries, and was first raised to an abiding measure, 1 at the time of the great schism of 1378. Urban VI. at that time allowed several prelates to submit Bulls and Briefs to civil officials for acknowledgment before allowing them to be published in their dioceses, on account of the numerous Papal documents propagated by the antipope. In many places efforts were made to raise this temporary con- cession into a custom, and orders were given against apos- tolic documents being carried into effect which had not been acknowledged by the forms ' placet,' ' vidimus,' &c., where- fore Martin Y. published a special Bull 2 against it. But The Propositions of the Syllabus. 219 soon afterwards the measures became more frequent and by degrees more extended. 3 Several Popes 4 protested against it, and lastly the Vatican Council 5 also. And with perfect right. Had the civil power been allowed the privilege of making the publication of the laws of the Church depend on its good pleasure and consent, the Church would be governed not by a divinely appointed hierarchy, but by a temporal sovereignty. For if the necessary publication of every law were limited by another power and dependent on its good-will, this power in fact would become the legislator, and in changing its duty of protection into a right of ratification could refuse its consent to any ecclesiastical resolution which was displeasing to it. 6 The Placet rigorously carried out would have destroyed the unity of the Church, and have led to reli- gious anarchy and to the absolutism of the State. 7 It proves a great aversion to and distrust of the Church, as if she were most dangerous to the State ; it cannot proceed from the right of pro- tection, to which it is all the more opposed, that the State can- not and ought not to protect what it believes to be hurtful and pernicious. 8 The Placet is an anomaly in modern times, when States admit no force in any ecclesiastical censure, proclaim liberty of conscience, of association, and of the press, and promise equal rights to all men. 9 Furthermore, like Proteus, the Placet assumes different characters, has its basis now on this and now on that pretension of State power, and receives sometimes greater and sometimes less extension. 10 Theory as well as practice, literature as well as legislation, have made various exceptions in its application : here and there the decisions of the Roman Penitentiary in secret cases of conscience, 11 publications con- taining purely spiritual matters, dogmatic Bulls, 12 dispensations, episcopal Lenten pastorals, were not considered as coming under the Placet ; whilst in other places every kind of ecclesiastical publication required its authorisation, even those constitutions which had already received the Placet ' each time they are used/ as was determined by the edict for the ecclesiastical province of the Upper Rhine, January 30, 1830, in which edict State in- L erference seems to have culminated. 13 220 The Syllabus and Modern States. The Placet is quite inefficacious when a dogmatic definition is concerned, for this binds the conscience ; independently of a formal proclamation. 14 As soon as the faithful know of a defini- tion in matters of faith and morals made by the Church, they are bound in conscience by it. The declaration and explanation of revealed truth can no more depend upon the State in our times than in the heathen Roman Empire. Powerful States and powerful rulers have had no need of the Placet ; even now many States do not know of it, and lose thereby none of theii- sovereignty. 1 In England it was already pretty well in use in the llth and 12th centuries, in Portugal in the 13th. Papius, Zur Geschichte des Placet, Archiv seq. Kath. Kirchenrecht, 1867, vol. xviii. p. 166 seq. 2 Const. Quoad antidota, in which the above is given. 3 Papius, I.e. p. 170 seq. Phillips, iii. 135, p. 353 seq. 4 Roscoviiny, Monum. t. i. pp. 117, 118, 203, 205, 227, 300. 4 Const. Pastor aeternus, c. iii. Porro ex suprema. 6 Droste of Bischering, Ueher den Frieden unter der Kirche und den Staaten, p. 106 seq. Phillips, Kirchenrecht, ii. 112, p. 565. Cf. V. Haller, Restauration der St. Wissenschaft, vol. iv. 408. Beidtel, Das Canoni^che Recht, pp. 288-290. Tarquini, Del regio Placet Dissert. Roma, 1852. 7 Rotteck, Staatslexicon, vol. ix. p. 299. 8 Phillips, I.e. p. 566. Beidtel, p. 294. 9 Riess, I.e. p. 135, 143. V. Papius, I.e. p. 233 seq. 237. Beidtel, p. 292. 10 Beidtel, p. 289. Cf. also Gewart's Opusc. contra Espenii Doctrinam de Placeto regio, Lovan. 1830. 11 Papius, pp. 217, 218. The old parliament had excluded these from the Placet, the organic articles included them in it. The decree of the Austrian Court of July 23, 1782, had exempted the publications of the Penitentiary from the Placet, ib. p. 208. 12 Papius, p. 203 seq. 13 Papius, p. 222. 14 Van Espen, Tract, de Promulg. Leg. Eccl. P. v. c. ii. 1 : ' Itaque nequaquam depeudet a publicatione vel executioue decreti seu Bullae dog- maticae, ut quis dogmati assensum fidei praebere teneatur, eo quod prae- veuiendo omnem publicationem et executionem teneatur quis fide divina credere dogma, quod ipsi sufficienter constat ex divina revelatione esse traditutn.' Cf. De Marca , de Cone. 1. ii. c. x. 9. 6. The right of appeal from spiritual to temporal judges, granted on account of pretended abuses, is of the same character as the The Propositions of the Syllabus. 221 Placet, and was rejected with it in the Syllabus. 1 The ' appel d'abus' spread from France 2 into other countries. This alleged right makes the civil power superior to the spiritual, and sub- stitutes for possible abuse of ecclesiastical power an actual and continuous abuse of civil power. Every legislator is the inter- preter of his laws f as in civil matters there exists the right of appeal from lower to higher civil judges, so also in the Church there is a canonical series of appeals from lower to higher spiri- tual judges. 4 The ecclesiastical judge has to decide accord- ing to ecclesiastical law, which is independent from the State, and therefore not subject to the interpretation of a civil judge, who decides according to civil law, and has no legal title to guard the laws of the Church. If the spiritual judge were to overstep his boundary and encroach on civil jurisdiction, the State would naturally have the right to reject the judgment and prevent its execution. 5 But this is beside the present question. No appeal takes place, but the State simply declares the judgment as proceeding from an incompetent tribunal to be null and void. If however the spiritual judge confines himself within the limits of his authority, the civil power has no right to interfere. No such right comes from the Church, by -whom, on the contrary, interference has been forbidden most stringently ; G nor from the nature of the civil authority, which is only competent in its own sphere, and cannot legislate for the Church, cannot bestow spiritual jurisdiction, nor even decide with certainty concerning its abuse. Moreover, the abuse of a power is no reason for its ceasing to exist, or for its becoming subject to another power, otherwise no power would be possible amongst men. 7 In France this measure, which has been, maintained by the ' organic arti- cles,' has practically only led to the greatest inconvenience, violence, and absurdity. 8 1 Syll. Prop. 41 : ' The civil government, even when exercised by an infidel sovereign, possesses an indirect and negative power over religious affairs. It, therefore, possesses not only the right called that of cxse- quatur, but also that of the (so-called) appellatio ab abusu' [appel comme d'abus] . 2 See Essay XV. on ecclesiastical jurisdiction. 3 L. ult. Cod. i. 14. de Leg. ; c. xxxi. de Sent. Excom. v. 39. 4 Phillips, Kirchenrecht, p. 570 seq. Beidtel, p. 285 seq. 222 The Syllabus and Modern States. 5 Cf. De Marca, de Cone. 1. iv. c. xxvii. Walter, 46c, p. 91. 6 Cone. Antioch. 841, c. xi. 12 (c. ii. C. xxi. q. 5). Cone. Agath. et Greg. M. (ib. c. i. 6). Martin V. Const, i. Febr. 1428, Ad reprimendas, Bull. Roin. ed. Horn. iii. ii. p. 459. Roscovany, Mon. i. pp. 109-111. Sixt. IV. Const. 1471. Leo XII. Ep. ad Gall. Reg. a. 1824. Trid. Sess. xxv. de Ref. c. iii. partially refers to this. 7 M. Liberatore, I.e. c. iii. art. 5, p. 270. 8 Cf. Cormenin, in the Encyclopedic du xix. Siecle, v. Concordat (also Liberatore, I.e. pp. 273-278, 308, 309). The Church, as a visible body, cannot consent to be refused every kind of judicial capacity and dominion over temporal and material things. Tin 1 , twenty-fourth proposition 1 is in two parts : one denies to the Church that coercive and penal authority which she has always exercised.- Deprived of them she would have 110 external court of justice (forum externum), no censures, no punishments, and would be in a worse position than any private society, which by means of statutes can inflict fines, or otherwise punish negligent or disobedient members. The other part denies all temporal power to the Church, whether direct or indirect. The Church has exercised a direct temporal power in the States of the Church and in the possession of temporal goods and privileges ; she justly rejects the assertion that the ministers of the Church, and the Pope in particular, ought to be excluded from all charge and dominion over temporal affairs ; :i that amongst Catholics it ought to be very questionable whether the civil power is compatible with the spiritual in the Head of the Church ; 4 and that the abolition of the temporal dominion of the Holy See would largely contribute to the liberty and happiness of the Church. 5 The groundlessness of these opinions has often been proved, 6 and it seems to have fallen to our days to give a proof that shall be visible to all eyes. Indirectly the Church must exercise her power over temporal things ; for it is her duty to admonish the faithful on the one hand not to misuse their earthly possessions, nor squander them on unworthy objects, but to em- ploy their superfluity in favour of those in need ; and on the other hand, when iu poverty to have recourse to patience, to limit their desire for enjoyment, to be frugal and sparing. 7 She must oppose the service of Mammon, must teach her children to The Propositions of the Syllabus. 225 use temporal things, so that they lose not those things which are eternal ; 8 she must protect her temporal goods, and forbid sacri- lege under pain of censure ; 9 she must exercise her office where temporal matters trench upon her sphere. To say she has not any temporal power (potestas ulla temporalis) is to drive her from her place in the actual world, where her task lies ; to de- prive her of those possessions which she defends as useful and necessary to her for its accomplishment, which she has acquired with perfect right, and maintains without intermixing the spiritual and temporal order. 10 For the very reason that the Church is not an invisible institution, but a visible, true, and perfect society for men and amongst men, she is bound to engage in temporal affairs as far as her aim requires. Exterior and in- terior things both belong to her worship as to her life. If she were limited to what is purely interior she would not even be in a position to administer her Sacraments, and would evaporate into a purely spiritual society. 1 Syll. Prop. 24 : ' The Church has not the power of availing herself of force or any direct or indirect temporal power.' - See Essay XVII. on the Church and liberty of conscience. 3 ' The ministers of the Church and the Roman Pontiff ought to be absolutely excluded from all charge and dominion over temporal affairs.' Syll. Prop. 27, from the Allocution Maxima quidem, June 9, 1862. 4 ' The children of the Christian and Catholic Church are not agreed upon the compatibility of the temporal and spiritual power. ' Syll. Prop. 75, from the Apostolic Brief Ad Apostolicae, Aug. 22, 1851. 5 ' The abolition of the temporal power of which the Apostolic See is possessed would contribute in the greatest degree to the liberty and pros- perity of the Church.' Syll. Prop. 76, from the Allocution Quibus quan- tisque, April 20, 1849, on Mazziui's Roman Republic. 6 Pignatelli, Consult. Can. t. iii. .Cons. 6, n. 15 seq. p. 16 seq. ' The Encyclical of Dec. 8, 1864, pronounces against the Prop. : ' Ec- clesiam nihil debere decernere, quod obstringere possit fidelinm conscien- tias in ordine ad usum rerum temporalium.' 8 Collect for 3d Sunday after Pentecost : ' Ut te rectore, te duce sic transeamus per bona temporalia, ut non amittamus aeterna.' 9 Cf. Opinions of the Wiirzburg Theol. Faculty of July 7, 1869, ad ii. 39, 40, pp. 33, 34. 10 Before the above-quoted proposition the Encyclical Quanta cura censures this other : ' Excommunicationem a Concilio Tridentino et Ro- manis Pontificibus latam in eos, qui jura posscssionesque Ecclesiae inva- dunt, et usurpant, niti coufusione ordinis spiritualis, ordinisque civilis ac politici ad niundanum dumtaxat bonum prosequendum.' 224 The Syllabus and Modern States. 8. The immunity of the clergy, stated in the Syllabus, also gives great offence. 1 But the assertion, ' The immunity of the Church and of ecclesiastical persons derives its origin from civil law,' 2 must already have been condemned, inasmuch as it con- tradicts the Council of Trent, according to which this immunity is established by the ordinance of God and canon law. This is expressly added to the Brief of June 10, 1851, from which the proposition was taken. 3 Moreover, the Church and theology have only opposed the theory that ecclesiastical immunities were entirely derived from the civil law. 4 With perfect reason the Church holds fast to her rights, and nothing is more natural than the rejection of the proposition : ' Ecclesiastical jurisdic- tion for the temporal causes of the clergy, whether civil or criminal, ought by all means to be abolished, even without the concurrence and against the protest of the Holy See ;' 5 or of this one : ' Without any violation af natural law or equity personal immunity exonerating the clergy from military service may be abolished ; its abolition is called for by civil progress, especially in a community constituted upon principles of liberal govern- ment.' But if ever anything were a violation of natural law and equity it is the forcible drawing of the clergy into military service ; it is totally opposed to their office, renders the education neces- sary for their "difficult vocation still harder, and even impossible, deprives the Church of the necessary number of ministers, and in many places leaves Christian people without pastors. The necessity for exempting ecclesiastics from military service has been recognised even by non-Catholic governments, and is re- quired by the very nature of the case. It is neither just nor wise to make unsuitable demands upon a body which in its own way is useful to the State, merely for the sake of a mechanical and external universal equality, which from purely natural reasons can never be attained. By drawing the clergy into bar- racks the esteem in which the priesthood is held, the dignity of religion, the exercise of worship, the education of those desirous of entering the priesthood, the influence and care of the Church The Propositions of the Syllabus. 225 over her ministers would all materially suffer; it is therefore a great injustice, and most disadvantageous to Christian people, who have never opposed this ' privilege' of immunity, and who, moreover, have even considered it necessary and a matter of course. Holy Scripture says no one can serve two masters (Matt, vi. 24) ; priests remain unmarried to serve God better and un- dividedly (1 Cor. vii. 32, 33) ; soldiers of Christ (2 Tim. ii. 3) cannot also be soldiers of the world, nor involve themselves in secular concerns (ib. iv.); especially must they kill no one (1 Tim. iii. 3 ; Tit. i. 7). The Church has, on grounds taken from Scripture, forbidden her clergy to bear arms and engage in war j 1 and even the Liberals of our day acknowledge she is right, by deriding the warlike bishops of the Middle Ages, many of whom only took the field to protect their territory. Military service presents an ecclesiastical impediment to ordination, from the want it involves of the necessary meekness of heart en- joined by divine command. 8 How is it possible to abolish the exemption of the clergy from military service ' without any violation of natural law and equity' ? The abolition of a free spiritual jurisdiction would be less absurd, as not in itself and in the same way contradicting the natural law ; wherefore in this concessions have from time to time been made, even by Popes. It only follows from the thirty-first proposition that in a country where till then the Church had entire jurisdiction over ecclesiastics the civil power is not justified in abolishing such jurisdiction simply by its own act, without the consent of the Head of the Church, or without paying regard to his protest, however reasonable. This not merely shows disdain of the Church, but violates her existing rights. Still less can the civil power simply by its own authority abolish Concordats, which guarantee such rights. 9 1 Among others to Mr. Gladstone, Expostulation, p. 17. [TR.] 2 Syll. Prop. 30. 3 Cf. the Ratisbon edition of the Encyclical and Syllabus, p. 59. 4 Vide supra, pp. 38-40. 5 Syll. Prop. 31, Alloc. of Sept. 27, 1852, against New Granada, and of Dec. 15, 1856, against Mexico. In 1521 the Sorhonne described the VOL. I. Q 226 The Syllabus and Modern States. following proposition of Luther's, ' Si imperator vel principes revocar libertatem datain personis et rebus ecclesiasticorum, non potest eis resist! sine peccato et impietate,' to be ' falsa, impia, schismatica, libertatis eccle- siasticae enervativa ac impietatis tyrarmicae excitativa et nutritiva' (Du Plessis, t. i. P. ii. p. 373, tit. 17). We have lately heard this proposition of Luther publicly repeated i-n a tribune. c Syll. Prop. 32, from the letter of Sept. 29, 1864, to the Archbishop of Monreale, concerning the new Italian law, which was even described as hard and unjust by General La Marmora. In Piedmont, in 1854, the number of clergy who were not bound by the conscription was reduced to one for every 20,000 souls. The new law abolished every exemption of the priesthood from military service. 7 Can. 5, 6, dist. 50 ; c. un. d. 53 ; c. xv. d. 63 ; c. 1. iv. d. 51 ; c. xxiii. q. 8 ; c. ii. de Vita et Honest. Cler. iii. 1, Nicol. i. Ep. 27 (Mansi, xv. 291). Thomassin, p. iii. 1. i. c. xviii. n. 4 seq. ; c. Ixx. n. 8, 10 seq. ; c. Ixxv. n. 1 seq. 8 Phillips, K. E. i. 50, p. 488 seq. 9 Syll. Prop. 43 : ' The lay power has the authority to rescind, declare and render null solemn conventions or concordats relating to the use of rights appertaining to ecclesiastical immunity, without the consent of the Apostolic See, and even in spite of its protest.' 9- A further set of propositions refers to education in general, and in particular to that of the clergy. They are the following : ' 33. It does not appertain exclusively to ecclesiastical jurisdic- tion, by any proper and inherent right, to direct the instruction of theological subjects. 1 45. The entire direction of public schools in which the youth of Christian States are educated, ex- cept (to a certain extent) in the case of episcopal seminaries, may and must appertain to the civil power, and belong to it so far that no other authority whatsoever shall be recognised as having any right to interfere in the discipline of the schools, the arrangements of the studies, the taking of degrees, or the choice and approval of the teachers. 2 46. Further even, in clerical seminaries the mode of study to be adopted must be submitted to the civil au- thority. 3 47. The best theory of civil society requires that popular schools open to the children of all classes, and generally all public institutes intended for instruction in letters and philosophy, and for conducting the education of the young, should be freed from all ecclesiastical authority, government, and interference, and should be completely subjected to the civil and political power, in con- The Propositions of the Syllabus. 227 formity with the will of rulers and the prevalent opinions of the age. 48. This system of instructing youth, which consists in vseparating it from the Church, and in teaching it exclusively the knowledge of natural things and the natural ends of life, may be perfectly approved by Catholics.' 4 Two proposals are here cen- sured : the first abandons schools exclusively to the direction of the State, and withdraws them from the influence of the Church, without however assailing their Christian character ; the second destroys their Christian character by separating them from re- ligion and the Church, and provides a merely secular worldly education. It is the duty of the Church to oppose both these proposals, and she can do so without violating any civil right ; whilst the State in enforcing them greatly prejudices the rights both of the Church and of individual Catholics. 1 The letter to the Archhishop of Munich declares positively : ' Ad quam (potestatem ecclesiasticam) proprio ac nativo jure unice pertinet advigilare ac dirigere theologicarum praesertim rerum doctrinam.' - Cf. Reiss, Der Moderne Staat und die Christliche Schule, p. 6 seq. 3 This occun-ed in the S. American republics, to which the Allocution ^Xunquam fore, Dec. 15, 1856, referred. 4 Both the latter propositions are taken from the letter to Archbishop Hermann of Freiburg, July 14, 1864. Riess, I.e. p. 12 seq. 10. Proposition 54, 1 which has many adherents in our time, is much more plausible. The Church, it is said, by condemning this proposition becomes the judge of all measures of govern- ment. The censured proposition came from Francis of Paul G. Vigil, concerning whom the Papal letter of June 10, 1851, thus speaks : ' Kings and other princes icho by baptism have become members of the Church he withdraws from the jurisdiction of the Church, exactly as though they were pagan kings, and as if in spiritual and ecclesiastical matters Christian princes were not the sons and subjects of the Church ; nay, confounding heavenly with earthly things, sacred with profane, high with low in a monstrous manner, 2 he is not afraid of teaching that in litigated questions of jurisdiction the secular power stands higher than the Church, which is the pillar and the ground of the truth' 228 The Syllabus and Modern States. (1 Tim. iii. 15). Is it possible seriously to assert that Catholic- princes are exempt from the jurisdiction of the Church in spi- ritual and ecclesiastical matters 1 In that case they must also have ceased to be members and sons of the Church, or to belong to the kingdom of Christ, which is quite inadmissible. 3 Can it be further maintained that in questions of ecclesiastical jurisdic- tion princes are superior to the Church 1 Ecclesiastical jurisdic- tion only extends over spiritual things were the Church to ac- knowledge the sovereign of the State as her superior, the inde- pendence of the spiritual power would be lost, the reigning prince would be the supreme bishop, as with Protestants, and Csesaro- papism would be established. 4 But if the decision of questions of jurisdiction were referred to the borderland between Church and State, Vigil's assertion of the superiority of princes over the Church would coincide with the assertion of J. 1ST. j^uytz, 5 condemned in proposition 42 :' In the case of conflicting laws between the two powers, the civil law ought to prevail.' This proposition, re- peated times without number, is certainly false : were it true, the first Christians should unconditionally have obeyed the laws of the heathen emperor against Christendom and renounced the faith ; the martyrs would have been rebels, their heroism criminal madness ; the fixed principles of ecclesiastical legislation would have to yield to fluctuating State laws, different in every land, and the Church would no longer be able to maintain a single point. 6 If religious order takes precedence of political order, the laws of the Church cannot be secondary to the laws of the State. 7 The Church is the interpreter of the divine law, and as such must claim superiority. 8 But, it might be objected, every law of the Church is not a law of God, neither are all the laws of the Church founded on the laws of God ; there are laws of discipline in the Church, which admit of change. Certainly; but it is nevertheless wrong to assert the superiority of the civil law in every case, for this also is changeable, and in a still higher degree. A civil law relating to purely spiritual matters oversteps the power of the civil legislator, neither is the discipline of the clergy within his province. 9 Discipline, in many parts, is so closely connected with, dogma as to be inseparable from it. 10 " The Propositions of the Syllabus. 229 In a conflict, that power generally has the right whose end in respect to the matter in dispute is the most important ; and regard has always to he paid in the particular case to the magnitude of the obligation, to the difference between affirma- tive and negative laws, to the greater or less the necessity, and in general to the doctrines of morality concerning conflicting duties. 11 The Church has often in a conciliatory manner de- clared herself ready to modify, 12 and has modified, laws of minor importance at the proposal or demand of the State, which has here an easy remedy for its grievances. In the course of his- torical development many matters once of a purely spiritual character are so no longer ; 13 but for such cases the civil govern- ment cannot legislate alone ; it must come to an understanding with the Church about the desired modifications of ecclesiastical discipline, and must still recognise the Church as independent in her own province. 14 An example is afforded by ecclesiastical legislation concerning the requisite age for taking the solemn vows of religious profession. The decrees of the Council of Trent 15 on this subject were disapproved by many civil govern- ments, who even made other regulations contrary to the personal freedom of Catholic subjects and to the rights of the Church. Pius IX. considered their objections as far as they were reason- able, and prescribed a more advanced age for religious profes- sion, 16 but with perfect justice he censured the assertion : ' The (civil) government has of itself the right to alter the age pre- scribed by the Church for religious profession, both of men and women, and may enjoin upon all religious establishments to admit no person to take solemn vows without its permission' (prop. 52). 17 State interference in the religious life has, under the influence of an antichristian spirit, very often led to the complete destruction of religious orders, which are so beneficial to the Church. So it has been in South America and Italy, and the assertions made : 'The laws for the protection of religious es- tablishments and for securing their rights and duties ought to be abolished , nay more, the civil government may lend its assist- ance to all who desire to quit the religious life which they have undertaken, and to break their vows. The government may also 230 The Syllabus and Modern States. suppress religious orders, collegiate churches, and 1 simple benefices, even those belonging to private patronage, and submit their goods and revenues to the administration and disposal of the civil power' (prop. 53) , 18 When the Pope opposes such assertions, which are put into practice as soon as made, surely he is only protecting purely ecclesiastical rights. Eeligious orders, who have done so much good, especially in South America and in' Italy, helping and consoling the poor, and showing them a bright example of voluntary poverty, have, by observing the evangelical counsels, and practising the virtues of obedience, chastity, and poverty, given unpardonable offence to the enemies of Christianity, who in hating them hate Christ Himself. Unworthy members of religious orders are therefore incited by these enemies of Christianity to revolt. Those in power are urged to suppress monastic institutions, seeking thereby to make it impossible for any to follow their vocation to a more perfect life. This is a grievous encroachment upon individual religious liberty. 19 With regard to the suppression of simple benefices, collegiate churches, and religious houses, Popes have often made great concessions to the civil government, and have taken into consideration any objections that were advanced ; but as the establishment of such institutions strictly belongs to the Church, they can only be abolished by her, and for canonical reasons. 1 ' Kings and princes are not only exempt from the jurisdiction of tho Church, but are superior to the Church in litigated questions of juris- diction.' 2 Vigil did not distinguish between king as a man and as a sovereign , but absolutely asserted the exemption of kings from the Church's authority on account of their royal dignity. 3 Ambros. de Basil, tradend: 'Imperator bonus intra Ecclesiam, noii supra Ecclesiam.' Joh. VIII. in c. xi. d. 96 : ' Si imperator Catholicus est .... filius est non praesul Ecclesiae.' 4 Concerning this, John VIII. says, I.e. : ' Ad sacerdotes Deus voluit, quae Ecclesiae disponendae sunt, pertinere, non ad saeculi potestates.' Cf. Joh. Dam. Or. ii. de Imag. n. 17. Theod. Stud. 1. ii. Ep. 129. ' Brief of Aug. 22, 1851, Ad Apostolicae. 6 Chilianeum, vol. vi. p. 398. " Nicol. I. c. i. d. 10: 'Lex imperatorum non est supra legem Dei, sed subtus. Imperial! judicio non possunt ecclesiastica jura dissolvi.' Cf. Ambros. in Can. 21, c. xxiii. q. 5. 8 Phillips, K. R. ii. 109, p. 530, 110, p. 538. The Propositions of the Syllabus. 231 9 The assertion of the king's advocate, Francois Grimauldet, n. 6, ' Le second point de la religion est en la police et discipline sacerdotale, sur le quel les rois et princes Chretiens ont puissance d'icelle dresser, mettre en ordre et reformer icelle corrompue,' was condemned in 1560 by the Theo- logical Faculty of Paris as a ' propositio falsa, schismatica, potestatis ecclesiasticae enervativa et haeretica, et prohationes ad illam sunt impertinentes' (D'Argentre, Collect. Judiciorum, t. ii. p. i. Paris, 1728, pp. 291, 292). 10 Brief of Pius VI. to Card. Rochefoucault, March 10, 1791, Sed priusquam. ed. sep. p. 24. 11 Kreittmayer, in Cod. Civil. Maxiniil. p. i. c. ii. n. 13. 12 E.g. Gregory VII. supra. 13 Phillips, K. R. ii. 110, p. 540 seq. " Card. Antonellito the Sardinian consul, July 19, 1850 (Acta Pii IX. vol. ii. p. 166) : ' La sola Chiesa, la quale non ha limiti di territorio, e dessa dovunque 1' arbitra della sua disciplina. Essa giudica della conve- nienza e della inaggiore o minore extensione de' suoi diritti riguardo al loro esercizio, e se accomodandosi tal volta alle aiycnze degli Stati modi- fied in parte, cio lo fa di propria autorita, non potendo a causa della sna indipendenza esservi costretta dal supremo potere civile. Quandi e che se lo Stato in alcuni casi di disciplina ecclesiastica connessi con 1' interna sua amniinistrazione stimi^er motivi di opportunita o di ragione politico, necessarie alia sua quiete od alia suaproperita alcune modificazione della disciplina medesima, deve esse provocarle prcsso il potere competente, che e la Chiesa, deve mettersi d' accordo con questa, e non ha diritto di farlo di sola propria autorita, come lo farebbe, ove si trattasse di modificare ed anche di abolire le prerogative e Ii privilegii delle civili nniversita e col- legi, che sono nello Stato e percid dipendenti de esso. ' '' Trid. Sess. xxv. c. xv. de Regnl. et Monial. 16 Decret. S. Congr. Episc. et Eegul. March 19, 1857, for Austria ; then the Brief of Feb. 7, 1862. 17 Alloc. of Dec. 15. 1856 (concerning South America). 18 Alloc. of Sept. 27, 1852, and of Jan. 22 and July 26, 1855. 19 Brief of Pius VI. to Card, de Rochefoucault, of Mar. 10, 1791 : ' Regularium abolitio, a conventu nationali plaudente haereticorum com- mentis decreta, laedit statuni publicae professionis consiliorum evangeli- coruin, laedit vivendi rationem in Ecclesia commendatam tamqnam apos- tolicae doctrinae consentaneam, laedit ipsos insignes fundatores, quos super altaribus veneramur, qui nonnisi a Deo inspirati eas instituerunt societates.' With regard to Luther's proposition, ' Suadendum, nt vota prorsus omnia tollantur aut vitentur,' the Sorbonne declared in 1521 : ' Haec propositio est Christi doctrinae et SS. Patrum observation!, qui vovere consulunt, contraria, ex errore procedens Lamperianonim, Wicle- tistarnm et eorum, qui se jactabant de ordine Apostolomm' (Du Plessis, t. i. P. ii. p. 368). 232 The Syllabus and Modern Slates. 11. There is nothing in the Syllabus concerning Christian mar- riage other than the doctrine of the Church concerning the sacrament of marriage consistently carried out. The Pope, fol- lowing the Council of Trent, maintained against JSTuytz that marriage had been raised by Christ to the dignity of a sacra- ment. 1 The same Council declared the sacrament to be inse- parable from the (natural) contract; 2 and in consequence it fol- lows that the sacrament of marriage does not only consist in the nuptial blessing given by the priest. 3 It has been dogma- tically decided that by the natural law the marriage tie is in- dissoluble ; 4 whence it follows that civil authority cannot sanc- tion divorce. The right of the Church to introduce impedi- ments that invalidate marriage has been protected by the same Council. 5 This right was derived by F. G. Vigil from the con- cession of civil princes, for whom also he claimed the privilege of abolishing the impediments introduced by the Church. Both these views had been already condemned by Pius VI. in his dogmatic Bull of 1794. 6 The Church claims for herself alone the power of imposing impediments invalidating marriage, of dispensing from them, and of deciding as to the validity of mar- riages, but without thereby excluding the State from legislating on marriage in its civil character. 7 It is not in itself objection- able that the State should require for the civil recognition of a marriage something beyond what the Church asks. ' It is the duty of every Catholic to obey the laws of the State. The only exception which can be made to this duty is when the civil law ordains anything that is forbidden by the divine law, or vice versa forbids what the latter ordains. Therefore civil di- rections concerning marriage must be obeyed. Consequently, all impediments either invalidating or impeding marriage 8 which rest merely on the civil laws are canonically impediments impeding marriage.' The Religious Edict in Bavaria indeed declares, 64c?, ' marriage laws, in as far as they relate to the civil contract and its effects,' to be civil matters ; and the marriage and domestic laws of April 25, 1868, art. 33, declare every marriage to be civilly invalid which had taken place with. The Propositions of the Syllabus. 233 out the certificate of the non-existence of civil impediments given by the appointed (civil) functionary, and to continue to be civilly invalid until the certificate was obtained. But it does not at all follow that 011 account of prop. 68 of the Syllabus the latest Bavarian marriage-laws ' are null and void in their essential parts,' as some think; for by the teaching of the Church these State demands are to be obeyed entirely ; civil invalidity does not encroach upon the ecclesiastical domain, which the Church alone defends, and the aforesaid proposition of the Syllabus goes no further than the Council of Trent. The latter moreover declares clandestine marriages to be true mar- riages as long as the Church has not declared them invalid ; likewise those marriages which have been contracted without the consent of the parents. 10 And nevertheless several civil laws had declared both these classes of marriages civilly illegal, before as well as after the Council of Trent. 11 It is the Council of Trent, therefore, that should be complained of rather than the ' new dogmas.' The Church has only to decide of the validity of the sacrament ; the State, of the civil effects ; the' Church does not deny the value of every civil impediment, but only of that one which would annul the sacrament and the bond which it creates. A dogma is here in question, and the assertion 12 of iluytz, reproduced from those of Launoy, Marcus Antonius de Dominis, and the pseudo-synod of Pistoja, 13 that the canons of the Council of Trent must be considered either not dogmatic or to presuppose power conferred upon the Church by princes, has long been shown to be untenable. 14 The Church is obliged by her dogmas to maintain that the form of solem- nising marriage prescribed by the said Council (in every place where this formula has been promulgated) binds, under pain of nullity ; that the civil law cannot appoint another form on which the validity of the marriage shall depend. 15 Likewise the Church cannot allow that amongst Christians a merely civil contract constitutes an entirely valid marriage ; she maintains that a valid Christian marriage is also a sacrament, and without a sacrament has no validity. 10 With regard to the condemned prop. 74, 'matrimonial 234 The Syllabus and Modern States. causes and betrothals belong by their nature to civil jurisdic- tion,' by which, it was insinuated that they had become to be- long to the Church merely by favour of the State, the Council of Trent 17 declared dogmatically that matrimonial causes, amongst which betrothals must be included, should be judged by eccle- siastics ; and seventy years before the appearance of the Sylla- bus the thesis of the Synod of Pistoja, that formal betrothals were a purely civil act, a preparation for the contract of mar- riage, and subject absolutely to the regulations of the civil law, was condemned by Pius VI. 18 in a dogmatic Bull as false, and as violating the right of the Church in regard to the effects re- sulting from the betrothals in virtue of canon law ; also as de- rogatory to the established discipline of the Church. For an act preparatory to a sacrament is in this respect subject to the jurisdiction of the Church. 1 ' It cannot be by any means tolerated to maintain that Christ has raised marriage to the dignity of a sacrament.' Syll. Prop. 65, from the document of Aug. 22, 1851, Coll. Trid. Sess. xxiv. Can. 1, de Sacram. Matr. - ' The sacrament of marriage is only an adjunct of the contract and separable from it, and the sacrament itself only consists in the nuptial benediction.' Syll. Prop. 60, from the same document, according to Trid. I.e. cap. Doctr. : ' Gratiam vero, quae naturalem ilium amorem perfi- ceret, &c. Cum igitur matrimonium in lege evangelica,' &c. 3 Bened. XIV. de Syn. Dioec. 1. viii. c. xiii. 4 ' By the law of nature the marriage tie is not indissoluble, and in many cases divorce, properly so called, may be pronounced by the civil authority.' Syll. Prop. 61, from the document referred to, and the Allo- cution of Sept! 27, 1852, Coll. Trid. I.e. Doctr. et Can. 5, 7. 5 ' The Church has not the power of laying down what are diriment impediments to marriage. The civil authority does possess such a power, and can abolish impediments that may exist to marriage.' Syll. Prop. 68, against Vigil, Coll. Trid. I.e. can. 4. ' In the better ages, the Church, when she laid down certain impediments as diriment to marriage, did so not of her own authority, but by a right borrowed from the civil power.' Prop. 69 against J. N. Nnytz. e Const. Auctorem fidei, Prop. 59, 60 (Denzinger, Enchirid. ed. iv. p. 409, n. 1422 seq.). " Phillips, Lehrbuch, 270, p. 944 seq. i. ed. 8 Impediments to marriage are either impedimenta dirimentia, which invalidate a marriage make it null ; or impedimenta impedientia, which impede a marriage make it unlawful, but do not make it null. [Tu.] 9 Schulte, Lehrbuch, 155, p. 433. 10 Trid. Sess. xxiv. c. viii. de Kef. Matr. The Propositions of the Syllabus. 235 11 In France, for instance, edict of Henry II. 1556, of Henry III. 1579,. of Louis XIV. 1692 (Schulte, Eherecht, p. 496). 12 ' The canons of the Council of Trent, which pronounce censure of anathema against those who deny the Church the right of laying down what are diriment impediments, either are not dogmatic, or must he understood as refening to such borrowed power.' Prop. 70 of Syll. 13 Launojus, de Reg. Potest. in Matrini. Paris, 1674 (condemned at Rome on Sept. 10, 1688). M. A. de Dorninis, de Rep. Christ. 1. ii. c. xL Const. Auctorem fidei, Prop. 59. 14 Cf. Judicium Doctrinale Archiep. Mechlin. (Card. Frankenherg), of June 26, 1789 (Kutschker, Eherecht, i. pp. 70-74) ; Defensio Trid. Canonum de Eccl. Potest in dir. matr. imped. Auctore Petro Deodato, Neapoli, 1786 ; Nuova difesa dei canoni, 3 e 4 della Sess. xxiv. del Concilio di Trento, Napoli, 1788. 15 ' The form of solemnising marriage prescribed by the said Council, tinder penalty of nullity, does not bind in cases where the civil law has appointed another form, and decrees that this new form shall effectuate a valid marriage.' Syll. Prop. 71. 16 ' A merely civil contract may among Christians constitute a true mar- riage, and it is false either that the marriage contract between Christians must always be a sacrament, or that the contract is null if the sacrament be excluded.' Syll. Prop. 73. 1T Trid. I.e. Can. 12. 18 Prop. 58, Denzinger, I.e. p. 408, n. 1421. 12. But the real question concerns the destruction of the Chris- tian character of marriage and of the family, for these as well as the State are threatened with profanation. The following is one of the gravest errors that has been asserted, that the family derives the whole reason of its existence solely from civil law. Therefore the civil law has to decide all questions concerning marriage, the rights of parents, instruction, and education. 1 The foundation for this position is thoroughly false, for domestic society, the family, existed before civil society, the State, and therefore has natural right independent of the latter and given to it by the Creator Himself. 2 Maternal love is so purely natu- ral that it is found amongst savages and animals ; family ties are ties of blood, purely natural ties. The family is ordained by the natural law, and therefore it is impossible that ' the whole reason of its existence' can be derived from the civil law. It is founded by marriage, by the inseparable life-partnership of two persons, undertaken with free consent from natural inclination ; the State no more than the Church can supply deficiency in 236 The Syllabus and Modern States. this free consent. Modem jurisprudence has committed many mistakes from not rightly understanding the law of nature, 3 and there has arisen one of the greatest errors, namely, that the civil power is boundless and unrestrained by any natural law. This was condemned in propositions 56 and 39 of the Syllabus. 4 In truth the civil power does not really extend further than is required for political and civil life, for the protection of law and the interests of society ; 5 a supreme right which extends further than the end for which the State exists is inconceivable and absurd. 6 The State has to protect the natural rights of the family as well as of individuals ; no civil law can abolish them : as it is impossible that the State can undertake the functions of domestic society, its interference must only be one of comple- tion, and it must consider the family as a foundation of its own life. 7 But the theory which makes the family of no account is also perverted and dangerous in its conclusions. It endangers individual liberty, leads to the profanation of marriage, to the destruction of the family spirit, this ' second soul of mankind,' 8 to contempt of the parental authority, parental duties, and domes- tic discipline, which Christianity has struggled hard to establish.9 Parental rights are founded on duties, and are therefore unalien- able natural rights ; the child belongs first to the parents, then to the State, and with the parents rests primarily the duty of its education. The dreams of Rousseau and of the Socialists, with all their disastrous consequences, are based on a false theory as to the family. An enormous abuse of State power 10 in this matter, nay, a whole series of such abuses, has grown up in most countries. 1 Enc. of Dec. 8, 1864, Et quoniam. 2 Aristot. Polit. 1. i. 4, p. 482, ed. Paris, 1848. L. Taparelli, Corso clementare cli natural Diritto, Napoli, 1853, ed. iv. 1. iii. c. ii. p. 134 seq. p. 151, n. 157. 3 The Church has always upheld it. It was taught in Rome under Gregory XVI., whilst Ferdinand II. of Naples would not allow it to be propounded in the colleges of his kingdom. 4 ' Moral laws do not stand in need of the divine sanction, and there is no necessity that human laws should be conformable to the law of nature, and receive their sanction from God.' Syll. Prop. 56. ' The State is the origin and source of all rights, and possesses rights which are not circum- .scribed by any limits.' Syll. Prop. 39. The Propositions of the Syllabus. 237 5 Dahlmann, Politik, 11. Bischof, Staatslehre, Giessen, I860, p. 36. 6 Davies, Instit. Jurisprud. Univ. 786. 7 Waitz, Grundlage der Politik, p. 6. 8 Lamartine, Voyage en Orient, i. p. 36. 9 Balmes, Katholicism und Protest, i. cap. xxiv. seq. 10 Even Prof. Gneist has acknowledged, May 16, 1872 (Bericht der Reichstagverhandlungen, p. 422), as much -as this, that the pages of history are full of the abuse of State power. But whilst he desires to have the ' abuse of ecclesiastical power' corrected by the State, he does not inform us who is to correct the abuse of State power. 13. It has been concluded from the condemned prop. 57 that a civil law Avhich comes into collision -with any canon not for- mally abolished is not to be obeyed ; that consequently the doctrines of the Church are incompatible Avith modern consti- tutions and with the oaths of allegiance towards them. 1 The proposition runs as follows : ' Knowledge of philosophical things and of morals and also civil laws may and must be at variance with divine and ecclesiastical authority.' This proposi- tion can be divided into two parts, one of which refers to philoso- phy and especially to ethics, the other to civil laws. It is in close connection with the previous one (56), and both are derived from the same source. In the Allocution of June 9, 1862, those were condemned who maintained that moral laws do not need divine sanction, that there is no necessity that human laws should conform to the law of nature or receive their force from God, 2 and that therefore there is no divine law a doctrine contradicting sound philosophy, which has always demanded a divine sanction for laws, traced all binding force to God, and recognised certain first principles of reason as the foundation of all legislation. The Allocution has also declared itself opposed to the assertion that moral philosophy as well as civil legisla- tion may and must be at variance with (declinare) divine reve- lation and ecclesiastical authority. "We have before seen that the duty of conforming to divine revelation and ecclesiastical authority is primarily a negative one for the civil legislation ; the civil power must forbid nothing that is commanded by God 238 The Syllabus and Modern States. and the Church, nor command anything forbidden "by God and the Church, whereby all liberty of conscience would be destroyed ; but beyond this it can leave unpunished actions that are for- bidden by moral law and the commands of the Church. 3 Merkle says well: 4 'According to the principles of the Church, objective right is superior to every legislator, whether spiritual or civil. He is bound by it, and by objective duties which are not self-imposed. Therefore it is incumbent upon him not to command anything contrary to the law of God. A human law which is opposed to the positive divine law can by no means be a mediate divine law, because God cannot contradict Himself. It can only be the expression of a creature's will, which of it- self cannot bind the conscience ; for all human laws derive their binding power from God. . . . St. Jerome says, What the Lord God forbids no human lord can command ; such a command would be (according to St. Augustine) a corruptio legis, and could (according to St. Thomas) in no right sense of the word be called a law. The Church maintains that no hu- man legislator has a right to command what is wrong ; and by this doctrine in the interests of true liberty opposes State abso- lutism, the principle of tyranny. But still she is very far from teaching that the State is obliged to punish all transgressions of moral law. Catholic theologians are unanimous in saying that the State can only forbid such transgressions of the moral law which it considers injurious to the commonweal. . . . The State, therefore, according to the principles of the Church, may not command any transgression of moral laws, but may leave many such transgressions unpunished. Things contrary to moral law are wicked ; but the human law, which in good faith tolerates this or that transgression of the moral law, is not wicked.' The question in prop. 57, according to the context, concerns the connection between laws and morality; there is no censiire of the teaching of St. Thomas in this. This propo- sition has also two other parts ; ' they may be at variance' is very different from ' they must be at variance.' To make it a duty that State legislation should be at variance with divine and ecclesiastical authority is an absurdity, because it implies The Propositions of the Syllabus. 239 ;an immorality, withdraws firm ground from the State, and abandons it entirely to human discretion. A State which con- sidered that to be its duty would at the same time destroy its own moral foundation. That ' it must be at variance' deserves to be censured as an impious and blasphemous doctrine. If ' it may be at variance' means that human laws have a right to set themselves in direct contradiction to divine revelation and to the authority of the Church, it deserves higher censure than if it means that these laws may ignore revelation and the Church. In the latter case we must moreover consider whether the State be Christian or heathen. But it is a mere falsification instead of the words 'divine revelation and the authority of the Church' to substitute these : ' any canon not formally abolished,' which could apply to any decree from Gratian's collection, in reality quite open to free criticism. 1 Sckulte, i. p. 45. - Recueil des Allocutions, &c. p. 457. 3 S. Thorn. Sum. 1, 2, q. 1, art. 4, in corp. ; q. 96, art. 2. 4 Merkle, Die Toleranz, p. 8. 14. Objections are also raised to the condemnation of prop. 62, ' that the principle of non-intervention ought to be proclaimed and adhered to.' It is said that this condemnation rejects the fundamental principle of the law of nations, namely, the liberty and independence of every State. But it does not in fact touch this liberty and independence. The Pope does not dispute that, as a rule, one State has no right to interfere in the inter- nal affairs of another ; and Pius IX. as well as Gregory XVI. had on several occasions from 1831 to 18G7 to complain of the unauthorised interference of foreign powers in the government of the States of the Church. But the modern principle of non- intervention is widely different from this; it does not merely forbid an unauthorised intervention undertaken against the lawful wish of the rightful reigning prince in a foreign coun- try, under the pretext of establishing greater order, &c., but it also forbids any assistance to be given even against unjust ag- gression ; in its present form it includes an immoral principle 240 The Syllabus and Modern States. which strikes at the root of international laAv, destroys brotherly love between nations, rends asunder the natural ties of hu- manity, exposes princes and people to every kind of violence, and sanctions robbery and the right of the stronger. Even set- ting aside positive treaties, intervention is justifiable when a State sees its own rights threatened or fears evil consequences from the proceedings of another State ; or when anarchy and interior demoralisation have reached such a pass that morality requires interference from another State to save the afflicted member of the commonwealth of nations ; and this may also be justifiable on the ground of self-preservation, to prevent or op- pose the injurious intervention of another power. 1 But since no exception is allowed by the principle of non-intervention, those rights which nature and justice require to be based on common support are unable to obtain it and rendered unavailing, whilst lawless deeds meet with impunity, as assistance is denied to the oppressed. Fraught with harm and danger to legiti- mate governments, who may well think of the maxim, ' to- day to me, to-morrow to thee,' this principle of non-inter- vention has been applied by its representatives, especially by Napoleon III., in a manner which plainly shows that it can be meted out unequally according to circumstances. France might intervene in the Crimea, in Syria, in Cochin China, in Mexico, and above all in Italy ; but for the Father of Chris- tendom, who is no foreign power to Catholic nations, his sons might not intervene, unless it were advantageous to their government and for its private interests. By this new prin- ciple revolution has won an immense advantage. If it had been generally known and respected in 1848 and 1849, Hecker and his friends need have had no fear lest an army from a foreign State, led by a prince not yet approved by the Liberals of the day, should restore the grand-ducal dynasty of Baden and end the ' glorious' revolution. 2 But nowadays there are no principles, only the masks of principles, which can be taken on and off to suit the convenience of the moment. 1 Walter, Naturrecht und Politik, 466, pp. 453, 454, with the addi- tion, that after the danger is passed interference must cease, and it must The Propositions of the Syllabus. 241 not pretend to any profit. Even Kotteck and Berner were obliged to allow some exceptions. - Hecker was the leader of the Baden revolutionists, who were crushed "by Prussian intervention under Prince William, now the King of Prussia. [TB.] "What, then, did the Pope mean in condemning prop. 62 of the Syllabus] The Allocution of September 28, 1860, from which it was taken, gives a complete explanation. It says: ' We cannot help deploring amongst other things this grievous and pernicious principle called the principle of non-intervention, which has lately been proclaimed and put in practice by certain governments and tolerated by others, even in the case of unjust aggression, on the part of one government against another, so as apparently to assure impunity and license contrary to all laws, both human and divine, for the attacks and spoliation of the rights, properties, and dominions of others, as we have been witness in these unhappy times. And indeed it is astonishing that the Piedmontese government alone should be permitted with impunity to despise and violate such a principle ; for in the face of all Europe we have seen it force its way with a hostile army into other States and expel the rigntful princes ; so that the absurd and disastrous conclusion is to be drawn, that foreign intervention is only allowable when intended to provoke and nourish revolution.' The Pope then warns princes to consider well the conse- quences of such a principle. ' Here there is in question a gi- gantic wrong, an act of violence accomplished in an iniquitous manner against the universal law of nations ; if not repaired no right will in future be any longer secure. It is the principle of rebellion which is shamelessly served by the Piedmontese government, and from which, as is easy to perceive, a continual danger is menacing all governments, and ruin is threatened to civil society; for by this means the way is opened to Com- munism. It is question of the solemn treaties, according to which the integrity of the States of the Church as well as of the other European States is to be pres jrved inviolate. It is VOL. I. B 242 The Syllabus and Modern States. question of the violent seizure of that princedom which by a special decree of Divine Providence has been given to the Roman Pontiff, in order to enable him to exercise his apostolic ministry with perfect freedom over the whole Church. All princes ought therefore to be convinced that our interest is the same as theirs,, and that in giving us their assistance they are providing for their own rights as well as for ours.' Wide as the poles asunder are these two things, assistance- rendered to a weaker State with its own consent, and an unjust invasion of the territory of a weaker power in order to crush it. The censured assertion; that it is not permitted to one govern- ment to give assistance to another when unjustly attacked, would shake the security of States, and render impossible every offensive and defensive alliance, and even every international union. Carried into private life, it would altogether annul the command of loving our neighbour. Christian morality requires that every one should help his neighbour to the utmost in case of need : and the rule of morality for nations is the same as for individuals. To proclaim the universal principle of non-inter- vention is to extirpate the last remains of Christian international law, and to inflict a greater calamity on mankind than even those ill-advised and ill-conducted interventions between 1820 and 1850. 16. It might have been expected that rulers of modern States would at least have welcomed the condemnation of prop. 63, and have been thereby in some degree reconciled to the Syl- labus. This proposition declares that it is allowable to refuse obedience to legitimate princes, even to rebel against them. But instead of being welcomed, the condemnation of this pro- position has been held idle, on the ground that ' whether a prince- is legitimate or no rests, according to Boniface VIII., on the Pope's decision alone ; so that if the Pope, on account of some violation of Church law, declares a prince to be unlawful, the condemnation of prop. 63 does not make it contrary to Catholic faith that subjects are bound to no obedience, but may rebel.' 1 The Propositions of the Syllabus. 243 But we have seen already that the Holy See by no means attri- butes to itself exclusive judgment on the subject of the rightful- ness of princes, but rather negotiates and treats with existing governments ; and also we have seen that the suppositions just quoted are entirely false. 2 Pius IX. in the Encyclical of Nov. 9, 1846, in the Allocution of Oct. 4, 1847, and in the Briefs of Dec. 8, 1849, and March 2G, 1860, has expressly quoted the fol- lowing passages of Scripture, Rom. xiii. 1 seq., 1 Peter ii. 13 seq. 3 Nevertheless the objection has been raised that the Pope has made an exception to these decrees, viz. in the case of anything being commanded contrary to the law of God and of the Church. But although in this case, according to Pius IX. and the whole teaching of the Church, subjects are released from the duty of obedience, 4 they are by no means authorised to make active re- sistance, and still less is rebellion either sanctioned or enforced. Passive resistance is sufficient. Rebellion is entirely forbidden. Therefore it was never a matter of faith that the Church had been invested with any divine authority to depose princes. This au- thority she only exercised at a certain period and under special circumstances. The real meaning of prop. 63 is more fully ex- emplified by the following (64) : ' The violation of a solemn oath, nay, any wicked and flagitious action repugnant to the eternal law, is not only not blamable, but quite lawful and worthy of the highest praise when done for the love of one's country.' This proposition is taken from the Allocution of April 20, 1849, given at Gaeta against the Italian and particularly the Roman revolu- tion ; it especially condemns the fact of palliating the violation of the sacred oath of allegiance rendered to rightful sovereigns imder the pretext of patriotism. Why is this proposition passed over in complete silence 1 1 Berchtold, pp. 31, 32. - Supra, Essay i. pt. iii. 3 seq. p. 59 seq. 3 Vide Recueil des Allocutions, &o. pp. 184, 196, 250, 402. 4 How often we are obliged to repeat the simplest truths ! The civil power has no right to command anything contrary to the law of God and of religion. By doing so it would violate liberty of conscience ; reject Scripture (Acts iv. 19 ; v. 29) and universal tradition (Martyr. S. Ignatii, n. 1, Ep. Eccl. Smyrn. de Morte S. Polyc. ; Acta Mart. S. Just. n. 1; Acta 244 The Syllabus and Modern States. SS. MM. Epimachil et Alex. ; A eta Symphor. et Scill. Cf. Euinart, Acta Martyr, sincera, pp. 14, 35, 49, 64, 69, 74 seq. Justin. Apol. i. n. 17, 68. Iren. v. xxiv. 2. Theophil. ad Ant. iii. 30. Athenag. Leg. n. 1. Clem. Strom, iv. p. 505, ed. Paris, 1641. Tertull. Apol. c. ii. 28, 30, 32 seq. Orig. c. Gels. VIII. 65. Mimic. Felix in Octavio, c. xxxvii. Arnob. 1. ii. c. Gent. p. 44 seq. ed. 1651. Lactant. Inst. iv. 8, 10). With regard to faith, sacra- ments, worship, and religious life, the civil power has no authority, for it only has authority within its own sphere. 17- Revolutionary principles have been most distinctly condemned by Pius IX. for the good of the State. Thus, for instance, ' The will of the people' (which, according to art. 3 of the declaration of the ' rights of man' in 1789, is the only sovereign) 'constitutes a supreme law, independent of all divine and human right, whether it he acknowledged by so-called public opinion or by other means.' 1 How much have monarchies already suffered from this phantom of the sovereignty of the people ! How greatly have nations been deceived by it ! Does not the Pope deserve all thanks from governments in having decidedly opposed this error 1 ? as, for example, in the censure of prop. 60 : ' Authority is nothing but the result of numerical superiority and material force,' 2 which so entirely corresponds to Rousseau's teaching, that sovereignty is not a power derived from God, but only arises from the sum of the personal rights of the separate parties to the social contract. The same maybe said of the proposition : 'In politics accomplished facts merely from being accomplished have the force of law.' 3 Such a political science is not merely irreligious but immoral ; it is unprincipled, and therefore senseless, totally subversive of the State and fatal to society when applied, as no power can at last prevent, to the private life of individuals. With it the follow- ing assertions are closely connected : ' Right consists in material fact ; all human duties are vain words, and all human acts have the force of right. 4 An unjust act being successful inflicts no injury upon the sanctity of right.' 5 1 Encycl. Quanta cura, Et quoniam : ' Voluntatem populi, publica, quam dicuut, opinione vel alia ratione manifestatam constituere supremam legem ab omni divino humanoque jure Bolutam.' The Propositions of the Syllabus. 245 2 Syll. Prop. 60. Several translations have taken ' numeri' to be no- minative plural, whilst really it is genitive singular. For the Allocution of June 9, 1862, to which this belongs, has : ' Auctoritatem nihil aliud esse, nisi numeri et inaterialium virium summam.' 3 Enc. Quanta cura, I.e. 4 Syll. Prop. 59. Alloc. Maxima quidem, 9 June 1862. 5 Syll. Prop. 61. Alloc. Jamdudum, 18 Mar. 1861. A society governed by such principles as these acknowledges nothing but material power, and makes the accumulation and increase of riches and the enjoyment of sensual pleasures the object of all moral teaching and excellence. 1 When all the ties of religion are cast off, self-seeking and the search for riches and pleasures become the sole aim of individuals and of the mass. The social condition is to mankind not an end, but a means ; for other- wise man, ethically considered, would not be a person, but only a thing, existing merely for the use of others. Man has a natural tendency to society, because he finds in it for himself and others protection and assistance ; it assures to him the free exercise of his rights and the completion of his being. But civil society began on the earth, and does not extend beyond it, whilst man himself is immortal. If society is to fulfil its whole duty towards man it must treat him as a being with an eternal destiny; to do this it needs religion, both to show him this higher destiny and to give him the means of attaining it. But if society does not treat man as an immortal being, merely looking upon him as bound to it and with no destiny beyond the earth, it cannot prevent him from pusuing temporal possessions, riches, and pleasures as his highest good, and from endeavouring at all costs to possess them. The immaterial goods of earthly nature do not suffice, they are not equally accessible to all, and not satisfying in themselves ; from this point of view virtue itself would be only a means of enjoyment, and would therefore only have a relative and not an absolute value. 2 When earth is substituted for heaven the fruits and treasures of earth become the highest aims of life, and every means is justified which enables them most completely to be enjoyed ; so much attention is paid to 246 The Syllables and Modern States. the animal part of man that intellectual interests naturally grow weaker. Political economy stript of all morality must he fatal to philosophy, and an unrestrained egotism must bring about the war of all against all an unfathomable abyss of misery and ruin. 1 Syll. Prop. 58. AUoc. of June 9, 1862. Enc. of Aug. 10, 1863. 2 Liberatore, I.e. c. ii. a. 6, 2, p. 190 seq. Proposition 80 of the Syllabus, 1 which has been so much questioned, is by no means to be understood as condemning all modern progress. It is true that it condemns the church-hating Liberalism of modern times, which was described in the Allocu- tion ' Jamdudum' of March 18, 1861, from which the proposition is derived, as a system specially formed to weaken and, as far as possible, destroy the Church of Christ. Huber pretends that in this Allocution the Pope entirely rejects the demand that he should reconcile himself to modern civilisation, because it fa- vours forms of worship not Catholic, opens public offices to those outside the Church and Catholic schools to their children. But it must be remembered (1) that the Pope's words refer to Italy, a Catholic country, and civilisation as there understood ; (2) that those were not the sole, not even the principal reasons of the Pope's rejection of the demand ; indeed the favour shown to non-Catholics was only mentioned in contrast with the ill-treat- ment of the Catholic institutions." Pius IX. expressly condemns the acts of violence practised in Italy against the Church under the name of progress and civilisation, 3 and also expressly declares that true civilisation has ever found a protector and guardian in the Holy See. He distinguishes this true civilisation from the system which under false names strives to extirpate the Church, and to which it is impossible that the Apostolic See can ever be reconciled ; for according to the words of the Apostle (2 Cor. vi. 14, 15), light and darkness, Christ and Belial can never agree together. The Syllabus has protected true Christian civilisation, which shrinks from seeing the Church despoiled and maltreated, TJie Propositions of the Syllabus. 247 and recoils from materialism and communism. Only prejudice and heretical malice can treat it as a satire on human develop- ment. With forms of government and modern constitutionalism it is as little concerned as with modern inventions, railways, tele- graphs, &c. As our opponents declare that the Civilta Cattolica is the hest exponent of Papal doctrines and decisions, it may not be out of place to quote a passage from this journal. In speak- ing of prop. 80 it says : 4 ' It is not to be imagined that when the Pope condemned Liberalism he also condemned so-called political liberty or the forms of free government. The Encyclical makes no mention of these ; nevertheless there are some who, either from ignorance or malice, endeavour to maintain the contrary. But to dissipate the delusion of the former and the deceit of the latter, it is only necessary to mention that the doctrine of the Church is unalterable. She has ever taught that every legitimate and just form of government is good and acceptable ; in them- selves forms of government are neither good nor bad ; they are useful or dangerous according to the principles by which they are animated, the persons by whom they are administered, and the dispositions of the people to whom they apply. In the Middle Ages the Church was constantly struggling and ever in arms against imperial absolutism, and continually defending the liberty of Italian communities ; because, while the former en- deavoured to appropriate foreign possessions and rose up against the Church, the latter were defending their own rights and were obedient to her. The words of Pius IX. do not refer to repre- sentative constitutions, but to the errors which under every form of government may manifest themselves, and which in our day have spread so terribly. His principles are precisely those which his predecessors have always taught ; his merit is simply in having developed and collected these principles, and in having maintained them with unconquerable resolution during the whole of his long pontificate against his numerous and insolent assailants. It was impossible that Pius IX. could include civil and political liberty in his condemnation of Liberalism, and so far was it from being his intention, that at the very time of the publication of the Encyclical ' Qui pluribus,' 5 which is only further 248 The Syllabus and Modern States. developed and explained by the Encyclical ' Quanta cura' and' the Syllabus, he introduced those administrative reforms 6 into- his States which have caused him to be blamed for liberal ten- dencies by ignorant critics.' 1 ' The Roman Pontiff can and ought to reconcile himself to, and agree with, progress, Liberalism, and modern civilisation.' Syll. Prop. 80. 2 ' Dum cuique acatholico cultui fayet .... irascitur adversus religi- osas familias,' &c. 3 Count Cavour himself acknowledged the immorality of the proceed- ings in New Italy when he said : ' Were we to act for ourselves as we act for Italy, we should be great fools' (gran halossi). To which Massimo d'Azeglio remarked : ' The doctrine of a double morality, one for public, one for private use, is justly contested ; but let that take its course' (Diario Politico-Militare dell' Ammiraglio C. Persano, Torino, 1871, p. 125). 4 Civilta Cattolica, ser. viii. vol. ii. quad. 504 (June 17, 1871), Pio DL e la Societa Civile, pp. 692, 693. 5 Encyclical of Nov. 9, 1846, Acta Pii IX. vol. i. Romae, 1854, pp. 4-24). 6 Atti del Sommo Pontefice Pio IX. parte ii. vol. i. Roma, 1857, pp. 4,. 7 seq. 26 seq. 52, 123, 150, 191, 222. 20. The reply may be made that in another place 1 this same- journal says, that in this same proposition Liberalism has been- condemned absolutely and Avithout reserve. It is perfectly cor- rect that under this name a system most contrary to the teaching of the Church has been condemned, a system which supports itself on material progress and modern constitutions, and en- deavours to imbue and leaven them with its spirit ; but it is equally true and correct that material progress and modern constitutions are not in themselves identical with this system, or that they coincide with it. The Syllabus only refers to that system which violently combats the Church in every sphere, and! endeavours at every turn to impede her salutary power ; and this is clearly shown by the context of the Encyclical published' at the same time. Therefore Huber's observation, that there is no interpretation of the words of the decree that will allow the Syllabus to be compatible with the life of the State according- to modern views, is partly false and partly equivocal. Hubeir 77ie Propositions of the Syllables. 249 confuses the administration of the constitution by means of a dominant liberal party with the constitution itself. Dr. Strode and Dr. K. 2 have satisfactorily shown how very often the former is in contradiction with the latter. The condemnation is a necessary protest of the Church against that which excludes religion from public as well as domestic society, from schools and from daily life, planes the way for socialism and communism, undermines Christian morality, and endeavours to enthrone the principles of the old Jacobins and of the Paris Commune of 1871. The successor of St. Peter had not this or that particular country, this or that individual in his mind, but with one glance, with one act he comprehended the ruin which threatened the Church and humanity, and recognised it by the light of reason illumi- nated by revelation, and weighing well all consequences. Bold unbelief cries, 'Away with Christ ! we have no need of redemption; away with God ! 3 we help ourselves.' More refined unbelief says the same, but in a more refined manner : ' We allow all honour to be shown to God and to the Saviour, so that it is in the quiet of a chamber or within the walls of a church ; but in the world, in civil life, there we have no need of God or of Christ. 4 There we are the gods; 5 there our money, our science, our wills govern. Behold, Israel, the gods which have delivered you out of Egypt: modern industry, material progress, natural science, the science of history, a free press, and above all, that which alone governs all and alone can insure your happiness, the modern liberal State. The Church may vegetate in a hidden corner. The forum, the senate house, the schools, and in consequence the future, belong to us alone !' 1 Reply to P. A. Cicuto, ser. viii. vol. iv. quad. 511, of Oct. 7, 1871, p. 74. 2 Der Conflict Zwischen Staat nnd Kirche in Bayern. 3 These words, which were let fall at a dinner of the Paris Commune, are very characteristic : ' If God existed, He would have to be shot' (All- gemeine Zeitung, June 8, 1871, from the Siecle). 4 In the Encyclical Quanta cnra the censure of the endeavours made to do away with the keeping holy of Sundays and holydays, and to limit works of Christian charity, was aimed at this notion. 5 Erasmus of Rotterdam, Expl. in S. Script, p. 65 : ' Quidquid homo- praefert Deo, id sibi facit Deum.' 250 The Syllabus and Modern States. 21. Hostile efforts to banish religion from social life, and to act as if there were no divine revelation, result in the withdrawal of the supernatural means of grace from humanity. Humanity is thus reduced to a state of simple nature and abandoned to itself; wherefore the Holy Father calls this tendency naturalism. But in this state we have only unredeemed humanity, tainted with original sin, without bit or bridle, yielding to every inclination and to every crime, the mind becoming dark, and the heart hardening, as they did in the heathen world with its false gods, its external cultivation, its ever-increasing moral deterioration. The sons of earth, lately driven out of Paradise, their reason darkened through want of heavenly light, perverted and dis- torted the simplest ideas, even the truths of nature ; it is no marvel, therefore, that the notion of true justice and man's true rights should not only have been obscured but lost, and that brute force should take the place of true justice and righteous law. 1 If the original source of all rights is denied, every par- ticular right can only have a doubtful existence from one day to another ; the protecting dams are broken away, the floodgates are opened, and in pours the terrible devastating torrent of universal overthrow, the new deluge of literary, religious, politi- cal, and social revolution. An immeasurable tract is exposed to intellectual desolation, to horrible convulsions, to terrible bar- barity. And society must take all the blame, because it yielded in the beginning, and agreed to the premises from which these consequences have inexorably and inevitably ensued. It has itself prepared the ruin by not only enduring but fostering, cherish- ing, and favouring these principles. 2 It will not acknowledge the means of salvation so near at hand. ' The fundamental law of progress, civilisation, and liberty is the Gospel, that is, our Saviour Himself. He has given to the world the highest and purest ideal and the noblest meaning of these three things when, as a foundation for all His teaching, He bids us : " Be you there- fore perfect, as also your Heavenly Father is perfect." ' 3 Those religious truths, ignored by the world and repeatedly proclaimed The Propositions of the Syllabus. 251 "by Pius IX., alone secure true progress, true civilisation, true liberty ; they show how Creator and creature, spirit and matter, reason and faith, nature and grace, the external and internal world, body and soul, Church and State, Christian and citizen, should neither be confounded, thrown together and identified, nor separated, absolutely divided, and placed in opposition to each other ; revealed truth alone shows the true harmony that exists in all things, and brings our intellect and life into won- derful unison ; moreover whenever such a harmony does not exist between eternal principles and deeds of momentary im- portance and human commands, between justice and law, these truths of revelation show us how to reconcile them, and prepare the way for further development. We learn to understand our own incompleteness, shortcomings, and imperfections, and to console ourselves with the thought that ' we have not here a lasting city, but we seek one that is to come' (Heb. xiii. 14), where there will be no more weeping, pain, or death, and where the Lamb will be the light (Apoc. xxi. 4, 23), and with the thought that there must be a difference between the ideal world and the real world of earth. But the faithful must be on their guard against accepting imperfect human rules, whose authority is simply based on physical power, as supreme and final, to which everything must submit, and by which even religious truths are to be tested. That would be a return to the bar- barity of paganism, the deadly enemy of Christianity, eager to thrust the Church back into the catacombs, and to increase the burden of our corruption, already so heavy, and by which we lose so many blessings of Christianity ; for men seek to confine Christian influence within the Avails of the churches, to sever it entirely from public life, and to make everything independent of religious principles and rules. 4 1 Pius IX. Enc. Quanta cura, Et quoniam : ' Ubi a civili societate fuit amota religio ac repudiata divinae revelationis doctrina et auctoritas, vel ipsa germana justitiae humanique juris notio tenebris obscuratur et amittitur, atque in verae justitiae legimitique juris locum materialis sub- stituitur vis.' - I wrote thus in 18C5 (Chilianeum, vol. vi. pp. 295, 296) : I can now repeat it even more strongly. Noc's warning was without effect upon 252 The Syllabus and Modern States. corrupted men ; the words of Pius IX. have met with the same fate from most of his contemporaries, who hurry blindfold to the abyss they will not see. 3 Dupanloup, Die Convention .v. 15 Sept. und die Encyclicav. 8 Dec. 1861, ii. Th. 5. 4 ' As if,' says Tosi (Vorles. iiber den Syllabus Errorum, p. 4), 'man- kind had to strive after two totally distinct aims ; as if our supernatural destiny did not include and transform the natural elements of our deve- lopment ; and as if every form of life, whether of individuals or of the mass, ought not to be pervaded and purified by the spirit of Chris- tianity. ' 22. The following is an example of the false suppositions under which this discussion is carried on : Berchtold says : ' We are certainly completely justified in basing our argument concerning the irreconcilable contradiction between the new Papal dogmas and the Bavarian State laws on the supposition that the Bulls ' Unam sanctam,' ' Cum ex Apostolatus,' &c., and in particular the propositions of the Syllabus are matters of faith in the new Catholic Church.' 1 But the Bull ' Cum ex Apostolatus,' as well as many others, contains no matter of faith. The Bull ' Unam sanctam' has only defined one proposition to be an article of faith. The Syllabus is only a dogmatic judgment in a wide sense ; more- over most of its propositions are misinterpreted, distorted, and never understood in their proper connection. Hence further arguments based on this supposition rest on a false foundation ; they do not rise above the level of empty declamation, which repeats and repeats, but never proves. The Syllabus rightly understood is only a serious warning against the advancing decay and rain of religious life and thought ; 2 also against the utter misconception of the object, signification, and nature of the Catholic Church, regarded nowadays as the ignorant regard without comprehending her old cathedrals and painted windows : ' Peep into the church from the market outside, And is anything else but gloom there say ? Our friend the Philistine peeps this way, And rightly enough he sniffs with pride, And sneers at the church till his dying day, But, ah let him venture but once inside !' 3 Goethe. The Propositions of the Syllabus. 253 1 Berchtold, p. 15. Cf. p. 24 seq. - Tosi, I.e. : ' Error is very liable to produce a spiritual miasma, a poi- soned atmosphere, in which even the most healthy sicken, and the doctors themselves are at last attacked by the evil. Thus has the process of secu- larisation spread itself abroad; and some persons who, in consequence of their talents or position, have been chosen to represent the intelligence of the Church, have not been able entirely to divest themselves of this fatal influence. To prevent us all from falling victims to this contagion, the venerable old man who at the present time is governing the Christian community is obliged to raise his voice, in order, by the lightning of God's Word, to dispel the deceitful twilight of modern ideas. Praise and thanks be to the successor of the Apostle-princes ; he has spoken the word, and put an end to the fluctuations of opinion.' ' Sieht man vom Markt in die Kirche herein, Da ist Alles dunkel und duster ; Und so sieht's auch der Herr Philister. Der mag denn wohl verdriesslich sein Und lebenslang verdiiesslich bleiben Kommt aber nur einmal herein !' ESSAY VI. FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLES OF THE MIDDLE AGES. THE attacks of the enemies of the Church at the present day have mostly reference to her conduct in the Middle Ages, and in order thoroughly to reply to them we must closely ex- amine the principles of those times, which differ fundamentally from the principles prevailing at the present day. How hard it is to many of our contemporaries to place themselves in the position to form a judgment on. the relations of Church and State in the Middle Ages has been fully recognised and ex- pressed by the clear-sighted John Frederick Bb'hmer, 1 and it is also shown by a glance at the opinions on the subject prevailing amongst us. ' It is almost incredible,' writes Karl von Thaler with great truth, ' how few educated men know more of history than is taught in school-books.'- Only a thorough knowledge of the state of society in that day, of the principles of law and justice, and of the manner, condition, and wants of the people, taken in connection with their ever-advancing development, this knowledge alone can give us a right understanding of the immense influence gained and maintained through many hun- dred years by the Popes (and by Councils as well) 3 over sove- reigns and States, an influence which we at the present day find it hard to understand. I will endeavour to portray the leading features (1) of the influence of the Church on social and political life ; (2) of the power of the Papacy ; and (3) of excom- munication and its consequences in the Middle Ages. 1 J. Fred. Bohmer's Leben, Brief e und Kleiuere Schriften, von J. Janssen, vol. i. p. 247 seq. Bohnicr's Leben und Anshaunngen, Freib. 1869, p. 278. - Allgemeine Zeitung, Feb. 2, 1871. ! Vide infra, esp. part iii. 14 seq. Influence of the Church. 255 PART I. INFLUENCE OF THE CHURCH ON SOCIAL AND POLITICAL LIFE. 1. The Church in the Germanic kingdoms. 2. Elective and hereditary- monarchies. 3. Restriction of the royal power. 4. The first duties of a king, those towards God. 5. The oath of kings. 6. Their coronation and anointing. 7. Kinghood and knighthood. 8. Power of the clergy, especially the bishops. 9. State of society in that day. 10. Close union between Church and State. 11. Natural, divine, and positive law. 12. Religion and freedom. 1- With the entrance of Christianity into the world began the action of a new force, which necessarily and rightly led to new relations of national life. 1 The kingdom of heaven thrown open by the Redeemer of the world was a grain of mustard-seed, which was to become a lofty tree ; a handful of leaven which was to leaven all things (St. Matt. xiii. 31, 33 ; St. Luke xiii, 19, 21).- Ko one can deny that Christianity made a change for the better in the civil, political, and social life of the Roman Empire. 3 Its influence was, however, far greater with the German races, where there was no existing heathen civilisation to be purified, but where its work was to implant civilisation for the first time amongst a barbarous and savage people. 4 The Church was the mediator and peacemaker between the con- quered Romans and the victorious Germans ; she protected the one and educated and moulded the other. 5 She was the one source of culture, the one counterpoise to brute force, the one cultivated body throughout the whole human society. 6 1 Harless, Staat und Kirche, p. 2. - Chrys. Horn. 46 al. 47, in Matth. n. 2. Migne, Iviii. p. 178 seq. 3 Bianchi, t. iii. c. iii. 19, pp. 353-356. Phillips, Kirchenrecht, iii. 118, p. 13 seq. 4 Neander, Kirchengeschichte, ii. p. 49, iii. ed. 5 Dollinger, Lehrbuch d. Kirchengeschichte, i. 44, p. 217. Neander, I.e. 2- In most of the kingdoms raised upon the ruins of the Roman Empire in the West there was a combination of elective 256 Principles of the Middle Ages. and hereditary monarchy, so that while the king had to be chosen from among the members of the reigning family, the choice of the nation might fall on any of the princes of the blood royal ; no individual prince had by birth full and indis- putable right to the throne ; the right was only conferred upon him by the assembly of the nation, and especially by the chief men among them. All the sons of the late king had an equal right of succession ; and either, with the consent of the na- tion, a division of the kingdom was made, or the assembly of those privileged to vote made choice of some member of the reigning family to be head of the State. 1 This was the case espe- cially in England, 2 with the Visigoths in Spain, 3 and with the Franks. Pipin made the Franks swear to him that they would never choose a king of any other blood, in order to give a great security to his dynasty. 4 In the deeds of division of Dieden- hofen (Feb. 8, 806), by which Charlemagne divided his king- dom between his three sons, it was stipulated that in case one of them should die leaving a son, and this son were chosen by the people as successor to his father, his uncles should acknow- ledge him as such. 5 1 Guizot, Essais sur 1'Histoire de France, essai iv. c. iii. pp. 219-223. Giesebrecht, Gescbichte der Deutscben Kaiserheit, iii. dupl. i. p. 90. - Hallam, Europe in the Middle Ages. Lingard, History of England. Kanke, Englische Geschichte, i. pp. 14, 30 seq. 34 seq. See especially Freeman, Norman Conquest, vol. i. c. iii. 3 Hallam. Ferreras, Hist. d'Espagne, t. ii. p. 419. Perez Valiente, Apparat. Jur. Publ. Hispau. Matriti, 1751, t. ii. c. vi. vii. 21. 4 Vertot, Dissert, sur la Succession a la Couronne de France (Me- moires de 1' Academic des Inscriptions, 4, t. v.). Guizot, I.e. p. 218. Cf. Greg. Turon. 1. ii. c. xii. Natal. Alex. H. E. saec. 5, P. ii. c. ult. a. 4, n. 5 ; saec. 7, c. vi. a. 4, n. 2 ; saec. 9, et 10, p. i. cap. vii. a. 4, 9. 5 Pertz, Leg. t. i. p. 140. 3- In the Germanic kingdoms great regard was felt for the free- dom and privileges of the individual, 1 while the authority of the sovereign was limited by the general assembly of the nation. It was commonly the case that the nation in choosing a prince laid on him certain conditions, and could hold him answerable for his conduct. 2 It was an understood condition that the king Influence of the Church. 257 must deal uprightly, govern well and justly, maintain peace and concord, and not misuse his power by oppression. The kingly power was never looked upon as absolute and unlimited ; the rights of the people were quite as important as those of the prince, and he was put in mind of his duties, as they of theirs. 3 The people were not to exist for the benefit of the prince ; and his power was to be employed, not for his own ends, but for the welfare of the nation. 4 In the appendix to the Capitularies, 5 following the words of the Councils held in Paris (829) and at Aix (836), 6 it is said: 'Kex (king) is derived from recte agendo (dealing justly) ; he may truly be called king who acts piously, uprightly, and mercifully ; the ruler who acts otherwise is a tyrant. The duty of a king is to rule his people with righteousness and justice, and to main- tain peace and harmony.' The same was said by Pope Nicholas I., by Hincmar of Rheims, and by the Council of Mainz (888). 7 The following words were written by a French duchess to Count Theobald : ' The sovereign who declines from the path of just judgment deserves to lose his title, especially as God has ap- pointed princes on earth, that after a just trial they may decide and pass judgment.' 8 Thus there was, if not an explicit, at least an implied, covenant between prince and people, such as is mentioned in Holy Scripture between David and the peo- ple of Israel (2 Kings v. 3). In a conference held November 7, 1405, Gerson opposed the error of those who maintained that a ruler has no obligations towards his subjects, and he even declared that these obligations once violated, he was no longer to be considered as ruler. 9 The conditions upon which a king was to be acknowledged were laid down beforehand, and when these were disregarded, his reign itself was to come to an end. Transactions often took place respecting the accession of this or that prince to the throne much resembling the ' capitulations/ that is, the conditions to which the German emperors even in later times had to swear, before being elected. 1 Cf. Phillips, I.e. 120, p. 66. 2 Guizot, I.e. pp. 223-226. Lenglet-Dufresnoy, Methode pour Studier 1'Histoire, P. iv. c. v. a. 1, t. iv. p. 333. VOL. I. a 258 Principles of the Middle Ages. 3 Walter, Kirclienrecht, book viii. 343, p. COS, llth ed. 4 Vide Seneca, i. de Clem. c. xix. : ' Rempublieam non esse principis, sed principem reipublicae.' Aug. de Civ. Dei, 1. v. c. xii.: ' Rex dicitur a regendo et consulendo, non a regnando atque imperando. ' 5 Capital. Addit. t. i. p. 1146, ed. Baluz ; Add. ii. n. 24, 25. 6 Cone. Paris, vi. 1. ii. c. i. Asquisgr. ii. Hefele, Cone. iv. 61 seq. 87. 7 Nicol. I. Ep. 4, ad Advent. Meteus. : ' "Videte, utrum reges isti et principes, quibus vos subjectos esse dicitis, veraciter reges et principes sint. Videte si primum bene se regunt, deinde subditum populum. . . . Videte si jure principantur ; alioquin potius tyranni credendi sint, quam reges habendi,' &c. Hincmar, Opusc. de Divortio Lotharii (Opp. i. 693). Cone. Mogunt, 888, c. 2 (Hefele, iv. p. 527). 8 Petr. Bles. Ep. 184, p. 476. 9 Cf. Schwab Gerson, pp. 240 seq. 428. 4. In the mediaeval States, as in those of antiquity, 1 religion was the foundation and mainstay of society, and the first and most important duty of princes was its care and defence. A ruler was to be, above all, the servant of God, the defender of the Church, of the weak, and of the needy. 2 In the words of Scripture he was the representative and servant of God for the people of God (1 Chron. xxviii. 5, xxix. 11, 23; Eccles. xvii. 14, 15 ; Eom. xiii. 4) ; bound to render strict account 3 (Wisd. vi. 2-11; Ezech. xxxiv. 10, 11); by justice alone could his throne be firmly established (Prov. xvi. 12 ; Ps. Ixxi. 2 seq.). He who has not a truly religious mind, said Gerson (Jan. 6, 1391), cannot in truth be called a king; firm trust in God is the highest praise bestowed in Scripture upon a prince. 4 The words of Leo the Great, ' to reign is to serve God,' were in use throughout the Middle Ages ; 5 likewise those of St. Augus- tine, ' The wicked man is a slave, even though he be a ruler ; and this not to a single individual, but to as many masters as he has vices.' The first and most important duties of princes were those due to God and the Church, and in discharging them they were to set an example to all their subjects. 7 1 Aristot. Polit. vii. 8 : Upurov % irepi TU*V Be'uav eVi/ie'Aa. Plato, de Leg. 1. x . Xenophon, Memor. Socr. i. Cicero, de Leg. ii. 6, 7, de Natura Deor. 1. i. ; de Finibus, 1. iv. Plutarch, who calls religion Troo-rjy Koivwvia.s /cat vopoOfaias epeicr^a. Valerius Maximus, 1. i. c. i. de Bel., who Influence of the Church. 259 says : ' Omnia namque post religionem ponenda semper nostra civitaa duxit etiamin quibus summae majestatis conspici decus voluit. ' Cf. Hugo Grotius, de Jure Belli et Pacis, ii. 20, 44, n. 3 seq. ; Montesquieu, Esprit des Lois, iii. 9. 2 Hieron. in Jerem. c. xxii. (Gratian, c. 23, c. xxiii. q. 5). Leg. Visi- goth. 1. xii. tit. 2, n. 2. Leg. Angl. (Canciani, Barbarorum Leges, t. iv. pp. 185, 311, 337), Jur. Alaman. s. Suevici Specimen, n. 24 seq. Senken- burg, Corp. Jur. Germ. t. ii. p. 6 seq. 3 Cone. Paris, vi. 1. ii. c. ii. : ' Scire etiam debet (rex), quod causa, quam juxta ministerium sibi commissum administrat, non hominum, eed Dei causa existit, cui pro ministerio, quod suscepit, in examinis tremendi die rationem redditurus est ;' c. v. : ' Nemo regum a progenitoribus reg- num sibi administrari sed a Deo veraciter atque bumiliter credere debet dari.' 4 Schwab Gerson, p. 411 seq. Cf. p. 456 seq. 4 Deo servire regnare est. Leo M. Petrus Bles. Ep. 20, p. 74, ed. Migne ; Ep. 139, p. 413. 6 Aug. de Civit. Dei, 1. iv. c. iii. 7 Anselm. Cantuar. 1. iii. Ep. 132, ad Kegem Scotiae ; 1. i. Ep. 142, ad Reg. Hibem. Petrus Bles. Ep. 67, p. 211 : ' Hex cui omne judicium in populo datum est, quomodo judicabit populum suum in lege domiui, si legem domini non cognovit?' In the Tract, quales sunt, P. iv. c. xii. p. 1048, he calls Christ, regum omnium potentissimus, qui vices et jura sua regibus suis exsequenda commisit. Petrus Vener. 1. ii. Ep. 7, p. 197, ad Regem Norvegiae ; Ep. 46, p. 269, ad Reg. Hieros. ; 1. iii. Ep. 3 ; 1. iv. 37, pp. 180, 369, ad Roger. Reg. Sicil. ; Ep. 36, p. 366, ad Reg. Franc. 5- In many States the monarch was elected only on the express condition of professing the Catholic faith, defending it with all his might against attack, and thus best insuring the peace and welfare of his land. In Spain, from the seventh to the fourteenth century, the king had to take such an oath ; when it was no longer formally taken, a Spanish king was still understood to be ever bound by this obligation ; the title ' Catholic king 5 was a title of honour and of responsibility. 1 In the laws of Edward the Confessor, published by William the Conqueror and his successors, it was expressly said, that a king who did not fulfil his duties towards the Church was to forfeit his title of king ; and that he was to be bound by oath to this before his coronation. 2 Even sup- posing these laws do not come down from Edward, still there can be no doubt that they put before us the views and principles of 260 Principles of the Middle Ages. justice Avhich prevailed under the early Korman kings. 3 Ac- cording to the purport of the words, a prince who was faithless in his religious duties not only deserved to forfeit his kingly title, but was in fact to forfeit it. 4 1 Perez Valiente, I.e. t. xi. c. vii. n. 18. - Leges Edwardi Kegis, art. 17, al. 15 (Wilkins, Leg. Anglo-Saxon. Lond. 1721) : ' Bex autem, qui vicarius snmmi regie est, ad hoc est con- stitutus, ut regnmn terrenum et populum Domini, et super omnia sanctam veneretur Ecclesiam ejus, et regat et ab injuriosis defendat et maleficos ab ea evellat et destruat, et penitus disperdat. Quod nisiffecerit, nee nomen regis in eo constabit. verum testante Papa Joanne nomen regis perdit.' Vide Cancian. I.e. p. 337. Howard (Traite sur les Coutumes Anglo-Nor- mandes, Paris, 1776, t. i. p. 167) omits the last words, contrary to all former editions (Spelman, Concilia, Decreta, Leges, Const. Orbis Britan. Lond. 1639 seq. p. 622 ; Wilkins, Cone. Brit. Lond. 1737, i. 312 ; Hard. Cone. vi. 988), and gives no reason for the omission. Vide Gosselin, ii. p. 303, n. 1. It is not certain whether Pope John has been confounded with Pope Zach- arias, or whether the passage refers to John VIII. in c. xxvi. Adrninis- tratores, c. xxiii. q. 5 in which, however, the words are not so strong or to a lost writing by a Pope of this name. 3 Wilkins, Cone. M. Brit. i. 310. Canciani, I.e. p. 224. 4 Cf . Eeceveur, Hist, de 1'Eglise, t. v. p. 127. The coronation of kings, which was in early times likened to the consecration of bishops, 1 brought home to the people the loftiness of the royal dignity, and to the king the weight of his responsibilities. 2 In the West, as in the East, where from the fifth century the emperor had been crowned by the Patriarch, 3 the profession of faith, and the oath taken by the king, that he would rule with justice, defend the Church, &c., formed a part of the coronation. In the Aries Pontificale, a rite of anointing is given, in which the prince to be anointed is presented to the metropolitan by two eminent bishops with a petition that he may be raised to the kingly dignity ; 4 upon which the metro- politan, precisely as at a consecration, inquires into his worth and fitness, and having received a satisfactory answer, replies ' Deo gratias.' Before the anointing came the taking of the oath. 5 Most significant are the accompanying prayers and words. 6 Many were of opinion that kings received full power only at Influence of the Church. 2bi their coronation and anointing "by the Church. The language of documents is in keeping with this view ; the twelfth Council of Toledo (681) says, from the deeds laid before it, it is clear that Prince Erwig had attained the dignity of king and re- ceived the royal power through the sacred anointing. 7 Charles the Bold, in his complaint against Archbishop Wenilo of Sens (859), laid stress on the fact that the archbishop had consecrated him and raised him to the throne. 8 Although the king, either by election or by birth, might have a right to reign (jus ad rem), still, according to universal belief, his reign began (jus in re) through the anointing and blessing of the Church, or at the very least his power then received its solemn sanction.9 1 Petms Damiani, sermo 69, in Dedications Ecclesiae, t. ii. p. 374. Petrus Bles. Ep. 10, ad G. Capell. In the East, the Patriarch Polyeuktue, in a synodal decree of 969 (Bever. Pand. can. i. p. 385 ; Balsam, in c. xii. Ancyr.), even compares this anointing in its effects to baptism. 2 Phillips, Kirchenrecht, iii. 120, pp. 67, 68. 3 Theod. lect. ii. 65. Theophan. p. 170, ed. Bonn. Le Quien, Or. Christ, i. 133, 22. 4 Pontificate M. S. Eccl. Arelat. ap. Martene, de Antiquis Eccl. Riti- bns, t. iii. 1. ii. c. x. p. 222 : ' Reverende pater, postulat mater Ecclesia, ut praesentem militem ad dignitatem regalem sublevetis.' " Martene, I.e. pp. 192-199. Cf. formula in Phillips, I.e. p. 72 seq., and that used at the coronation of Edward II. of England, Feb. 24, 1308, Bymer, iii. 63 ; also Liugard. 6 Martene, I.e. pp. 203, 205, 214. Phillips, pp. 74-79. Walter, I.e. p. 608, n. 2. 1 Aguirre, Cone. Hisp. ii. 683, c. i. : ' Regnandique per sacrosanctam unctionem susceperit potestatem.' 8 Libell. Proclam. Hard. v. 488. 9 Bianchi, t. ii. 1. v. 12, n. 8, ,p. 381 seq. against the Defensio Declarat. Cleri. Gall. P. i. 1. ii. c. xliv. p. 269 seq. ed. Mogunt, 1788. 7. At the coronation of a king, the principle was expressly laid down that the temporal sword was to be borne for the honour of God. This applied more strictly indeed to kings, but also to the entire Germanic knighthood. As of old, in heathen times, weapons were laid on the altars of the gods and consecrated to sacred conflicts, in like manner the sword was delivered 262 Principles of the Middle Ages. to the Christian warrior by the hands of the Church, or at least with religious solemnity. In the case of warlike nations, the blessing of the sword by the Church was a means of draw- ing their whole lives within the domain of Christianity. 1 It was universally held that knighthood bound a man, above all, to the defence of the Church, the weak, and the needy. The truer knights are towards their sovereign, says John of Salis- bury, so much the more zealously will they keep faith with God. 2 Faith must be kept first with God, then with princes and people ; the higher ever comes before the lower ; the commands of princes cannot be obeyed when contrary to the commands of God ; and this the oath itself says. 3 All, with- out exception, belong to the Church, whether bound by an oath expressed in words, or by one taken in silence ; a deed weighs as much as a word ; if the future knight bring his sword solemnly to the altar, and there make an offering of it to God, he has done as much as abbots and bishops when they make their profession in writing before God. Much is granted them for the service of the Church, but nothing is granted to be used against her. 4 The chief duty of Christian knighthood was to do battle for the Church, and even when princes received the knightly stroke this duty was ever put before them ; as was done in the case of William of Holland, who, after the speech of the Papal legate and the taking of the oath, was dubbed knight by the King of Bohemia with earnest words of admonition. 5 Often were kings reminded that the sword had been given to them for the defence of the Church, 6 and that they should imi- tate King David in their submission to God. 7 1 Phillips, 121, p. 81 seq. Cf. Walter, Deutsche RechtBgeschichte, p. i. 219. 2 Joh. Saresbur. Polycrat. 1. vi. c. viii. : ' Sed ipsius juramenti (mili- taris) verba revolve, et invenies, annatam militiam non minus quam spi- ritualem ex necessitate qfficii ad religionem et Dei cultum arctari, cum Jideliter et secundum Deum principi debeatur obsequium et reipublicae pervigil famulatus. Illi ergo quid habent militis, qui vocati ex Sacramento non obtemperant legi, sed in eo militiae suae gloriam constare credunt, si contemptibile sit sacerdotium, si Ecclesiae vilescat auctoritas, si ita dila- taverint regnum bominis, ut Christi imperium contrahatur, si laudes suas praedicentet sefalsis ipsos praeconiis mulceant et extollant, cum irrisione Influence of the Church. 263 andientium imitantes "militem gloriosum"? .... Sedquid estusus mili- tiae ordinatae? Tueri Ecclesiam, perfidiam impugnare, sacerdotium venerari, pauperum propulsare injurias, pacare provinciam, pro fratribus, ut sacrament! docet conceptio, fundere sanguinem et si opus est, animam ponere. . . . Haec agentes milites sancti sunt et in eo fideliores priucipi quo servant studiosius fidem Dei, et virtutis suae utilius gloriam promo- vent, quo fidelius Dei sui in omnibus gloriam quaeruut.' Cf. Anselm's words, in Mohler's Anselm of Canterbury (Gesammte Schriften, i. p. 99), and Alanus ab Insulis de Arte Praedicat. c. xl. (Migne, ccx. p. 786). 3 Ib. c. ix. p. 601 : ' Haec autem omni militiae formula praescribenda est et implenda, ut Deo primum fides debita deinde principibus et reipub- licae servetur incolumis et semper majora praejudicabunt minoribus, quia nee reipublicae nee fides principi servanda est contra Deurn, sicut habet ipsa conceptio militaris sacramenti.' So says St. Augustine in Psalm cxxiv. of the Christian soldiers under Julian : ' Milites Christian! servierunt im- peratori infideli ; ubi veniebatur ad causam Christi, non agnoscebant nisi eum, qui in coelo erat.' 4 Ib. c. x. pp. 601, 602 : ' Licet autem sint, qui sibi non teneri videntui- Ecclesiae ex sacramento solemni, quia jam ex consuetudine plerumque non praestatur, nullus tamen est, qui sacramento tacito vel expresso Ecclesiae non teneatur obnoxius. Et forte ideo cessat solemnitas juramenti, quia ad hoc omnis invitat et coarctat necessitas ofBcii et sinceritas fidei. Unde jam Inolevit consuetudo solemnis ut ea ipsa die, qua quisque militari cin- gulo decoratur, ecclesiam solemniter adeat gladioque super altare posito et oblato, quasi celebri professione facta, se ipsum obsequio altaris devoveat et gladii, i.e. qfficii sui,jugem Deo spondeat famulatum. Neque necesse est, ut hoc profiteatur verbo, cum legitima professio militiae facto ejus videatur inserta. Quis enim in homine illiterate et qui magis arma debeat nosse quam literas, professionem exigat literarum? Nam episcopi et abbates professione scripta vel dicta ad fidem et obedientiam videntur arctari. Et revera arctantur, quia Deo mentiri non licet. Sane aut plus est aut non minus, quod milites faciunt, qui non schedulam, sed gladium offerunt et quasi primitias officii redimunt ab altari, unde Ecclesiae in perpetuum famulentur. Nam sicut eis pro Ecclesia plurimum, ita contra Ecclesiam licet nihii: Cf. Petr. Bles. Ep. 94, p. '294. 5 Magn. Chron. Belgic. ap. Pistor. Scr. Rer. Germ. iii. 266. Pertz, iv. 363. Phillips, I.e. p. 82 seq. 8 Petrus Bles. Ep. 112, pp. 338, 339 : ' Becolat .... rex, se non ad op- pressionem pauperum, Bed ad tuitionem Ecclesia potestatem gladii ac- cepisse.' 7 Petr. Bles. Tractatus quales sunt, P. iii. c. xix. p. 1036 : ' Regem (imitentur) reges, ut quanto latiora sibi regna subduntur quanto de die in diem amplificantur, quanto plus eis honoris impenditur, humiliores effici- antur et gratias agant datori. Datori dico non dictori ; datori, qui dedit, ut inde plus (se) humilient, non dictori, qui dicit, ut inde plus jactitent. . . . Qui facit, unde reges gaudeant, facit, unde reges contremiscant. Ipse namque est per quern reges regnant (Prov. viii. 15) ; ipse qui dat salutem regibus (Ps. cxliii. 10) ; ipse qui subdidit eis populos, est idem ipse, qui aufert spiritum principum, terribilis apud onines reges terrae (Ps. Ixxv. 264 Principles of the Middle Ages. 13) ; ipse est qui facit ut potentes potentur tormentis patiantur (Sap. vi. 7) . . . . se ipsos sentiant esse homines, qui ab hominibus sentiuntur reges.' 8. This being the state of the case, the clergy naturally took an active part in all the weighty affairs of their country, and exercised a powerful influence, 1 to which their learning and in- telligence, their wide possessions in land and their firmness of character greatly contributed. Bishops and, later, many abbots also obtained privileges of independence in the German em- pire. Kings often sought and obtained from them support against their turbulent nobles ; mixed parliaments were formed (concilia mixta), synods and parliaments in one, composed of the lords spiritual and temporal. 2 In Spain the bishops, to- gether with the chiefs of the nation, chose the king, who had, before ascending the throne, to promise by oath to fulfil all his obligations. 3 So also, according to the English Council of Calcut (787), kings were to be lawfully chosen by the bishops and chief men of the nation. 4 At Aix (842) the bishops re- quired from the brothers of Lothair I. a vow that they would govern in a manner well-pleasing to God. 5 In the year 879, Count Bosco was chosen and crowned king by the lords spiri- tual and temporal of Provence; 6 and the same was done in other lands. 7 Bishops, being vassals holding directly from the king, had a share, if not always a personal share, in all his privileges and duties; 8 their moral weight and their material possessions secured to them a most prominent position. They filled the posts of chancellor and ambassador at the various courts, they were the most valued councillors of the sovereign, and above all they were the leaders of opinion in the assembly of the nation .9 They exercised a certain control over temporal justice, their legal orders took precedence of those of earls, 10 and the State officials had moreover to support the bishops with the temporal arm. 11 The joint inspection of the public prisons was also given to the bishops, 12 who often set prisoners free on the feasts of the Church, 13 and through their right of giving sanctuary were a safeguard against private vengeance and the Influence of the Church. 265 rude administration of justice in those days. 14 They were treated with the greatest honour by the king, 15 and were often in his absence left as administrators of the realm, as, for example, Archbishop Lanfranc in England. 16 1 Bossuet, Defensio Decl. Cleri. Gall. P. i. 1. ii. c. xxxvi. p. 254 : ' Cuin (episcopi) commissos greges paterna charitate etiam in negotiis saeculari- bus adjuvarent ipsique reipublicae non tantum ornamento, verum etiam tutelae ac firmamento essent, eos tanta regum ac civium charitas et re- Terentia prosecuta est, ut jam reipublicae pars maxima interque optimates primi haberentur, multi etiam lapsu temporis suarum urbium principatum ditionemque obtinerent, quae sacro conjuncta ordini et ejus dignitate tan- quam fundamento nixa longe tamen absunt ab iis, quae primae institu- tionis esse constat.' On the political authority of the bishops from the fourth century, vide Thomassin, P. iii. 1. i. c. xxvi. seq. xxxi. 2 Dollinger, Lehrbuch, ii. p. 11. Neander, Kirchengeschichte, ii. p. 52. Giesebrecht, I.e. i. pp. 76, 331, p. 8. Phillips, I.e. p. 64 seq. Cf. Willelm. Malmesb. de Gest. Angl. 1. v. ; Thomassin, I.e. c. xxviii. seq. 3 Cone: Tolet. iv. 633, can. 75 ; vi. 638, c. 3 ; ix. 655, c. 10. Hefele, Cone. iii. p. 80 seq. 83, 92. Cf. Fleury, t. viii. 1. xxxvii. n. 50. 4 Can. 12. Mansi, xii. 937. Hefele, I.e. p. 597. 5 Nithard. ap. Pertz, Mon. ii. 668. Hefele, iv. p. 521. 6 Pertz, i. 512 ; iii. 547. Hefele, iv. p. 521. 7 Cf. the Council of Pavia, 889 or 890. Hefele, iv. p. 98 seq. 8 Phillips, Deutsche Geschichte, i. p. 469 seq. ; ii. p. 314 seq. 407 seq. 9 Cf. Thomassin, I.e. et seq. P. iii. 1. iii. c. xxv. n. 6 seq. ; c. xxiv. n. 1 seq. 10 Cone. Tribur. 895, can. 9. Hefele, iv. p. 533. Thomassin, p. ii. 1. iii. c. Ixxxix. n. 1 seq. ; c. xcvii. n. 1, 9. 11 Cone. Paris. 846, c. 71. Mogunt, 847, c. 7; 851, c. 2. Tribur. 895, c. 3. Hefele, iv. 112, 120, 171, 532. 12 Cone. Aurel. v. 549, c. 20. 13 Bened. Levita. Capit. 1. ii. c. 107. 14 Walter, Kirchenrecht, 345, p. 611, note 7. 15 For examples, vide Thomassin, P. ii. 1. iii. c. Ix. n. 6-11 ; c. Ixii. n. 3 seq. ; c. Ixiv. 18 Thomassin, P. iii. 1. iii. c. xxiv. n. 4.' 9. The state of society was moreover such that the aid of the Church could not be dispensed with, and could be replaced by no other. 1 Outside the Church violence and barbarity, sword and conquest, the untamed powers of nature, reigned unchecked, both before the time of Pipin and Charlemagne, and after them under their more feeble successors, and indeed long after the 266 Principles of the Middle Ages. complete extinction of their race. In spite of the contempt for learning and culture, there existed still a deep reverence for religion and for its ministers ; in spite of all passions, faith was still living. Monasteries were held in high honour as ahodes of purer life, and persons high in rank took pleasure in visiting them, and frequently chose them as places of retreat for the remainder of their lives. 2 Discipline and sound principles could come from the Church alone ; enlightened legislation could be her work alone ; and under her influence alone could the con- dition of society be improved. 3 To her was due the mitigation and repression of slavery, 4 the first organised care of the poor, 5 the institution of the Truce of God, 6 the establishment of places of education, 7 and every true form of progress. Princes and people were eager to confide their weightiest interests to the clergy, and to increase their external means of power and in- fluence ; 8 for by their learning and virtue they merited trust, and by their character and authority they were the most sure support of public order. The Church, on her side, did her utmost to obtain safeguards against the many attacks and acts of aggression of princes and nobles, who sometimes, from desire of vengeance, oftener from mere covetousness, imprisoned bishops and priests, robbed them, misused them, and thrust others into their places. 9 1 Fleury, Hist. Eccles. t. xiii. discours 3, Moeurs des Chretiens, n. 57-61. 2 Voltaire, Essai sur les Mceurs et 1'Esprit des Nations, c. cxxxix. (CEuvres, xviii. pp. 235-8). Hofler, Deutsche Pa'pste, i. pp. 22 seq. 199 seq. ; ii. p. 75 seq. 3 Guizot, Hist. Generale de la Civilisation en Europe, Ie9on iii. v. vi. pp. 86 seq. 132 seq. 172 seq. 4 Balmes, Protest, und Katholicismus, c. xiv.-xix. pp. 199 seq. Ratis- bon, ed. 1844. Mohler, Gesammte Schriften, ii. p. 54 seq. 5 Batzinger, Geschichte der kirchlichen Armenpflege, Freiburg, 1868, p. 141 seq. 6 Phillips, Kirchenrecht, iii. 121, pp. 84-89. 7 Walter, Kirchenrecht, 337, p. 600 seq. Daniel, Classische Studien. Trans, by Gaisser, Freib. 1855, p. 57 seq. 8 Montesquieu, Esprit des Lois, 1. xxxi. c. xix. 9 This is proved by the decrees of many Councils : e.g. Troyes, 878 ; Tribur, 895, c. 7; Troslei, 909; Hohenaltheim, 916 (Hefele, iv. pp. 513, 533, 548, 557) ; and others besides. Influence of the Church. 267 10. In all mediaeval States it was considered essential to the general welfare of society that Church and State should he closely united. Their working well together had been looked upon in Christendom, from the earliest times as a pledge of hap- piness and prosperity, and their separation as the foundation and beginning of untold evils. 1 Therefore, just as submission. to temporal powers was enjoined by the Church, 2 submission to the Church was on their side impressed by kings upon all their subjects. 3 From this close union between the two powers and from the prominent position of the clergy it followed neces- sarily that the laws of the Church were confirmed by the autho- rity of the sovereign of the land and by the infliction of external punishments. In the East the emperors regularly confirmed the decrees of General Councils and gave them the authority of laws of the empire, and hence they had to be ob- served under pain of temporal punishments. 4 In the Germanic kingdoms the union between Church and State was far closer, and the uncivilised state of the nations in- creased the necessity for external penalties. The Carolingian legislation adheres closely to the canon law of the Church ; 5 in Spain Councils confirmed or modified the edicts of the king; 6 in England also the same harmony existed ; the decrees of a Coun- cil in 691 or 692 were transcribed into the code of laws of King Ina. 7 The Emperor Henry II. confirmed, as laws of the empire,, the decrees of the Council held at Pavia by Benedict VIII. (1018) to secure their being put in force by the civil power. 8 Peter Damiani desired that bishops should proceed against misdoers according to civil law ; and that the king, with the advice of the bishops and guided by canon law, should pass decrees touch- ing on religious matters. 9 Thus had Charles the Great acted in virtue of his friendly relations with the Church ; but at the same time he was careful to avoid any collision with existing ecclesi- astical rules, and revoked any decrees which were contrary to the regulations already laid down by the Church. 10 She rightfully and necessarily demanded that nothing contrary to divine or 268 Principles of the Middle Ages. ecclesiastical precepts or to the freedom and honour of the house of God should be introduced by civil law or by custom into the life of Christian nations. 11 The sentence pronounced at Chalcedon still held good, that all imperial laws which were contradictory to canon law should be null and void ; 12 but while this principle was unquestioned in the West, the bishops of the East seldom succeeded in dissuading their emperor from passing laws against the Church. 13 According to the words of Holy Scripture (St. Luke x. 16 ; St. Matt. x. 40 ; St. John xiii. 20) and of the Fathers, as also according to the dogma of the rela- tion of the Church to Christ, every offence and insult offered to her was an offence and insult offered to God Himself. 14 The Council of Times, under the presidentship of Hincmar (881), declared the dignity of bishop higher than that of king, since bishops consecrate kings, and are bound to render account of them to God. 15 I Ivo Carno. Ep. 238 : ' Cum regnum et sacerdotium inter se conveni- unt bene regitur mundus.' Ep. ad Hag. Lugdun. (Floss, Die Papstwahl unter den Ottonen, p. 172) : ' Begnum divisum et sacerdotium, sine quorum oncordia res humanae nee incolumes esse possunt nee tutae.' * Komans xiii. 1 seq. ; 1 Pet. ii. 19. Aug. c. 24, c. xxiii. q. 5 ; c. 98, c. xi. q. 3. Tert. Apol. c. 30, de Idol. c. 15. Hier. in Tit. c. 3. Grig. c. Gels. v. 37. Nicol. Myst. Ep. 1, ad Amiram Cret. (Mai Spicil. Rom. x. ii. p. 61). 3 Capitul. Franc, t. i. p. 437. 4 Justinian, Nov. 131, c. i. Cod. i. 1, 47, 48. 5 Analyse des Capitulaires, in Ceillier, Hist, des Auteurs, t. xviii. p. 380. 6 Cone. Tolet. viii. 653, c. 13 ; xii. 681, c. 9 ; xiii. 683, c. 1-4. Hefele, iii. pp. 92, 289, 291. 7 Mansi, xii. 56 seq. Hefele, iii. 318 seq. 8 Mansi, xix. 343 seq. Fleury, t. xii. 1. Iviii. n. 47. Hefele, iv. p. 38 seq. 9 Petrus Dam. t. iii. Opusc. 4, p. 30 : ' Ceterum (pontifex) deliquentes, cum causa dictaverit, forensi lege coerceat, et ipse rex cum suis epis- copis, super animarum statu prolata SS. Canonum auctoritate decernat.' 10 Dollinger, Lehrb. ii. 74, pp. 11, 12. II Job. Saresb. Ep. 184, ad Bartbol. Ep. Exon. p. 188: ' Illis (consue- tudinibus rex) profecto debuerat esse contentus, quae non sunt divinis legibus inimicae, quae bonis moribus non adversantur, quae sacerdotium non debonestant, quae periculum non ingerunt animarum, quae matris Ecclesiae, de cujus manu suscepit gladium ad ipsam tuendam et injurias propulsandas, non subruunt libertatem.' 12 Mausi, vii. 98. Tbe Emperor Marcian expressly recognised this Influence of the Church. 269 (cf. Gratian, c. ii. iii. d. 96 ; Quesnell, diss. i. in Opp. ; Leon. M. a. 45 l r pp. 262, 265, ed. Migne, t. ii.), and was highly praised for it by Facundus of Hermiane. Defens. Trium. capit. xii. 3 (Galland. xii. 801). 13 They succeeded sometimes. Thus in the tenth century Nikephorus Phokas wished soldiers fallen in war to he honoured as martyrs, but the- bishops held fast to a canon of Basil. Theod. Balsam, in Basil, can. 13. Bever. ii. p. 70. Cedren. Chron. ii. p. 369. 14 Bernard. Ep. 45, ad Ludov. Reg. Franc. (Migne, clxxxii. p. 150) : ' Non utique episcopo Parisiensi (infensum vos redditis) sed Domino para- disi, et quidem terribili et ei qui anfert spiritum principum (Ps. Ixxv. 12, Is). Ipse quippe est, qui ad episcopos dicit : qui vos spemit, &c. (S. Luc. x.).' Petr. Bles. Ep. 153, p. 447 : ' Sponsa enim Christi (Ecclesia) est et in- jurias sponsae Christus reputat snas.' Joh. Saresb. Ep. cit. p. 189 ; ' Sponsum exhonorat Christum, quicunque inhonorat ecclesiam sponsam ejus. Sunt enim corpus unum, imo et spiritus unus, et quod amplius est, collatione gratiae quodam modo sunt Deus unus, dum admiribili commercio- ilia, quae carnis sunt, ex natura primitiva Domino impertit, ut ab eo ple- nitudinem divinae naturae recipiat et oleo exultationis quadam ratione consortii abundet ab illo et effluat tota.' 15 Mansi, xvii. 537, c. i. Hefele, iv. p. 522. 11. All jurisprudence of former days distinguishes between natu- ral and positive law. The first rests upon the principles im- planted by the Creator in human nature, has its foundation on its own intrinsic necessity, is unchangeable, eternal, and every- where the same. 1 The second is founded on the free will of the lawgiver, and is liable to change, because it is called for by no intrinsic necessity. 2 The natural law was called the eternal law, when considered as God's will determining the order and government of the world ; and was called the natural law when manifested in the heart and consciousness of mankind. 3 As> originating in God the law of nature is also called divine law. 4 Positive law is divided into divine law (the old and new cove- nant) 5 and human law, which again is subdivided into spiritual and temporal (or civil) law, upon which rests the law of na- tions. 6 Public law rules all that concerns the general ordering of the State or of the Church ; private law, all that has to do with the mutual relations and duties of individuals. These two laws rest partly upon natural, partly upon positive human law, knowledge of which is to be gained not from written codes only y 270 Principles of the Middle Ages. but from customs rendered sacred by long usage. 7 It was an accepted rule that the civil law might never be prejudicial to the natural law ; no civil, law, no custom could prevail over it ; 8 and more than this, any temporal law which was contrary to the natural or to the positive divine law was null and void, and was no law at all. 9 Thus a distinction was ever made between those commands which are binding at all times and in all places and those which have not this character. 10 The task which tem- poral legislation had before it was, first, to adhere to the natural and divine law; 11 and to do this it needed the guidance of the Church, who in the widest and in the strictest sense is guardian of the deposit of the divine law ; 12 secondly, to place upon human freedom no restraint which was not demanded by the well-being of society ; 13 and here again the council of the Church was of the highest value. In support of this was quoted Malach. ii. 7, Ag. ii. 12, according to which the priests of God are the guardians of the law, and are to be consulted concerning it. 14 Legislation was to be in conformity with the decrees of the Church. 15 1 Arist. Eth. v. 7. Cic. de Leg. ii. 4, 5 ; de Republ. iii. 22 (et pass.); de Invent, ii. 22, 53. Or. pro Milone. Seneca, Ep. 65, ad Lucil. ; Rom. ii. 14, 15, and on it the Fathers : Aug. Conf. vi. 4 ; Instit. Jur. Civ. i. 2, Ulp. f. 1, 3 ; Dig. de Just, et Jure, i. 1. Gratian, c. i. 7, d. 1. S. Thorn, in 1. iv. sent. d. 33, a. 1 ; Sum. i. 2, q. 94, a. 6. Suarez, de Leg. i. 1 seq. Domat, Droit Public. Preface, pp. 15, 16. Zallinger, Instit. Jur. Nat. Princ. Bouix, Tract, de Princ. Jur. Can. P. i. sect. 1, c. iii. p. 16 seq. Leibnitz, Observ. de Princ. Jur. 2 (Opp. iv. iii. p. 270) : ' Jus naturals est, quod ex sola ratione natural! sciri potest sine revelatione.' Cf. Hem- ming, de Lege Naturae Apodict. Methodus, Wittenb. 1577 ; Hugo Grot, de Jure Belli et Pacis, Paris, 1625, 1. i.e. i. 10, 12. 2 S. Thorn. Sum. i. 2, q. 91, a. 3 ; q. 95, a. 2. Lactant. Div. Inst. vi. 8. St. Bernard, de Praecepto et Dispens. c. iii. p. 864 seq. 3 S. Thorn. I.e. q. 93, a. 1 ; q. 91, a. 2, 3 ; a. 4 ; q. 95, a. 2. Soto, de Just et Jure, libri vii. Salam. 1556. Other authors apud Walter, Natur- recht, 528, 529, p. 540 seq. Cf. 61, p. 69. 4 Isidor. Orig. v. 2 (c. ii. d. 1). 5 Thomas. Instit. Jurisprud. Div. i. ii. 4, 117. Bouix, I.e. c. iv. 6 Bouix, I.e. c. v. 7 Domat, Lois Civiles, livre prelim, tit. 1, sect. 1, n. 2 seq. Bouix, c. vi. 8 Petrus Bles. Ep. 70, p. 218 : ' Jus civile naturale corrumpere non po- test, cum jus civile a naturali quodammodo tollatur.' Ep. 82, p. 254 : Inflwnce of the Church. 271 ' Ubi divina et humana jussio sibi invicem contradicunt, obediendum est Deo magis quam hominibus. Cumque sint duae leges, exterior et in- terior, interior semper praejudicat, quodque puritas conscientiae die tat mihi, exteriori praecepto fortius est et omnem indulgentiam alienae dis- pensationis evacuat.' .' S. Thorn, i. 2, q. 95, a. 2: 'Si lex humanitus posita in aliquo a lege natural! discordet, jam non erit lex, sed legis corruptio.' 10 Job. Saresb. Polycr. iv. vii. p. 527 : ' Sunt etenim praecepta quae- dam perpetuam habentia necessitatem, apud omnes gentes legitima et quae omnino impune solvi non possunt. Ante legem, sub lege, sub gratia, omnes lex una contringit: Quodtibi non vis fieri, alii ne feceris (Tob. iv.). In his dumtaxat, quae mobilia sunt, dispensatio verborum admittitur, ita tamen, ut compensatione honestatis aut utilitatis mens legis integra con- servetur.' Cf. 1. vii. 17. Bernard, de Consid. 1. iii. c. iv. n. 18. Petrus Vener. 1. i. Ep. 23, p. 148. 11 ' Conditor legum temporalium, si vir bonus est et sapiens, legem ae- ternam consulit, ut secundum ejus immortales regulas, quid sit pro tem- pore jubendum vitandumque, decernat.' Aug. de Vera Kelig. c. xxxi. Cf. Thorn, i. 2, q. 95, a. 2. 12 In the strict sense, divine law comprises only the natural law and the positive law of direct revelation ; in the wider sense, ecclesiastical law also. Cf, Andries, Doctrina Salmeronis, p. 20. 13 Auct. (not St. Thomas) de Reg. Princ. iii. c. xi. : ' Ad hoc Deus pro- vidit de eis (regibus), ut regnum regant et gubernent et unumquemque in suo jure conservent. ' 14 This was done by the bishops of the kingdom of Charles the Bold, writing to Lewis the German. Baron, a. 858. 15 In respect to this, St. Bernard, de Consid. 1. iv. c. vii. n. 23, calls the Pope, regum patrem, legum moderatorem, canonnm dispensatorem, sal terrae, orbis lumen. Many laws, especially in cases of marriage, were issued at the request of Popes and bishops ; e.g. even by King Luitprand (712-744) : Leg. Longob. Luitpr. v. 4. 12. The two ideas especially realised in the Middle Ages were freedom and religion. 1 They were not in opposition, but mu- tually supported one another ; the Church, in which religion was incorporated, was at the same time the guardian of free- dom. ' In the Middle Ages self-government, which was pre- served by the formation of corporations, was a means of satis- fying the Teutonic spirit of freedom, and associations with their abundant resources elevated the interests of life and strength- ened its energies. Thence came that wonderful wealth of cre- ative power which was seen to spring forth in that remarkable 272 Principles of the Middle Ages. time, almost without help from the State, in every department of human existence, in science, art, political life, industry, com- merce, and in devotion to the higher aims of life.' 2 These mul- tifarious societies had all more or less of a religious stamp; they had their patron saints and their festivals, and were brought in continual contact with the Church. 3 Civil and political free- dom was based on the recognition of the rights due to each class, and this recognition found its main support in the Church; true freedom was realised and secured in Christendom alone. 4 True national freedom does not consist in outward show, but is founded upon an inward organisation; 5 the Middle Ages were, moreover, rich in provincial, municipal, and corporative liber- ties, and strove hard to protect them all. But high though freedom stood, Religion stood still higher ; 6 she taught the true use of earthly freedom, and was herself the highest good, to be worked and striven for above all else. The pastors of the Church were bound by the law of God, which forbids all in- iquity, to punish every disobedient subject (2 Cor. x. 6), and to oppose the mighty of the earth if they transgressed a single article of this law. 7 In such cases the pastors of the flock were by no means to keep silence, but to fulfil their charge with courage ; bishops who were merely hangers-on of princes, and proved themselves cowards in their dealings with the great of this world, were not thought worthy of the name of bishop. 8 - Of old those prelates won the highest renown who defended the freedom of the Church,9 such as St. Thomas a Becket. 10 1 Job. Saresb. Ep. 193, ad Ep. Exon. p. 207 : ' Duae causae Bunt, quas bomines affectuosissime tuentur et quas praeponunt animabus suis: al- tera libertatis, altera fidei et reliyionis.' Also Petrus Bles. tr. de Instit, Ep. p. 1111 : ' Duo sunt, justitia et libertas, pro quibus quisque fidelis us- que ad sanguinem stare debet.' 2 Walter, Naturrecht und Politik, 330, p. 300. 3 On tbe Oonfratriae under Hincmar in tbe ninth century, vide Tbo- massin, P. i. 1. ii. c. xxv. n. 5 ; on tbe Workmen's Associations in Spain,, vide Capmany's Memoirs of Barcelona (1779), of wbicb an extract is given in Balmes' Protestantism and Catbolicity, Eng. Trans, note 35. 4 Petrus Bles. Ep. 121, p. 355 : ' Ecclesia quidem a diebus antiquis- libera est, et filii ejus, qua libertate Cbristus nos liberavit dicens in Evan- gelio, quia filii liberi sunt (St. Matt. xvii. 25).' Cf. Aug. de Civ. Dei, 1. xv. c. ii. The Power of the Papacy . 273 4 Cf. Balmes, I.e. vol. iii. c. xlviii. p. 2, German edit. Job. Saresb. I.e. : ' Ilia tamen (causa) quae fidei est, creditor esse praestantior et procul dubio justior est, adeo quidem ut et profanae religio- nis bomines boc constantissimum babeant.' 1 Job. Saresb. I.e. : ' Haec (lex Dei) iniquitatem probibet et pastoribug Ecclesiae praescribit, ut omnem ulciscantur in obedientiam.' p. 208. ' In omni ergo divinae legis articulo contendendum est, et potestatibus as- cendendum ex adverso, et quidquid cbaritatem impugnat, quae legis est plenitude, totis viribus subvertendum.' 8 Id. Ep. 201, ad Albert. Card. p. 223 : ' Si pastorale officium nonnisi ad nutum principis liceat exercere, procul dubio nee crimina punientur nee tyrannorum arguetur immanitas nee reipsa diu stabit Ecclesia. Ergo quis- quis ille sit, qui in tantarum pravitatum usurpatione silere et dissimulare consulit sacerdotes, baereticum esse non dubito et praeambulum Anti- cbristi, si ipse non sit personaliter Anticbristus.' Polycr. 1. viii. c. xxiii. p. 809 : ' Ait Cyprianus : Episcopus si timet, actum est de eo.' Petr. Bles. Ep. 100, p. 310 : ' Verumtamen remissio, quae os praelati obstruit, quae adulatorem et venditorem olei facit, dum sibi quietem et bonorificentiam venatur in favore principum, baec miseros praecipitat in foveam scanda- lorum.' 9 Petr. Bles. Ep. 20, p. 71 : ' Non enim potest esse praeclarior famae titulus in praelato, quam si viriliter tueatur statum ecclesiasticae li- bertatis.' 10 Petr. Bles. Ep. 22, pp. 77-82 ; Ep. 27, p. 92 seq. (in wbicb St. Tbo- mas is called, religiosorum gloria, deliciae plebis, timor principium, Dens Pbaraonis). Vide many examples in Tbomassin, P. ii. 1. iii. c. Ixiii. Tbe example of tbe aucient propbets is put before bisbops by Petr. Bles. Tract, de Instit. Episc. p. 1112. PART II. THE POWER OF THE PAPACY. 1. Exalted position of tbe Pope. 2. Tbe Pope the fatber of the one family of Christian nations. 3. Disputes settled by him. 4. Public affairs conducted by him. 5. The Pope the refuge of all. 6. Le- gislation of tbe Popes. Laws upon usury. 7. The Popes active in the interests of princes. 8. Their government. 9. Their temporal power not inconsistent with tbe spirit of tbe Gospel. 10. Their power developed naturally. 1- The political influence of the clergy, and in particular of the bishops, being so great, that of the Pope must have been yet greater, for as Head of the Church universal he was held in the highest veneration, and from the latter half of the eighth century he had been a sovereign in Italy. He was the one VOL. I. T 274 Principles of the Middle Ages. centre of all Christendom ; he was repeatedly called upon by princes and people, and, as time went on, he could not withhold from intervention in the disputes of individual nations. Gregory II. specified it as the office of the Pope to make and maintain peace on all sides. 1 Gregory IV. felt obliged (in 833) to make an attempt (which was fruitless) to mediate between Lewis the Pious and his sons ; and Abbot "VVala of Corvey proved from ecclesiastical authorities that in so doing he was fulfilling his office. 2 Nicholas I. (865) designates Borne as a central city, in which thousands seek a refuge and the protection of St. Peter. 3 The chair of Peter, besides the splen- dour which belonged to it as such, shone with the added splendour gained for it by the energy, justice, and wisdom of its occupants ; the Papacy, besides its supreme and inborn rights, had others, which were secondary and additional. 4 But the deep foundation of them all lay ever in the religious character of the Primacy, 5 which had the power of adapting itself to every new situation, and by its very nature was bound so to adapt itself. 1 Gregor. II. Ep. 2, acl Leon. Isaur. : 'Scire autem debes ac pro certo habere Pontifiecs, qui pro tempore Romae exstiterint, conciliandae pacis causa sedere tamquam parietem integerrimum septumque medianum ori- entis atque occidentis, ac pacis arbitros, ac moderatorcs esse, quique ante te fuerunt 'imperatores in hoc componendae pacis certaniine desuda- runt.' 2 Paschas. Radbert. in Vita Walae Abbat. ap. Mabillon, Acta SS. O.S.B. saec. 4, P. ii . 1. ii. 3 Nicol. I. Ep. 8. Mansi, xv. 207. * Bossuet, I.e. pp. 254, 255 : ' Distinguamus .... qime institutions sint, quae sint accessionis, quae primaria, quae secundaria, quae innata, quae annexa sint. Pontifices Eomani, quo altiore loco erant, Petri nomine ac majestate primum, quae post Christum erat maxima, turn dominae urbis splendore comrnendati, haec annexa et secundaria longe eminentius (quam rcliqui episcopi) obtinebant. Coepit ergo Romana Sedes non modo- in ecclesiasticis, quod et ipsi innatum, sed etiam in civilibus majestatem habere negotiis, eo maxime tempore, soluta in occidente imperil vi, Ro- manorum Pontificuni fide atque observantia singular! suam dignitatem in his partibus sustentabant.' He then quotes Gregory II. I.e. and the letters of Gregory I., of which mention will be made in Essay xiii. 5 This is also shown by the titles given to the Pope by St. Bernard, de Consid. 1. ii. c. viii. n. 15 : ' In princeps episcoporum, tu haeres apostolo- The Power of the Papacy. 275 rum, tu primatu Abel, gubernatu Noe, patriarchatu Abraham, ordine Mel- chisedech, dignitate Aaron, auctoritate Moyses,judicatu Samuel, potestate Petrus, mictione Christus.' 2. To nations still outside the pale of Christianity, peace and order were all but unknown, and this was the case even long after their conversion ; the Church could endeavour to secure these blessings for them, and it was her duty to do so. ' It follows necessarily on the perfect development of Christianity, that all Christian nations, although in all else they retain their national independence, look upon themselves as brethren, and therefore upon all violence and hostility towards one another as forbidden.' 1 The Church doctrine of the common origin of all men, their common hereditary guilt, and their one Redeemer, led to the perception of the physical and spiritual unity of mankind ; and in the Church was created an organisation by which this unity could be realised and made known. 2 This unity found expression in the language of the Church (Latin), which was likewise the language of diplomacy, in the strivings after knowledge and art, and also in the principles of faith, of morality, and of society. All Christian nations formed one family 3 Christendom united in one faith. 4 This family had need of a head, of a father, and this head it possessed in the person of him who was honoured by all as their com- mon father, 5 the Vicar of God, 6 the successor of St. Peter, 7 to whom Christ had delivered His sheep and His lambs to be fed. Emperors and kings addressed him as father, and were in turn called by him sons. 8 He was to the whole of Christendom the vicar of the Heavenly King, Jesus Christ, the interpreter of the divine law, the chief pastor of souls, their councillor and leader, the prince of peace ; the inexorable avenger of evil and injustice, 9 the ' hammer' of the guilty, the consoler of the inno- cent, 10 the universal physician. 11 He was the faithful and wise servant, whom the Lord had set over His family (St. Matt, xxiv. 25). 12 The Apostolic See of Eome necessarily became the centre of the national life of Europe, even before the establish- 276 Principles of the Middle Ages. ment of the Western Empire ; and still more was this the case when that empire became unable to maintain its high position, and the people were in need of some bond of union. 13 1 Walter, Kirchenrecht, book viii. 342, p. 606, llth ed. 2 Walter, Naturrecht und Politik, 38, pp. 46, 47. 3 Guizot, 1'Eglise et la Societe Chret. c. xiv. : ' En meine temps que son origine est divine, 1'id^e fondamentale du Christianisme est essentiel- lement et par excellence humaine. Sous 1'empire de cette idee le Chris- tianisme a considere tous les hommes, tous les peuples comme lies entre eux par d'autres liens que la force, par des liens indtlpendants de la diver- Bite des territoires et des gouvemements. Tous les homines, tous les peuples etaient compris dans sa mission : Allez et instruisez toutes les na- tions. En travaillant a convertir toutes les nations, le Christianisme a entendu aussi les unir, et faire penetrer dans leurs rapports des principes de justice et de la paix, de droit et de devoir mutuels. C'est au nom de la foi, et de la loi Chretienne, qu'est ne dans la Chretiente le droit des gens.' 4 Cf. Db'llinger, Kirche und Kirchen, p. 3. s Theodore the Studite styles Pope Leo III. Kopveiv is opposed to KaraKvptevfiv. In other places pascere=regere, as appears from comparing the Bible passages in the. Greek, Hebrew, and Latin : Ps. Ixxvii. 70, 71 ; Ps. Ixxix. 1, 2 ; Ps. ii. 9, cf. Apoc. ii. 27 ; xix. 15; Mich. v. 2, cf. Matt. ii. 6; 2 Kings v. 2; Ezech. xxxiv. 23 ; Isaias xliv. 28 ; 1 Paral. xvii. 6 ; Jer. xxiii. 2, 4 ; Acts xx. 28 ; Ps. xxii. 1. Thus in Homer, H. ii. 85, 243, the king is spoken of as TTOi/j.ei'a \a>v. 4 Chrys. in Matt. horn. 65, al. 66, n. 4 (Migne, Iviii. 622). Bernard, de Consid. 1. ii. c. vi. n. 10, p. 748. Cf. Petrus Bles. de Instit. Episcopi ; Migne, cclvii. p. 1103. 5 Innoc. III. 1. vi. Ep. 229, p. 259 ; Alexio Imp. Cpl. (1203) : ' Hoc autem [what he had said of patrocinium] dicimus, non ut ambitiose domi- nium affectemus, sed ut officiose ministerium impendamus, ejus exemplo, qui non venit ministrari, sed ministrare, nee ut doininemur in clero, sed forma gregis efficiamur ex animo ; quia principes gentium dominantur eorum, et qui potestatem habent inter eos, benefici vocantur, inter dis- cipulos autem Christ! non sic ; sed qui -major est inter eos, omnium servus existit et qui praecessor tamquam sit ministrator (S. Luc. xxii. 25, 26).' 8 De Consid. 1. ii. c. vi. n. 10, 11, on the texts quoted : ' Planum est, quod Apostolis interdicitur dominatus ; ergo et tu tibi usurpare cave aut dominans Apostolatum aut Apostolicus dominatum. Planum est quia ab utroque prohiberis ; si utrumque similiter habere voles, perdes utrumque. Alioquin non te exceptum illorum numero putes, de quibus conqueritur Dominus dicens : Ipsi regnaverunt, et non ex me, principes exstiterunt, et non cognovi (Ose. viii. 4). Forma Apostolica haec est: dominatio inter- dicitur, indicitur ministratio. N. 12 : Exi, Eugeni, exi in mundum. Ager enim mundus est, ipse tibi creditus est. Exi in ilium, non tamquam dominus, sed tanquam villicus, videre et procurare unde exigendus es red- dere rationem.' 7 L. ii. c. vi. n. 9 : ' Factum te superiorem dissimulare nequimus, sed enim ad quid, omnimodis attendendum. Non enim ad dominanduin opinor. Nam et prophetaquum similiter levaretur, audivit : ut evellas ct destruas, et disperdas et dissipes, et aedifices etplantes. Quid horum fastum sonat? The Power of the Papacy. 291 Rusticani magis sudoris schematfi quodam labor spiritualis expressus est. Et nos ergo ut multum sentiamus de nobis, impositum senserimus ministe- rium non dominatum datum. Disce exemplo prophetico praesidere, non tarn ad imperitandum, quam ad factitandom quod tempus requirit ; disce sarculo tibi opus ease, non sceptro, ut opus facias prophetae. Et quidem ille non regnaturus ascendit, sed exstirpaturns.' From this the author of the writing de Postestate Papae (in the Appendix to Dupuy, Hist, du Dif- ferend) deduces a superioritas quantum ad officium praedicationis et correctionis in spii-itualibus, non autem quantum ad dominium alicujus jurisdictionis in temporalibus ; but this last even the Popes hare never claimed, as has been falsely supposed. Bern. I.e. n. 13 : ' Si cor inovisti, movenda jam lingua, movenda est et manus. Accingere gladio tuo, gladio spiritus, quod est verbum Dei. Glorifica manum et brachium dexterum in faciendo vindictam in nationi- bus, increpationes in populis, in alligando reges eornm in compedibus et nobiles eorum in manicis ferreis (Ps. cxlix. 7, 8). Si haec facis, honori- ficas ministerium tuum et ministerium te. Non mediocris est iste princi- patus ; exturbare est hoc malas bestias a terminis tuis, quo greges tui se- curi in pascua educantur.' John of Paris also appeals to this passage (ap. Natal. Alex. H. E. saec. 13 et 14, diss. 9, a. 2, n. 13, t. xvi. pp. 328, 329), and remarks on Jer. i. 10, that according to some the words are said in persona Christi, according to others de persona Jeremiae, but that the latter dethroned no king, but was set over people and kings, annunciando et praedicando vera, as in Ps. ii. 6 ; that the words are used non de evulsione et destructione regum mnndi et subrogatione aliorum, sed de destrnctione vitiorum et plantatione fidei et morum. . . . Hoc magis faciunt sacerdotes de fide et moribns respondendo, quam potentia saeculari dominando. But everything essentially depends upon the judicare de peccato, of which alone there was question here, and not of dethronement. And it was precisely the judicare de peccato which St. Bernard defended. ' In cii- minibus,' he says to the Pope, ' non in possessionibus potestas vestra' (1. i. c. vi. n. 7). 9 S. Bern. 1. iv. c. xxi. : ' Ultor scelerum, virga potentium, malleus tyrannorum, regum pater .... postremo Deus Pharaoni.' Cf. Bianchi, t. ii. 1. v. 12, n. 5, 6, p. 326 seq. 10 On the elevation of his scholar Eugenius, St. Bernard (Ep.237) wrote to the cardinals, and expressed his astonishment at the election of this monk : ' Ridiculum profecto videtur, pannosum homuncionem assnmi ad praesi- dendum principibus, ad imperandum episcopis, ad regna et imperia dispo- nenda. Ridiculum an miraculum ? Plane unum hornm. Non nego, non diffido posse fuisse hoc etiam opus Dei, qui facit mirabilia magna solus.' Abbe Leroy, in a note to Bossuet, P. i. 1. iii. c. xv. p. 307, seeks to weaken these words, the meaning of which is urged by Bianchi, I.e. n. 3 ; Gosselin, ii. 239 seq. explains : ' In so far as the Pope, through advice and admoni- tion, has power to dispose of the material sword, he has also power to dispose of empires and kingdoms.' Even if the aforesaid expression is hyperbolical, this interpretation is evidently not strong enough. " 8. Bern. Ep. 244, c. i. pp. 440, 441, ed. Migne. 12 Cf. Bern, de Consid. ii. 8 ; Alvar. Pelag. de Planctu Eccl. 1. i. c. xiii. 292 Principles of the Middle Ages. 10. It cannot be denied that in the Middle Ages the power of the Popes (and also of Councils) was great and extensive, but it did not spring up all at once from the earth, nor was it won by a bold and sudden stroke. ' The Popes,' says Phillips, ' did not then (in the Middle Ages) for the first time become the suc- cessors of St. Peter; they did not then for the first time receive the power of binding and loosing, or the office of supreme teacher and of king; but then it was for the first time that St. Peter in his successors could fully enforce upon the whole Christian community, voluntarily subject to him in Christ, the obedience which he could claim as a gift from our Saviour, given in reward of his love.' 1 The principle itself of the subordina- tion of the temporal to the spiritual power was not new, but the forms merely in which that principle was put forward, and these were only new in part. In the Middle Ages the religious principle was applied to all the relations of human life, social, civil, municipal, and domestic, with the best result, while ill- success chiefly ensued when this principle was applied wrongly, perversely, or not at all. Had the same course been continued, had every separate part of the great edifice been perfected, and at the same time had every material improvement been made use of, which was put at our disposal by newly-discovered coun- tries and routes, by progress in the natural sciences, by re- searches into subjects formerly little cultivated, and by the extension of trade and industry, and, at the same time, had the ancient principles of religion and morals been left unassailed, Christian nations would have been preserved from numberless dissensions and troubles, and without prejudice to their moral welfare would have attained to a high grade of material pro- sperity. 2 But ancient traditions were cast aside, the principle of authority was assailed, and the age of revolution introduced ; society sank back into heathenism ; political, social, and domes- tic life were withdrawn from the influence of Christianity ; that was put asunder which up till then had been closely united politics from morals, morals from religion, education, the State, Excommunication in the Middle Ages. 293 and the family from the Church. The era of revolution is far from being at an end, as so many imagine ; on the contrary, we are still in the very midst of it ; we are tasting of its fruits, and ever dropping its seeds into the well-prepared soil, from which again fresh trees of the same species spring up. In the mean time some will never forgive the Popes of the Middle Ages for dethroning kings and princes, and releasing their subjects from their oath of allegiance. The question is never asked, How often, on what grounds, and with what right this was done ? the act is in itself condemned. But on closer examination, if we consider the legal relations of all the parties concerned, and take into account the public law of the mediaeval States, the prevailing acceptation of the oath of allegiance, which was never given unconditionally and to hold good in any event ; if, moreover, we remember the civil and spiritual laws which worked together in producing such a state of things, the fact which seems to be so strange becomes clearly intelligible. Let us, in the following pages, enter upon this examination. 1 Phillips, Kirchenrecht, iii. 126, p. 181 seq. Cf. also Christophe, das Papsthum im 14 Jahrhundert, trans, by Bitter, vol. i. p. 38 seq. Cf. Balmes, vol. iii. c. Ixxi. seq. p. 387 seq. PART III. EXCOMMUNICATION AND ITS CONSEQUENCES IN THE MIDDLE AGES. 1. Temporal effects of public penance and of excommunication. 2. Exclusion from public offices. 3. From military service. Excep- tions. 4. Intercourse with the excommunicated. 5. Discipline mitigated, 6. or increased. 7. Kings also liable to excommunica- tion. 8. Release from the oath of allegiance. 9. Can the Church dispense oaths ? 10. Who can dispense oaths ? 11. Examples. 12. Principles relating to dispensation from oaths. 13. More recent times. 14. Deposing rare. 15. The eleventh Ecumenical Council. 16. The first Council of Lyons. 17. Councils of Constance and Basle. 18. Councils pass the same sentences as Popes. 19, 20. Objections. 21, 22. Answers. 1. In the Middle Ages it was natural, from the state of society, that public ecclesiastical penance and the penalty of exeom- 294 Principles of the Middle Ages. munication should involve temporal consequences. In the ancient Church all grave crimes were punished by heavy public penances, to which many sinners submitted voluntarily. 1 Com- monly in the West, from the fourth to the eighth century, though the rule was not everywhere enforced with equal severity, persons performing such penances were forbidden to solemnise marriage, or to live in wedlock, to hold public offices, especially the office of judge, to serve in war, and to take holy orders. 2 In later times also, when public penances were becom- ing more and more rare, these precepts held good in the case of the more grievous sins : 3 persons guilty of certain notorious crimes were to be compelled by excommunication to submit to public penance : in case of refusal the temporal arm was to force them to obedience ; indeed dukes and earls who refused to assist in this were punished with excommunication, with temporal penalties, and even with the loss of their rank. 4 The Council of Paris (846) punished sacrilege, rape, and adultery with pub- lic penance ; 5 the Council of Mainz (847) declared : ' Whosoever has sinned publicly shall do penance publicly ;' 6 so also said the Council of Pavia (850), and it moreover declared that no ex- communicated person might hold a state office or perform military service ; 7 the Council of Worms (868) forbade those guilty of the murder of priests and other crimes to bear arms. 8 By decree of the Council of Tribur (895) any person excom- municated by the bishop, and refusing to do penance, was to be seized and taken before the king for punishment. 9 Earlier Councils enjoined that any one returning to worldly business, after having been numbered amongst the penitents, was not to be admitted to Communion until he once more went back to the performance of the penance he had vowed. 10 1 Joh. Morinus, Com. Hist, de disciplina in admin. Sacr. Poenitent. olim observata, Paris, 1651, 1. v. 18 seq. 24 ; 1. vii. c. iv. seq. Frank, Bussdisciplin, Mainz, 1867, p. 444 seq. 2 Leo M. Ep. 167, ad Rustic. Narbon. c. 10-13. Cf. c. 3, d. 5, de Poen. ; Siric, Ep. ad Himer. ; Taracon. c. 5; Nicol. I. Ep. 19, ad Rodulf. Bituric. Cone. Arelat. ii. 443-452, c. 21, 22. Aurel. iii. 538, c. 24, 25. Barcinon. i. 540, c. 6, 7, 8 ; ii. 599, c. 4. Tolet. iv. 633, c. 54, 55 ; vi. 638, c. 7 ; xii. 681, c. 2 (Hefele, Cone. ii. p. 283 seq. 755, 757 ; iii. pp. 56, 78, 83, 287). Excommunication in the Middle Ages. 295 s Capital. 1. vi. n. 71, 98. 4 Capit. Tribur. 822, n. 6, p. 629, ed. Baluz. ; Capit. 1. v. n. 300, p. 885 ; vii. n. 258, 432, 433. s Can. 61, 64, 69 (Hef'ele, iv. pp. Ill, 112). 6 C. 31 (Hefele, I.e. p. 122). 7 C. 6, 12 (Hefele, p. 169). 8 C. 26 (Hard. v. 741 ; Hefele, p. 356). 9 C. 3 (Hefele, p. 532). 10 Cone. Aurel. i. 511, c. 11 ; Epaon. 517, c. 23 (Hefele, ii. pp. 645, 664). 2. How widespread was the custom, that penitents were de- barred from holding public offices, is shown by the following fact amongst others. At the instigation of the ambitious Count Ervvig, King Wamba of Spain, after being deprived 'of his senses, had his hair shaved, like a dying man, and was placed in the rank of penitents, so as to render it impossible for him to reign longer. Wamba, although he regained his senses, re- mained a voluntary penitent, and was succeeded by Erwig, whom he himself recommended, and who was acknowledged by the Council of Toledo (681), after an examination of the testi- mony of the nobles. 1 The case of Lewis the Pious (833) also illustrates the discipline of that day. Lewis had been pro- claimed sole emperor by his adherents, and his son Lothair, having got him into his power, wished to make it impossible for him ever to reign. As early as 830 the demand had been made that the aged emperor should suffer himself to be shorn, and should enter a monastery ; now, on his knees before the high altar of the church of St. Medardus at Soissons, he was forced to read publicly a list of his sins, to exchange his sword and his armour for the dress of a penitent, and with the usual imposition of hands by the bishop to receive a penance; 2 he did not however become a monk. All this was approved by the bishops in the Council of Compiegne. The sentence was with- out doubt most unjust, and the whole proceeding wicked, 3 and as such it was afterwards recognised and declared null and void ; but this did not alter the conviction that the imposition of a public penance was the most certain and legitimate means by 296 Principles of the Middle Ages. which a prince could be deprived of the throne. Later (867), the Council of Troyes wrote as follows on this subject to Pope Nicholas I. : 'By the permission of God, the just Judge, and through the influence of the' malice of the devil, the sons of the pious Emperor Lewis of worthy memory, together with a party of evil-minded men, but without the counsel and consent of Pope Gregory (IV.) (whom Lothair had caused to leave Eome under pretext of keeping the peace), robbed their father of the empire, and took him prisoner as far as the town of Soissons. And to make people believe that he was justly deposed from the throne, certain crimes were devised against him, for which they pre- tended that by the sentence of certain bishops, amongst whom it was said Ebbo (of Eheims) was specially active, 4 he was on pretext of public penance shut out from the threshold of the Church. Ebbo afterwards published a document, in which he acknowledged that the ignominious deposition of the emperor had been neither canonical nor just.' 5 The deed was designated as materially but not formally contrary to justice. When the aged emperor was set free by his adherents, and was begged to reign once more, he said : ' The Church cast me down, the Church must raise me up again ; the bishops disarmed me, and the bishops must restore to me my weapons.' This was done at the assembly of Diedenhofen in February 835. Each bishop had to read aloud his written opinion on the restoration of Lewis ; they all expressed themselves in his favour, even Ebbo himself, who at the same time acknowledged his own guilt. In the cathedral of Metz it was proclaimed that Lewis had been unjustly deposed ; he was reconciled by the imposition of hands and by prayers said over him. and then the imperial crown was replaced upon his head. The canon which forbade public penitents to exercise their offices was never called in question, but only its application to Lewis for crimes, half of which were unproved, and half long ago atoned for. 7 It is objected that Lewis had before, in 822, done penance at Attigny, without being considered to have thereb} 7 lost his right of reigning. 8 But his penance at Attigny was voluntary, and not imposed according to the form of the canon for convicted criminals ; Excommunication in the Middle Ages. 297 Lewis was then reconciled to his sons, acknowledged himself to be a sinner, gave copious alms, and promised to abolish all abuses ; he begged for absolution and the imposition of a pen- ance, but he did not shave his head or renounce the use of weapons, or receive the laying on of hands, as was usual with penitents, 9 and as was done in 833, when a formal episcopal sen- tence had been passed upon him. The two ecclsiastical acts of 822 and 833 were totally distinct in signification and in effect. 10 The bishops assembled at Compiegne considered the sentence passed upon Lewis as an exercise of their authority. 11 It is further objected that the deposition of Lewis had taken place before the assembly met at Compiegne, and was looked upon by the bishops as already accomplished. 12 This may be fully granted ; 13 but the deed of violence had to receive a legal form, and to be made to a certain degree legitimate and irrevoc- able by the Church ; just as Lothair afterwards sought to justify himself by the sentence of the bishops, 14 and the learned Ago- bard of Lyons did all in his power for this same end. 15 When Lewis was reinstated the bishops who were implicated were charged with abuse, but not with usurpation, of power. It is indeed said that at Compiegne Lothair alone was styled emperor, and not his father; 10 but it must be remembered that Lothair had been joint emperor since 817-818, and long bore the imperial title, 17 which was not then given him for the first time ; and moreover that though the government of the empire had been entirely withdrawn from the old emperor, Lothair needed a more complete justification in the eyes of the people, and hoped to obtain it from the transactions at Compiegne, which were therefore published with the superscription, exauctoratio Ludovici. The principle that canonical penance deprived him of the throne comes out clearly enough. 18 1 Cone. Tolet. xii. c. 1. Lucas Tudel. ap. Morin. I.e. 1. v. c. 7, n. 2 seq. ; c. xxi. n. 5. Hefele, iii. pp. 286, 287. 2 Hard. Cone. iv. p. 1382. Hefele, iv. pp. 72, 78 seq. 3 So says not only Bossuet (Defens. P. i. 1. ii. c. xxi. p. 229 seq. and Natal. Alex. H. E. saec. 9, diss. 11, n. 1), but also Bianchi (t. i. 1. iii. 3, p. 458 seq.), Mamachi (Antiquit. t. iv. p. 189), and earlier, Baron, (a. 833, t. ix. p. 805). 298 Principles of the Middle Ages. 4 Theganus reproaches him with : ' Tu eum falso judicio voluisti ex- pellere a solio patrum suorum.' Walafrid Strabo, in his poem, represents the restitution of Lewis as most difficult : ' Nam quid erat moesto tarn desperabile regno, quam sua depositis iterate posse venire sceptra ?' 5 Hard. v. 682. 6 Hefele, iy. pp. 79, 81 seq. 7 Thus Astron. in Vita Ludov. n. 49 : ' Ut pro his, de quibus jam poe- nitudinem gesserat imperator, iterum publica poenitentia, armis depositis, irrevocabiliter, quodammodo Ecclesiae satisfacere judicaretur, quum ne forenses quidem leges contra unam culpam semel comissam bis invehant vindictam et nostra lex habeat, Deum non judicare bis in id ipsum. . . . Ad judicatum ergo cum abseutem et inauditum nee confitentem neque con- victum .... arma deponere et ante altare ponere cogunt.' Cf. Flodoard, a. 834 ; Annal. Bertin. a. 833 ; Fuld. a. 834 (Rer. Gall. vi. ed. 1749, pp. 214, 195, 210) ; Narrat. Cleric. Rhemens, a. 833 ; Vita Ven. Wallae Abb. Walafr. Carm. (ib. pp. 270, 292 seq.). 8 Bossuet, I.e. p. 230. 9 S. Cyprian, Ep. 15-17, ed. Oxon. Cone. Agath. 506, c. 15 (Morin. I.e.). Aubespine, in Optat. Milev. Observ. v. p. 165, ed. 1676. 10 Bianchi, I.e. n. 3-5, pp. 464-469. Mamachi, I.e. pp. 191, 192. 11 Hard. iv. 1379 : ' Et hoc .... manifestare juxta injunctum nobis ministerium curavimus, qualis sit vigor et potestas sive ministerium sacer- dotale et quali merentnr damnari sententia, qui monitis sacerdotalibus obedire noluerint. Deinde tam memorato principi quam cuncto ejus po- pulo denunciare studuimus, ut Domino devotissime placere studerent et in quibus eum offenderint, placare non different.' 12 Bossuet, I.e. p. 231. 13 Cf . Nithard, Hist. 1. i. p. 69, a. 833 ; Annal. Bertin. h.a. ; Thegan. de Gest. Lud. p. 82 ; Astron, h.a. p. 114. 14 According to Astron, he declared : ' Nullum plus se compati paternae calamitati vel congaudere prosperitati, nee debere sibi impntari culpam senioris sibi oblati, quum ipsi eum destituissent ac prodidissent, neque car- ceralis custodiae naevum sibi jure inuri, quum constaret hoc actum judicio episcopali.' 15 Agobardi, Opp. ed. Migne, t. civ. p. 287 seq. 16 Agobard in the Chartula Porrecta Lothario speaks of the ' ignavia Ludovici venerandi, quondam imperatoris ;' in the documents of Com- piegne mention moreover is made of 'regnum D.Ludovico Imperatori a Deo ad regendum sub magna pace commissum.' Besides Lewis is there called ' princeps, venerabUis vir.' lr Lothair's reign is reckoned in various ways : sometimes from his joint government, sometimes from his coronation by Paschal I., some- times from the date of his Italian kingdom, sometimes from the death of his father. 18 Bianchi, n. 7, pp. 471, 472. Mamachi, p. 194. Phillips, iii. 122, p. 97 seq. Excommunication in the Middle Ages. 299 3. After the ninth century certain exceptions were made to the rule that penitents should not return to military service. 1 Pope Nicholas I. gave the Archbishop of Bourges power to dispense on this point, and in another case he permitted arms to be borne against the heathen in urgent necessity. 2 A later Council at Rheims, which enjoined canonical penances for those taking part in the battle between King Charles and his rival, King Robert, dispensed from the performance of penance, amongst other times, during sickness and military service. 3 Gregory VII. strove to maintain the ancient discipline, together with the mitigations of Nicholas I. ; soldiers performing penance were to lay down their arms, unless they were defending the cause of justice by the advice of the bishop. 4 In the mean time other works of satisfaction became more and more frequent, and the Council of Clermont (1095) permitted a crusade undertaken with pure in- tention to take the place of every penance. 5 From that time princes who were conscious of heavy guilt often voluntarily took up the cross in expiation, as for example King Lewis VII. of France (1145). 1 Raban. Maur. Ep. ad Heribald. Autissiod, c. xvi. p. 498 seq. 2 Nicol. I. Ep. 19, al. 39, ad Rod. Bitur. c. iv. ; Ep. 17, al. 5, ad Rivol. Ep. 3 Cone. Rhem. a. 924 (Labbe, ix. p. 581). 4 Cone. Rom. Nov. 1078, c. 5 (Labbe, x. p. 373 ; Migne, PP. Lat. cxlviii. p. 801 ; Hefele, v. p. 114). 5 Can. 2 (Hefele, I.e. p. 298). 8 Hefele, p. 442 seq. 4. It is a fact of still greater importance that, from the most ancient times in the Church, excommunicated persons were not only deprived of spiritual goods in the external communion of the Church, but were moreover forbidden certain acts of inter- course with their fellow-men, such as intimate converse with them, embracing them, eating with them, &c. Intercourse with excommunicated persons was commonly punished with excom- munication, 1 by the later laws with the lesser excommunica- 3 co Principles of the Middle Ages. tion if it were not a case of complicity in crime. 2 When pub- lic penances were disused, and ecclesiastical penalties, especially censures, were more commonly employed against the passions and violence both of the higher and lower classes, sovereigns themselves looked upon them as the most efficient means of checking the prevailing licentiousness, and attached to theae penalties effects on civil life analogous to those effects which they had long been pronounced to have on the 'spiritual life. 3 As early as 595 King Childebert ordered that anyone who made an incestuous marriage, and by thus disobeying the bishop incurred excommunication, was to be driven from the king's palace and deprived of his property in favour of his lawful re- lations. 4 The Council of Verneuil, assembled by King Pipin in 765, directed that if any cleric or layman guilty of incest, and refusing amendment in spite of the admonition of the bishop, were in consequence excommunicated, all those who knowingly held intercourse with him should incur the same ex- communication. The effect of this excommunication was, that such a one might not enter a church, or eat and drink with Christians ; no one might accept a gift from him, kiss him, pray with him, or salute him, until he had been reconciled by his bishop. If any man considered himself unjustly excommuni- cated he might apply to the metropolitan, but was obliged, in the mean time, to obey the sentence. If any one treated the whole affair with contempt, and the bishop failed to move him to amendment, he was to be punished with exile, by sentence -of the king. 5 In the Capitularies excommunicated persons were deprived of their goods and possessions, and if for two years they stubbornly refused to make satisfaction to the Church, or despised her penalties, they were sentenced to transportation or banishment. 6 Lothair I. commanded that such obstinate sinners should be punished with imprisonment ;" Arnulf (895) ordered them to be brought by the counts before the judgment-seat of the king. 8 In England King Etheldred (1008) forbade the ex- communicated, until their pardon had been pronounced, to dwell in the neighbourhood of the court ; and King Canute afterwards condemned to death and confiscation of property those who Excommunication in the Middle Ages. 301 gave shelter to an excommunicated or outlawed person. 9 A London Council (1151) renewed the old law, that whoever re- mained in a state of excommunication a whole year became completely infamous. 10 As had been the case in earlier ages, 11 the temporal arm was employed against those who were obstinately impenitent. John of Salisbury, when Bishop of Chartres (1180), relates in a public letter how King Henry of England compelled the excommuni- cated Count John of Vendome to seek reconciliation with the Church. 12 As a general rule, excommunicated persons who were not reconciled within a certain space of time forfeited their civil rights, and incurred political proscription. 13 They were considered incapable of appearing in court as plaintiffs or witnesses, that thus they might be moved to self-examination and repentance for their sins. 14 Peter, King of Aragon, directed (1210) that those who remained under anathema four months should pay a fine of 400 shillings, the same sum after another four months, and that at the end of the year they should become outlaws and infamous. 15 According to the fourth Lateran Council (1215), canon 3, and the laws of Frederick II. (1220),. those who made no satisfaction after one year of excommunica- tion were infamous, and incapable of holding any office or dignity ; 16 indeed, by the laws just named, and by the ancient code of Swabian law, 17 the civil judge had power to proscribe an excommunicated person as an outlaw, if he remained under anathema six weeks and a day. Excommunication and political proscription were deemed precisely analogous ; the one followed upon the other. Neither the outlawed nor the excommunicated could appear in court as plaintiffs, though they were forced to suffer actions to be brought against themselves. 18 According to several Councils of the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries, any person remaining a year under anathema was to be forced by the State, especially by means of confiscation of property, to reconcile himself with the Church ; 19 some Councils specified the penalty to be loss of property ; 20 others settled certain tem- poral punishments, especially lines, for those who remained even a short time under anathema. 21 The Council of Cognac (1238) 302 Principles of the Middle Ages. inflicted a fine of ten pounds upon those remaining forty days under anathema; the Council of Beziers (1246) inflicted fines increasing to the entire loss of property ; the Council of Avignon (1326) also imposed fines, and threatened those judges who should neglect to act. 22 According to a Council of Avignon (1209) any one remaining under anathema for six months could be absolved by the Pope alone. 23 Some Councils decided that he who persisted in a state of excommunication a year should forfeit all rights of inheritance, and only be readmitted to the sacraments after performing severe public penance ; 24 others, that he should be treated as a heretic, or as one suspected of heresy. 25 Together with these various directions, there was one universal rule, that as long as the excommunication lasted no intercourse was to be held with the person under anathema, except in order to bring him back to submission to the Church ; no obedience was due to him, 26 neither was he entitled to ad- minister any public office. 27 1 1 Cor. v. 11 ; 2 Thess. iii. 14 ; 2 Job. x. 11. Iren. adv. Haer. iii. 3. Ambros. Ep. 40, ad. Theodos. Synes. Ep. 58. Isidor. Hispal. in can. 18, c. xi. q. 3. Nicol. I. can. 3 ; ibid. can. ap. 11, 13 (al. 10, 12). Antioch. c. 2. Cartb. 387-390, c. 7 (Hefele, i. 777, 494; ii. 46). Cone. Tolet. i. 400, c. 15. Araus. i. 441, c. 11. Arelat.iii. 443-452, c. 49. Turon,461, c. 8. Aurel. i. 511, c. 11. Antisidor. 578, c. 38, 39. Reg. Chrodegangi, c. 20. Cone. Hobenaltbeim, 916, c. 9 seq. (Hefele, ii. pp. 67, 276, 284, 568, 645 ; iii. p. 42 ; iv. pp. 20, 557). Cf. Bingham, Orig. et Ant. t. vii. 1. xvi. c. ii. 1 ; Selvaggio, Ant. 1. iv. c. i. 5 ; Bossuet, Defensio, 1. i. sect. 11, c. xxii. p. 155 seq. ; Kober, Kirchenbann, p. 376 seq. - Can. 3, 19, c. xi. q. 3, c. A nobis, 2, de Except, ii. 25 ; c. 29, 30, de Sent. Excom. v. 39, c. 3, b.t. in 6. 3 Cf. Bossuet, I.e. c. xxii. p. 157, Pertinet etiam. 4 Cbildeb. Constit. n. 2. Baluz. Capitul. t. i. p. 17. s Cone. Vermer. can. 9 (Mansi, xii. p. 578 seq.). Baluz, I.e. pp. 172, 836. Cf. Hefele, iii. p. 551. Capital. 1. v. 300 ; vii. 215. Baluz. t. i. pp. 885, 1071. 7 Const, a. 825, c. i. (Pertz, 1. iii. p. 248). 8 Hard. vi. 440. 9 Canciani, Barbar. Leg. Ant. t. iv. pp. 291, 309. 10 Hefele, v. p. 464. Cf. letter of St. Thorn, a Becket to Card. Albert, 1170, Tbom. Cant. 1. v. Ep. 22, Bouquet, Recueil, xvi. 419, Ep. 258. 11 Kober, Kircbenbann, p. 439. The petition of the Catholics of An- tioch to the Emperor Aurelian (Eus. H. E. vii. 30) is brought forward as proof, also can. Antioch, 341, n. 5 (Hard. i. 434), and African canons Excommunication in the Middle Ages. 303 (Hard. i. 964, seq. 889). For examples in ninth century, vide Hefele, iv. pp. 52, 112. 12 Job. Saresb. Ep. 326, pp. 376, 377 : ' Tandem cum D. Anglorum rex doleret ilium tamdiu excommnnicationi subjacere, regiam adjecit manum, eundem compellens, ut exbibitione justitiae se a sententia excommunica- tionis, qua tenebatur, faceret absolvi. ' Tbe custom of imprisoning persons obstinate under excommunication by command of the king, in order to force them to submission, was maintained by the English Councils, and their release was forbidden until satisfaction had been made ; e.g. Council of Lambeth, 1261, can. 3 ; of London, 1342, c. 13 (Hefele, vi. pp. 59, 590). For the same end the Council of Gran in Hungary (1114), can. 34, required that the names should be notified to the king of those excommunicated {Hefele, v. p. 290). 13 Gaillard, Hist, de Charlemagne, t. ii. p. 124. Fleury, Hist. Eccl. t. xiii. disc. 3, n. 18 ; t. xvii. disc. 5, n. 13. Bossuet, I.e. et 1. iii. c. iv. 4 Ivo, Decret. 1. xiv. c. 69, Ep. 186, ad Laurent. Opp. ii. p. 78. 5 Hurter, Innoc. III. vol. iii. p. 114. Hefele, v. pp. 787, 816 seq. Pertz, Leg. iv. 236. 7 Huillard-BrtJholles, Diplom. i. p. 76 seq. Stolberg = Brischar, Kirchengeschichte, vol. Iii. (new series, vii.) p. 43. 8 Senkenberg, Corp. Jur. Germ. t. ii. Jur. Alam. c. iii. 127. 9 Council of Taragona, 1233, c. 18 ; of Paris, 1248, c. 20 ; of Milan, 1287, c. 28 ; of Anfe, 1300, c. 7 ; of Treves, 1310, c. 26 (Hefele, v. 918, 1025 ; vi. 227, 338 seq. 434). The Council of Cologne, 1266, c. 38, ordered the same, but enjoined a previous accusation before the Council for contempt of the Church's power of the keys (Hefele, vi. p. 83 ; Kober, I.e. p. 438). 20 Council of Narbonne, 1227, c. 1 ; of Monteuil near Valence, 1248, c. 13 ; statute of Lewis IX. 1229 (Du Cange, Glossar. v. Excom.). Hefele, v. pp. 838, 872, 1029. 21 E.g. Council of Treves, 1238, treating of those who remain six weeks under anathema (Hefele, v. p. 938 seq.). 22 Hefele, I.e. p. 1019. Hard. vii. 319, 413, 1509. Kober, p. 434 seq. 23 Can. 13 (Hefele, v. p. 750 seq.). E.g. Council of London, 1278, c. 6 (Hefele, vi. p. 164). 25 Council of Bordeaux, 1263, c. 2 (Hard. vii. 553 ; Hefele, vi. p. 72) ; Council of Compiegne, 1304, c. 4 (Hard. I.e. p. 1276 ; Hefele, p. 355) ; of Pressburg, 1309, c. 7 (Hefele, p. 427) ; Kober, I.e. p. 437 seq. 24 Urban II. can. 5, c. xv. q. 6. Jaffe, Eeg. n. 4291, p. 474. 2T Innoc. III. 1213, 1. xvi. Ep. 116, p. 913 : ' Cum excommunicatorum commnnio sit aliis interdicta, ipsi officia publica exercere non debSnt.' Cf. ib. Ep. 94, p. 894. 5. This strict discipline was on the one hand mitigated, on the other hand rendered more severe. Gregory VII. in his Lenten Council at Rome (1078) modified the prohibition of intercourse 304 Principles of the Middle Ages. with excommunicated persons, so that their wives, families, and ser- vants, indeed all whose presence would not strengthen their evil dispositions, were permitted to be with them. Travellers who came across excommunicated persons might accept a gift or buy from them, and all were permitted to give them enough to sup- port life. 1 This decree was inserted in the book of canon law, 2 was only slightly modified by Urban II., 3 and was recognised by Innocent III. 4 The Council of Piacenza (1095) recognised as within the pale of the Church, and admitted to the reception of the Holy Eucharist, those who came only into personal contact with the excommunicated, but took no part in their worship (that of the Henrician party). The Council of Tours (1236) merely inflicted fines on those Christians who held avoidable intercourse with persons under anathema. 5 The thirteenth General Council (1245) maintained only the penalties against those who had taken part in the offence, and forbade the inflic- tion of the greater excommunication except after canonical warn- ing upon those who held intercourse with persons under anathema by word, or in any other way for which the threatened penalty was the lesser excommunication ; still if this intercourse tended yet further to harden the guilty man, it might be punished in the same manner as complicity in crime if canonical warning were given beforehand. 6 This warning, which was also insisted upon by succeeding Popes, was, however, declared by Gregory X. in the fourteenth General Council (1274), c. 29, to be canonical only when the persons concerned are mentioned expressly by name f this must be done three times, or once in a peremptory manner. It was afterwards declared by Martin V. that those only who were excommunicated publicly and by name were to be avoided (excommunicati vitandi). 8 1 Hard. vi. 1578. Migne, PP. Lat. cxlviii. p. 798. Hefele, v. p. 108. 2 Grat. can. 103, c. xi. q. 3. 3 Urban. Ep. ad. Genebald. (Hard. vi. p. 1651 seq.). 4 Innoc. III. 1. i. Ep. 381, p. 361, ed. Migne: ' Nullus omnino nomi- natim excommunicate scienter communicare tenetur, nisi quaedam per- sonae, quae per illud Gregorii P. capitulum quoniain multos specialiter excusantur.' 5 Hefele, v. pp. 194, 931. Excommunication in the Middle Ages. 505 6 Hefele, v. p. 991 seq. This decree is c. iii. de Sent. Exeom. v. 11 in 6. ' C. 9, de Sent. Excom. v. 11 in 6 (Hefele, vi. p. 137). 8 Const. Ad evitanda scandala (Hard. Cone. viii. 892). Cf. Suarez, de Censur. disp. 9, 2, n. 5 ; Pignatelli, Cosult. Canon, t. i. cons. 143, n. 4, p. 187. 6. On the other hand there was increased severity in the case of complete obstinacy on the part of the excommunicated (iusordes- centia). The sentence of excommunication was most solemnly renewed with ceremonies and words expressive of abhorrence and execration ; for example, the burning tapers borne by the clergy were cast to the ground. 1 The expression ' anathema' was often, especially after the ninth century, used for this renewal of the sentence. 2 The consequences which, by spiritual and civil law, fell upon the incorrigibly obstinate were usually then pointed out as having actually come into force ; such as the in- capacity for public offices and loss of those already held, the cessation of all duty of obedience on the part of the subjects of the guilty person. 3 Thus Honorius III. declared in one of the decretals inserted in the book of canon law, that a count who remained in a state of excommunication over two years, despising the Church's power of the keys, and who, after a second warn- ing, still refused amendment, forfeited his right to the obedience of his subjects, who were freed from their oath of allegiance to him as long as he remained excommunicated. 4 This was com- pletely in accord with the decision of Innocent III., who had declared that those persons whom Gregory VII. had excepted from the usual rule not only had the right, but were moreover bound in duty, to render obedience to the excommunicated, and also to hold intercourse with them, as far as the excommunica- tion alone was concerned. 5 1 Gratian, c. 106, c. xi. q. 3. Regino, de Eccl. Discip. 1. ii. c. 409. Thus in 1031 the extinguishing of the tapers took place at the Council of Limoges (Hefele, iv. p. 661). 2 Council of Paris, 846, c. 56 ; of SavonniSres, 859, c. 9 ; of Troyes, 878, c. 1 (Hefele, iv. pp. Ill, 198, 512) ; Pope Nicholas I. Ep. 7, et in Cone. Rom. 863 (cf . can. 2, c. iv. q. 1) ; Johan. VIII. c. 12, c. iii. q. 4 ; and else- VOL. I. X 306 Principles of the Middle Ages. where. Thus Celestine III. c. 10, Cum non ab homine, ii. 1, de Jud. : ' Qui si depositus incorrigibilis fuerit, excommunicari debet, deinde con- tumacia crescente anathematis mucrone feriri.' The Pontificale Romanum also makes this distinction (Phillips, Lehrbuch der Kirchenrechte, 189, p. 544, note. 3 Kober, Kirchenbann, p. 403. 4 C. 13, Gravem. v. 37, de Poenis. 5 C. 31, Inter alia, tit. de Sent. Excom. v. 39, explanation of the words of the same Pope, quoted 5 supra. Those persons were understood who, ante prolationem sententiae excommunicationis, were bound to obey the excommunicated, neque postmodum ad contrarium tenentur. Still, travellers, pilgrims, merchants, were, except in case of necessity, to re- frain from intercourse with those under anathema. It was ' in crimini- bus' alone that no one was to hold intercourse with them. 7- But kings and princes were no more exempt from excommu- nication than the rest of the faithful. 1 The duty of passing sentence upon them fell to Popes and Councils, and was a purely ecclesiastical act, completely within the sphere of the Church. The Gallican Dupin himself says : ' It seems to me that no doubt can he raised hut that kings who are sinners or heretics may in this sense be pronounced unworthy of communion with the Church. For though they are monarchs and princes of the civil commonwealth, still they are merely simple members of the religious commonwealth, and must obey its laws, or be cast out from it ; for no one is lord, no one is monarch over the Church, and no one is free from her laws. Therefore without doubt the prince who offends against the laws of Christ and of the Church may be considered and pronounced unworthy of the Church.' 2 As Christians, they are sons of the Church, not her rulers ; subject to her laws, not raised above them. Protestants have also made use of this right, as, for example, the French Calvinists against Henry IV. ; 4 and it was fully defended by Samuel Basnage. 5 1 The belief of the ancient Christians on this point is shown by Kober, p. 108 seq. Bossuet admits the proposition, P. i. 1. i. sect. 2, c. xxi.. pp. 154, 155. 2 Dupin, de Ant. Eccl. Disciplina, dissert. 6, c. ii. ;l Ambros. serm. de Basilicis. Joh. VIII. P. in c. xi. dist. 96. 4 J. H. Boehmer, Jus Eccles. 1. v. tit. 39, n. 40. 5 Sam. Basnage, Annal. Politico-Eccles. ii. diss. 3, 10. Excommunication in the Middle Ages. 307 8. On the other hand, deposition and the release of subjects from their oath of allegiance were distinct acts, which did not immediately and of themselves follow upon every sentence of excommunication, but had to be separately declared. 1 By the public law of Christian States, excommunication brought with it temporal consequences, differing only according to the length of obstinate resistance to the sentence, and it was considered monstrous that a Christian people should be ruled by a prince who was cut off, and remained cut off, from the Church ; there- fore to the sentence of excommunication might be added a declaration that those consequences were come into force which followed also by the constitution of the State. 2 In pronouncing a sentence of deposition, which was only done when all other means were exhausted, the Popes appealed not only to divine, but also to human law ; 3 and this was done also by the most eminent writers on the effects of excommunication. 4 Since the Pope and the Council were the natural judges in all questions touching religion, it also belonged to them to point out to the people those princes who had fallen into heresy, or under the greater excommunication of the Church. This they could not do without observing and declaring that by the constitution and custom of their countries these princes had forfeited their right of governing, either for a time, or for ever, according to the state of the case. It was to the interest of the sovereign, and of the whole community, that such a declaration should not be left to be made by the people, or by the national assembly, which would have favoured every attempt at revolution, 5 or even by the bishops of the country in question alone, who were also subjects of the king, but should be reserved to the Pope and General Council. Even when it was supposed that the subjects of a prince excommunicated for apostasy from the Faith were at once and necessarily set free from his rule and from their oath of allegiance, 6 still a judgment to that effect was needed from the Pope, a sententia declatoria criminis, as in other cases also where the excommunication at once took effect by virtue of the 308 Principles of the Middle Ages. law (ipso jure) ; usually the loss of office was only added as an increase of punishment, and did not in fact follow upon every sentence of excommunication. 7 Besides this, the acts of juris- diction of an excommunicated and deposed prince were declared null and void, as, for example, Innocent III. (1212) declared in relation to the acts of the deposed Otho IV. of Germany. 8 Such princes were no longer looked upon as lawful rulers, but as tyrants. 9 Even though strictly speaking deposition of the prince could only be effected by the combined action of the spiritual and civil law, still the same effect was at once produced by an entire release of the subjects from the oath of allegiance, in releasing from which the Church was completely within her own sphere. 10 1 Suarez, de Cens. disp. 15, sect. 6, n. 3: 'Ut excommunicatus prin- ceps domiuio et omni jure m subditos privetur, necesse est, ut special! poena et sententia declaretur aut imponatur' (Gosselin, ii. p. 339). - Cf. Phillips, Kirchenrecht, iii. 125, p. 158 ; 126, p. 190. For the Papal right of deposition the following are quoted : Bonavent. de Eccles. Hier. P. ii. c. i. (ed. Ven. v. p. 215) ; Raymond, de Pennaf. 1. i. tit. de Haeret. 7 ; Aug. Triumph, q. 46 ; Antonin. Sum. P. iii. tit. 22, c. iii. 7 ; Petr. Palud. de causa immed. Eccl. pot. Ant. Aug. jur. Pont. vet. epit. tit. 16, ap. Roccaberti, iv. 206. Several German law-books and others, apud Friedburg, de Finibus, &c. p. 29, n. 5. 3 Gregor. VII. Ep. ad princ. Germ. ap. Paul. Bernr. c. Ixxviii. : ' Per quos .... eum secreto monuimus, ut poenitentiam ageret de sceleribus suie, quae quidem horrenda dictu sunt .... propter quae eum excommunicari non solum usque ad dignam satisfactionem, sed ab omni honore regni absque spe recuperationis debere destitui divinarum et humanarum legum testatur auctoritas.' 4 Ivo Carnot. Ep. 186, Opp. ii. p. 78 ; Gosselin, ii. p. 104, n. 2. Cf. Suarez, Defens. Fidei, 1. vi. c. iv : ' Licet respublica seu regnum hominum ex sola rei natura spectatum, prout fuit inter gentiles et nunc est inter ethnicos, habeat potestatem se defendendi a tyranno rege et ilium depo- nendi in eum finem si necessarium fuerit, nihilominus regna Christiana quoad hoc habent aliquam dependentiam et subordinationem ad Pontificem summum, quia potest Pontifex alicui regno praecipere, ut se inconsulto contra regem suum non insurgat vel ilium non deponat, nisi prius causa et ratione ab ipso cognita, propter moralia pericula et animarum dispen- dia, quae in his tumultibus popularibus moraliter interveniunt, et ad vi- iandas seditiones et injustas rebelliones.' 5 Bianchi, t. iii. 1. i. c. i. 6, n. 9, pp. 52, 53. 6 S. Thorn. Sum. 2, 2, q. 12, a. 2, in corp. 7 Kober, I.e. pp. 117, 118. Excommunication in the Middle Ages. , 309 8 Innoc. III. 1. xv. Ep. 31, p. 566 : ' Sicut ea, quae a Catholicis et de- Totis principibus rationabiliter ordinantur, firma debeut et illibata servari, sic ea, quae a perfidis tyrannis improbe statuuntur, maxime tempore, quo excommunicationis vinculo tenentur astricti, carere debent robore firmitatis, cum tales legitime nequeant jurisdictionis officium exercere abunitate fide- lium separati. Cum igitur Otto, jam non nominandus imperator, sed im- pius persecutor, cum suis fautoribus anathematis vinculo sit innodatus et a debito fidelitatis ipsius absoluti sint universi, nos omnia, quae idem ex- commuuicatus vel aliquis ejus officialis contra clericos vel ecclesias statuit aut statuerit, sive contra principes aut eorum fautores, qui memorato tyranno sutim subduxerint obsequium, ut libertatem et justitiam tarn Ec- clesiae quam Imperil tueantur, denunciamus irrita et mania esse eaque de communi fratrum nostrorum consilio auctoritate apostolica omnino cassamus.' Cf. ib. Ep. 36, p. 569 ; Ep. 84, 85, p. 603. 9 Thus St. Bernard designated Roger of Sicily, after the excommuni- cation and decrees of Innocent II., Ep. 127, ad Guitm. p. 138 seq. ; Ep. 130, ad Pisan. p. 140 seq. Cf. Ep. 136, 139 ; Ep. 140, ad Loth. p. 146. Cf. Bianchi, t. ii. 1. v. 12, n. 1, p. 319. But when Roger had made his peace with the Pope, and been recognised by him, St. Bernard wrote to him most respectfully (Ep. 207-209, ad Roger. Reg. Sicil.). w Thence it happened that for brevity many ascribed to the Church the right of deposing. Thus Gerhoch von Reigersberg says, in Psalm, xxix. seq. 630 : ' Ordo clericalis, cujus nimirum est officium, non solum plebejos, sed etiam reges increpare atque regibus aliis descendentibus alios ordinare.' Cf. Meander, Kirchengeschichte, ii. p. 390, b. iii. a. 9. A doubt has been raised, not indeed in the Middle Ages, but of late, as to the power of the Church to release from oaths, whether of allegiance or of any other nature. It will be well to set forth here the universal teaching of canonists and moral theo- logians. The question now before us is clearly not of the oath taken in a court of justice, but of the extra-judicial oath 5 not of the oath of assertion (jusjurandum assertorium), but of the oath of promise (jusjurandum promissorium). All are agreed that an oath is not binding if it fail in the requisite justice of its object, for an oath, by which God is called to witness, is a solemn religious act, and cannot bind to evil. 1 It is not lawful to take an oath against religion, good morals, or the rights of a third person, or dangerous to salvation and the public welfare ; 2 oaths, for example, to assassinate or put to death unjustly, such as Herod's oath, 3 are forbidden, and are not binding. Every 310 Principles of the Middle Ages. "binding oath must have as its accompaniment truth, judgment (i.e. deliberation), and justice (veritatem in mente, judicium in jurante, justitiam in objecto). 4 Although an oath to which especially the last of the three requisites is wanting does not bind, still the Church insists so strongly on the binding nature of an oath in itself, and therefore on the presumption of its power of bind- ing in any individual case, that where the slightest doubt exists as to what is included in the oath she requires application to be made to her for release from the obligation, even though it be only a seeming obligation. 5 Such cases could not be left to the subjective judgment of private persons ; and since, from the cus- tom of rendering a contract more binding by the addition of an oath, many cases of the kind came under the judgment of the Church, it was her duty to lay down exact laws for such ques- tions as they arose ; but in so doing, she did not call in question the competence of the civil judges to receive complaints in the matter of contracts. 6 The course adopted by the Church necessarily differed much, according to the oaths brought before her. In many cases the in- terpretation of the oath sufficed. This was the course of Innocent III. as to the oath of the King of Aragon to maintain his father's base coinage ; and also as to the promise of the Archbishop of Naples to observe the ordinary legal procedure everywhere, even when the notoriety of the case made it unnecessary. 7 In other cases, again, he who had made the oath was compelled to carry it out, and he to whom it was made was compelled to make restitution; 8 sometimes for a sufficient cause absolution or relaxa- tion was given, often with the imposition of a penance. 9 Inno- cent III. commissioned the Archbishop of Mainz to declare null and void the oath of the canons of Wiirzburg, by which they had sworn to the Bishop of Hildesheim, who held their see, to pay his family after his death two thousand marks, and not to obey his successor until the money had been paid. 10 The same Pope declared the Duke of Austria free from his promise of marriage, by reason of the nonfulfilment of conditions on the other side. 11 Even an oath made under pressure needed relaxa- tion or absolution from the Church. 12 The declaration that an Excommunication in the Middle Ages. 3 1 1 oath was null was called absolution, precisely as the declaration of innocence of an accused person was also called absolution. 13 1 C. 22, Inter cetera, 1. Porro, c. xxii. q. 4. Cf. the other canons, especially c. 5, 18. 2 Schmalzgrueber, in 1. ii. Decret. tit. 24, 6, n. 71-74. Reiffenstuel, in h. tit. 3, n. 73 seq. 3 Joh. Saresb. Polycr. 1. iii. c. xi. p. 499 : ' Rex incredulus salubrius incautum et perfidum solvisset juramentum, quam in exstinguenda lucerna verbi, auferendo praeambulum gratiae, veritatis occidendo praeconem men- sain pollueret convivium incestaret, regiam pessumdaret majestatem, dura incestui cuncta serviunt et obtemperant saltatrici. Ethica quidem regula est, quia non omnia sunt semper promissa solvenda, si forte aut accepturo damnosa aut peruiciosa sint promittenti .... ipsoque jure cautum est, ut nulla promissio, quae turpem aut tristem habeat exitum, impleatur.' 4 Hieron. in can. 2, c. xxii. q. 4. Also Godfrey of Vendome, Tract, de Ord. Episc. (Migne, clvii. p. 282). 5 Phillips, Lehrb. der Kirchenrechte, 310, p. 1176. 6 Phillips, I.e. 177, n. 3, p. 495 seq. 7 C. Quanto, 18, de Jurejur. ii. 24 (Innoc. III. 1. ii. Ep. 28, p. 558) ; c. Ad nostram, 21, ibid. (1. i. Ep. 415, p. 392 seq.). 8 Alex. III. c. 7, Ad nostram, h.t. in relation to a pledge taken to obtain a loan. 9 C. Cum quidam, Illi vero ; c. Quanto, I.e. 10 Innoc. 1. ii. Ep. 216, p. 775. To such oaths the words of the same Pope apply, c. Sicut nostris, 27, h.t. : ' Non juramenta, sed perjiuia potius sunt dicenda, quae contra utilitatem ecclesiasticam attentantur.' What is here meant by ' utilitas ecclesiastica' the context shows ; it is a question of injury to episcopal rights by the canons. 11 Ib. 1. vi. Ep.201, p. 225. >- C. 2, Perveiiit (Gregor. VII.) ; c. Si vero, 8 (Alex. III.) ; c. 15, Verum (Celestin. III.) ; c. 21, Ad nostram (Innoc. III.). 13 Pallavicin. Hist. Cone. Trid. 1. xi. c. ii. n. 10. 10. The question, who had power to absolve from an oath, was answered as follows. 1 Passing over the case of an oath of pro- mise to God, which is a vow, and in the matter of dispensation must be dealt with accordingly,' 2 we come to the case of a pro- mise to a fellow-man; here we must distinguish whether or not the oath, on the side of him to whom it was made the reci- pient contains anything immoral. If it does, it may be relaxed by the bishop, for such an oath can give no right to him to whom it was made, and can make no contract binding ; if it does not, 312 Principles of the Middle Ages, it can be released, against the will of the recipient, by the Pope alone, and by him only for a weighty cause and for the general good ; for in this case there is question of the well-earned right of another, of which he can be deprived only by the highest spiritual power, and on good grounds. 3 Often was application made to the Pope even when the bishop would have had power to act. To the question, whether the civil judge or the sovereign had power to release from an oath made to a man, if not by ab- solving from it, at least by declaring it null and void, if not directly, at least indirectly, the answer given was as follows : 4 (1) It is not beyond the power of the civil judge indirectly to remove the obligation of an oath made by a layman subject to him, if the matter promised by oath belongs to his jurisdic- tion, and if the public good demands it ; (2) the civil magis- trates, at least the sovereign, can, if the public good demands it, declare certain kinds of contract so utterly void, that the addi- tion of no oath can make them valid, and (3) even that such oath shall carry with it no obligation, either of justice, or of religious duty ; (4) he may for the common good forbid the fulfilment of the obligation promised by oath, in which case the obligation ceases ; (5) the emperor may lay a prince or a state of the empire under the imperial ban, and, as a consequence, the sub- jects are freed from their oath of allegiance. Moreover, a hus- band, for example, may declare the oath of his wife to be null, and still more, he in whose favour it was made may release her from it. 5 Princes may declare the oaths of their subjects null, since every oath is taken on the supposition that it does not prejudice the authority of the magistrates (salva superiorum auc- toritate). 6 The following were accepted as legal grounds for release from promissory oaths : T (1) Immorality in the promise; (2) extortion of the oath by force or cunning ; (3) a higher or a greater good hindered by its fulfilment ; (4) want of judgment and deliberation in taking the oath ; (5) doubt as to whether the oath was really taken ; (6) removal of scandal to others ; and also (7) of danger and occasion of sin. But never might the release from an oath, granted for the benefit of a sinner, serve as an authorisation for further sins in others. 8 Excommunication in the Middle Ages. 313 1 Smalzgrueber, I.e. n. 96, 97. 2 As to the faculties given to the appointed confessors of princes for the release of oaths made by them, there is only question (1) of vota in- deliberata, and (2) of a release which may be given in general by the universal principles of law, for these are always presupposed. On the subject of the authority given by Clement VI. to the French King John, Bishop Fessler has given satisfactory information (Die Wahre und die Falsche Unfehlbarkeit, pp. 64, 65). That which is to be done ' secundum Deum' cannot be carried out contrary to God's commands. 1 Thus Suarez, 1. ii. de Juram. c. xli. n. 2 ; Sanchez, 1. iii. ; Moral, c. xxi. n. 2 ; Laymann, in c. viii. h.t. n. 2 ; and elsewhere. St. Thorn. Sum. 2, 2, q. 89, a. 9, ad 3 : ' Et in tali juramento non videtur habere locum dis- pensatio vel commutatio, nisi aliquid melius occurrat ad communem utili- tatem faciendum, quod maxime videtur pertinere ad postestatem Papae, qui habet curarn universalis Ecclesiae.' From the word ' maxime' Schmalz- grueber concludes, I.e. : ' Ergo aliquando etiam ab Episcopo id fieri potest juxta rei et personarum qualitatem.' 4 Schmalzgrueber, I.e. n. 100-104. s Germoin, 1. ii. Animadvers. c. viii. Marca, de Jurisdict. P. iv. cent. 1 r cas. 72, n. 23. Suarez, de Relig. t. ii. tract. 4, 1. ii. c. xxxix. n. 5. P. Surdus, Consil. 364, n. 25. Bianchi, t. i. 1. i. 17, n. 3, p. 141. 8 Innoc. III. c. 19, Venientes, h.t. : ' In quo (juramento) debet intelligi jus superioris exceptum.' Cf. Greg. M. in Can. i. d. 85. Suarez, de Relig. I.e. c. xxxviii. Sanchez, de Praecept. Decal. 1. iii. c. ii. n. 19. Gonzales r in 1. ii. Decret. c. i. Ex administrationis, h.t. n. 8, fin. Bianchi, 1. c. 7 Schmalzgrueber, I.e. n. 105. 8 Alex. II. 1061 (Mansi, xix. 980 ; Jafie, n. 3374, p. 390) : ' Possumus. in perjurio aliquo crimine lapsis misericordiae manum porrigere, sed non debemus ad futurae perditionis (al. : prohibitionis) exemplum licentiam dare.' 11. The Eastern Church affords a famous exam pie of release from a promissorial oath. When the Emperor Mauricius (582-602) sent the General Philippikus to his troops they would not accept him ; the venerable Patriarch Gregory of Antioch, in spite of illness, addressed to them a powerful speech to recall them to obedience. 1 The rebels, deep as was the impression made by this speech, appealed to their solemn oath, which bound them to- be firm in their resolve. To this Gregory replied that he, as bishop, had power to bind and to loose in heaven and on earth ; and thus he silenced all scruples. 2 In Spain the fifteenth Council of Toledo (688) had to pass judgment, at the request of the King Egiza, upon three separate oaths made by him. 3 There are also- 314 Principles of the Middle Ages. many such examples among the Popes before Alexander III. [Nicholas I. released the Archbishop of Treves, and others of the clergy, from oaths taken in prison ; 4 Leo IX. released Edward the Confessor from his promised journey to Rome, in consideration of a menacing rebellion; 5 Gregory VII. (1080) set free Bishop Hemy of Liege from an oath, extorted from him by Count Ar- nulf, that he would not demand back the property taken from him ; 6 he likewise declared to Count "Robert of Flanders that his oath to the French King Philip had no binding power : 7 the count had sworn to support the intruder Lambert, who had been guilty of simony. Paschal II. (1099-1115) declared the feudal oath taken reciprocally by the clergy of the church of Chartres to be null, and forbade it in future. 8 Calixtus II. (March 4, 1120) pronounced not binding the oath of allegiance extorted from the nobles of the kingdom by the Spanish Queen Urraca, widow of Count Raymund : the queen desired to reign instead of her son, appointed by King Idelphons to be his heir ; the Pope moreover added that the oath previously taken to her son retained its binding power. 9 Hadrian IV. absolved the French Chancellor Hugo from the vow he had made, that he would offer to resign his office upon attaining the dignity of arch- deacon, &c. 10 1 Evagr. H. E. 1. vi. c. vi. 12. 2 Ibid. c. xiii. (Migne, PP. gr. 1. xxxvi. p. 2864). 3 Hefele, Coiic. iii. p. 295 seq. 4 C. 2, c. xv. q. 6 (Jaffe, Reg. n. 2027, p. 238). 6 Mansi, xix. 1050. J. n. 3236, p. 374. 6 Jaffe, n. 3880, 3881, p. 433 seq. 7 Jaffe, n. 3953, p. 440. Mansi, xx. 370. He remarks : ' Perniciosius esse, illum'per quern juretur, quam cui juretur, et Deum quam hominem offendere.' 8 Ivo Cam. Opp. ii. 233. J. n. 4748, p. 508. 9 Jaffe, n. 4995, p. 534. 16 Mansi, xxi. 804, 806. Jaffe, n. 7093, 7094, p. 675. 12. "When subjects were released from their oath of allegiance to excommunicated princes, it was on the understanding that these princes had themselves been guilty of breaking faith with God ; Excommunication in the Middle Ages. 315 the oath of obedience to them Avas always taken on the condi- tion, expressed or understood, that they should fulfil the obliga- tions they had undertaken to the Church and to their people. 1 If they failed in this, the salvation of their subjects was endangered, for they were easily implicated in the crimes of their sovereign, indeed as a rule they were required by him to do things incom- patible with their own higher duties. Although an oath taken to a prince who had broken his own faith was allowed to be in itself ipso facto no longer binding, 2 yet for greater security, and that the fact might be fully confirmed, a special declaration on the part of the Pope was not to be looked upon as superfluous, or to be dispensed with, nay more, it was required by the uni- versal rules given above. When the faithful were in immediate danger of falling away from the Faith, through the apostasy of a ruler, the Church had power to forbid obedience to be paid to him, and to release them from their oath of allegiance ; she did not directly deprive him of his power, but made use of her own spiritual power in such a way as to remove the danger, and to secure the spiritual welfare of the sovereign and his subjects. Other weapons and direct means were employed against simply immoral kings, and in this case extreme measures were not to be resorted to as long as their subjects were in no danger. 3 1 The decree of Innocent III. against Markwald, 1. i. Ep. 38, p. 32, says : 'Omnes, qui eidem fidelitate sunt vel sacramento astricti, apostolica auctoritate a Sacramento absolvimus, et ne ipsi fidelitatem observent, modis omnibus prohibemus, cum fidelitatem quern aliqui Christiano principi jura- verunt Deo ejusque sanctis adversanti et eorum praecepta calcanti nulla mandentur auctoritate servare.' - Augustin. Triumph. Sum. q. 40, a. 4 : ' Utrum Papa possit Im- peratoris subditos a juramento fidelitatis absolvere. . . . Dicendum, quod, sicut scribitur X de reg. jur. (75 in 6) : frustra sibifidem quis postulat abalio (eo) servari, qui (cui) fidem praestitam a se servare recusat. Pla- num est autem, quod in juramento fidelitatis, quod Imperator Ecclesiae prapstat, continetur. quod ipse jurare faciet omnes illos, quibus regnum Italiae seu alia ad Ecclesiam pertinentia committit, ut ipsi Ecclesiae adjutores existant. Si ergo fidelitatem quam jurat, recusat obseryare, ipso facto ejus subditi sunt a juramento fidelitatis ejus absoluti.' 3 Bianchi, t. i. 1. iii. 1, n. 8-9, pp. 447-449. 316 Principles of the Middle Ages. 13. The state of things at the present day is in many respects different. The oath, which is inconceivable apart from religion, and which is peculiarly a religious matter, 1 came to be more and more profaned ; it was made far too common ; 2 little or no im- portance was attached in private law to the promissory oath, and before long the assertorial oath used as testimony in a court of justice came to be the only one held in esteem. 3 'The duty of allegiance,' says Walter, 4 ' may be strengthened by an oath, and this in itself has the same value as an oath affirming a fact. The nonfulfilment of an oath lawfully sworn should be punished precisely in the same way as false evidence given on oath, and this falls strictly within the sphere of conscience, and therefore of canon law. The task of exactly weighing all the points of conscience in such cases was so far beyond the civil courts that they were unable to enter into them, and were forced to leave the spiritual courts to decide as to the binding power of proruis- sorial oaths, while they themselves merely carried out the sen- tence. This is no longer tolerated, and therefore in modern times the promissory oath has no civil effects, and is left com- pletely to the sphere of conscience. One undeniable advantage is thus gained : the oath is now in less danger of being dragged into mere business transactions. But there is a certain inconsist- ency in the fact that a promissory oath taken in matters concern- ing private law is ignored by the State, while it is maintained in public law (i.e. the oath of allegiance), though the State has no tribunal for matters of conscience to decide the often delicate questions which come before it. As a last resort the power of self-interpretation steps in, and this it is which has brought political oaths so much into disrepute.' 1 Marx, Der Eid und die Eidespraxis, Regensb. 1855, p. 80 seq. 93 seq. 2 In early times the Church was forced to complain of the abase of the oath by civil magistrates. Basil, Ep. 85 (Migne, PP. gr. t. xxxii. p. 465). 1 Cf. Walter, Kirchenrechte, 353 seq. 620 seq. * Walter, Naturrecht und Politik, 106, p. 103 seq. Excommunication in the Middle Ages. 3 1 7 14. The assertion that the Popes busied themselves principally in judging and deposing sovereigns, and that no kingdom was secure from their violence, is utterly without foundation. On the contrary, all princes might rule quietly and free from moles- tation so long as their government was supported by public opinion and a good conscience. Instances of deposition are by no means mimerous, and relate in most cases to elective mon- archies ; but the Papal condemnations fell exclusively upon princes actually guilty of great crimes, and were in accordance with the laws then in force; 1 for this reason their justice was acknowledged and respected by the majority of men in that day, in so far as they were really impartial. Why is complaint made against the Popes alone, and not also against the bishops, who agreed with them, and against the Councils, which adopted their deeds and their words, and acted upon the same principles of public law? This is evident not only in the Roman Councils (1076 and 1080) under Gregory VII., not only in the Council of Eheims (1119), which released from their obedience all the subjects of Henry V., 2 but comes out most clearly also in the Ecumenical Councils of the Middle Ages. 1 De Maistre, Du Pape, 1. ii. c. ii. v. xi. pp. 218, 235, 353 ; Gosselin, ii. p. 372 seq. The Protestant Senkenberg (Methodus Jurisprudent, addit. iv. de Libert. Eccl. Germ. 3) : ' Jure affirmare poterit, ne exemplum quidem esse in omni rerum memoria, ubi Pontifex processerit adversus eos, qui juribus suis intenti ultra limites vagari in animum non induxerunt suum. ' 2 Labbe, xii. 1306. Mansi, xxi. 235-255. Hefele, v. p. 319. 15. The eleventh Ecumenical Council (1179) released all those bound by compact to heretical princes from the duty of alle- giance, from the oath of fealty, and from all obedience, so long as their rulers persisted in their obstinacy. 1 The twelfth (1215) directed that temporal sovereigns who neglected to cleanse their kingdoms of heresy should be excommunicated by the metro- 3 1 8 Principles of the Middle Ages. politan and the other bishops ; in case they made no satisfaction within the space of one year the Pope was to be informed, in order that lie might declare the vassals freed from their allegiance, and give over the land to Catholic rulers.' 2 ' Whether or not it is assumed that these decrees were issued in concert with Christian princes, and on the understanding oftheir assistance, 3 it is at least clear that they took the same view of public law as the Popes, and did not consider that the Church was exceeding her powers. The opinion, that these decrees were only passed through the agreement of sovereigns, is grounded upon (1) the presence of princes and civil ambassadors ; (2) the introduction to the decree of the eleventh Council, in which are quoted the words of Leo I. on the support given to the discipline of the Church by the laws of Catholic princes ; 4 (3) the assent given by clergy and people to these resolutions, as recorded by chroniclers ; 5 (4) the cha- racter of these Councils, which resemble great parliaments of the whole of Christendom ; (5) the conduct of the Popes, who urged princes e.g. Frederick II. to support similar decrees by civil sanctions (penal law) ; (6) the fact that the origin of the decrees in question appears to be the ancient imperial laws against the Manicheans and other sects. 6 The learned men who support this opinion acknowledge that it is impossible to limit the expressions as to loss of lands to fiefs of the Church, 7 but they hold that the highest temporal rulers, kings, were exempted from these rules, and that they are to be understood only of the lesser vassals. 8 There have been, however, many objections urged against this last opinion, with appeal to the words of the decrees. 9 It has been urged: that this was a question of absolution from an oath, which was necessarily considered as an act of spiritual j urisdic- tion, 10 while all a temporal prince could do was to annul an oath in those matters in which it was not taken to God ; n that the tem- poral sovereign Avas indeed entitled to depose a vassal on politi- cal grounds, without releasing him from his oath, which then became null, but was not entitled to absolve him from his oath on religious grounds (ex causa religionis), of which the Church was alone the judge; that it cannot be said that the Church obtained her right of absolving from an oath on religious grounds from Excommunication in the Middle Ages. 319 the consent of temporal princes, which must be maintained if the contested interpretation be accepted ; that it is to draw a false conclusion from, the proposition, ' the princes have given their assent,' to say, ' therefore the decree of the Council has its bind- ing power from the princes;' that the dogmatic decrees of the four Lateran Councils would also have to be ascribed to sove- reigns, for they were issued in precisely the same way; and lastly, that either the sovereigns of that day must be con- sidered completely ignorant and uncultured, or it must be al- lowed that they acknowledged in the Church the power of releasing from oaths. 12 1 Cone. Lateran. iii. c. 27 (Hard. vi. 1684) : ' Relaxatos autem se noverint a debito fidelitatis et hominii et totius obsequii, donee in tanta iniquitate permanserint, quicunque illis aliquo pacto tenentur annexi.' 2 Cone. Later, iv. c. 3 (Hard. vii. p. 18 seq.) : ' Moneantnr autem efc iiiducantur, et si necesse fuerit, per censuram ecclesiasticam compellantur saeculares potentates, quibuscunque fungantur officiis, ut sicut reputari cupiunt et habere fideles, ita pro defensione fidei praestent publice jura- mentum, quod de terris suae jurisdictioni subjectis universes haereticos ab Ecclesia denotatos bona fide pro viribus exterminare studebunt, ita quod amodo, quandocunque quis fuerit in potestatem sive spiritualem sive temporalem assumtua, hoc teneatur capital ttmjuramentojirmare. Si vero Dominus temporalis requisitus et monitus ab Ecclesia terrain suam purgare neglexerit ab hac haeretica foeditate, per metropolitanum et ceteros provinciales episcopos excommunicationis vinculo innodetur. Et si satisfacere contemserit intra annum, significetur hoc summo Pontifici, ut ex tune ipse vasallos ab ejus fidelitate denunciet absolutes et terrain exponat Catholicis occupandam, qui earn exterminatis haereticis sine ulla contradictione possideant et in fidei puritate conservent.' 3 Bossuet, Defens. Decl. Cleri. Gall. 1. iv. c. i. ii. p. 337 seq. Fleury, Hist. Eccl. t. xv. 1. Ixxiii. n. 22. Gosselin, ii. pp. 110-114. 4 Leo M. Ep. 15, ad Turrib. c. i. 5 On the words of Roger of Hoveden (Annal. Angl. 1. ii.) : ' His itaque decvetis promulgatis et ab universo clero ac populo circumstante receptis,' Bossuet remarks, I.e. p. 339 : ' Populi autem nomine, ecclesi- astico more styloque, laid omnes intelligibantur, ipsique adeo principes et eorum legati. Quare si quid in Conciliis adversus haereticos decerne- retur, quod ad civilem potestatem pertineret, id, quamquam ad majorem religioriis reverentiam Concilii nomine editum, tamen a civili potestate receptum ac ratum habitum ex ea consensione vim suam obtinebat.' 4 Natal. Alex. H. E. saec. 13 et 14, diss. 3, a. 3, t. xvi. p. 48 seq. Bossuet, I.e. c. ii. iii. pp. 339-342. 7 Bossuet, I.e. c. iv. p. 342 : ' Nos generatim dicta ad omnes (feudos) pertinere non refugimus. Natal. Alex. I.e. n. 3, p. 49 seq. Bossuet, I.e. c. iii. fin. p. 342. 320 Principles of the Middle Ages. 9 Important here are the words which follow those quoted ahove (in note 2) : ' Salvo jure domini principalis, dummodo super hoc ipse nullum praestet obstacuhim nee aliquod impedimentum opponat, eadem nihilominus lege servata circa eos, qui non habent dominum principalem.' These last are plainly principes supremi, lords paramount, while the simple liege lord is dominus = qui habet dominium. Bossuet's explanation, I.e. , is inadmis- sible : ' Domini principales dicebantur ii, qui cum inferiores sub se haberent dominos, ipsi supremis absolutisque dominis, h.e. regibus, immediate suberant neque refugere poterant ea, quae supremorum dominorum, regum scil., qui per legates aderant, consensione decreta essent.' He holds also that kings must have been mentioned ' specialiter,' in case they were in- cluded, but ends by saying that it would do them no injury if out of hatred of heresy they agreed to the decree even as applying to themselves. It must not be overlooked that the law makes no other distinction, and includes those who have over them no ' dominus principalis,' and also that the same principle applies to both, and that subjects are equally bound to allegiance, whether their immediate superior be subject to another or not. 10 According to c. 13, Novit, ii. 1, de Judic. 11 Bianchi, t. i. 1. i. 17, n. 2, 3, pp. 140-144. He remarks that the 1. ult. seq. 1. i. ad municp. proves nothing to the point, since the emperors released from oaths not as emperors, but as pontifices maximi. Plautus in Rudent. act v. scene 3 : ' Libet jurare, tu meo pontifex perjurio es ?' and elsewhere ibid. Cf. Gonzales, c. ii. de Judiciis, ii. 1. 12 Bianchi, I.e. n. 5, 6, pp. 146-148. 16. The first General Council of Lyons (1245), with its sentence against the Emperor Frederick II., is brought forward on this point by many theologians, 1 while others, on the contrary, con- tend 2 that the sentence was approved by the Pope alone, with- out the consent of the Council, and was passed sacro praesente (not approbante) concilio (in presence of the Council). But it must not be taken for granted that the bishops were considered merely as spectators and mutes ; in the first two meetings their consent had been most clearly given, and it was against their will that the third meeting was put off twelve days. 3 "While the sentence was being passed the Fathers held lighted tapers in their hands, which they then extinguished, in token of their deep abhorrence, 4 exactly as had been done in the case of Henry V. at the Council of Eheims (October 30, 1119). 5 Not one single bishop spoke against the sentence, not one appealed against it. Neither can it be maintained that the bishops took Excommunication in the Middle Ages. 32 1 part in the excommunication only, and not in the deposition. The sentence of excommunication was no longer in question, having been passed upon Frederick in 1239. The accusation now brought against him was of being guilty of complete obstinacy (insordescentia) ; and excommunication was pro- nounced against those only who persisted in rendering obedi- ence to the deposed sovereign ; the ceremony of the extin- guished tapers was expressive of public execration, and of assent to the judgment passed. Had not Thaddeus, who defended Frederick, taken for granted that the Council concurred in the sentence of the Pope, he would not have appealed, as he did, in fact, to a still 'more General Council.' 7 Even Frederick himself, when he proclaimed that no German had taken part in passing sentence against him, 8 made it clear that the bishops of other countries had taken part in it. Martin V. had therefore a right, in 1282, to say that Frederick II. had been deposed by Inno- cent IV. with the consent of the Council. 9 Nicholas of Curbio had before declared that all the prelates had assented, and had proved their assent by their signatures and seals. 10 The words of the chroniclers, 11 and indeed all the circumstances, make it evident that the presence of the Council is, in this case, equiva- lent to its approval, more especially as the Pope speaks of pre- vious careful deliberation with the Council. 12 The competence of the court was questioned by none of the envoys ; they strove only for a delay of the sentence, and for indulgence for Fre- derick's children. A tribunal utterly destitute of material power could never have passed sentence on so mighty a sovereign, had not its right been universally acknowledged ; or at least in so doing it would have met with loud opposition, especially from the envoys of sovereigns. An eminent jurist such as Innocent rV. 13 would never have been guilty of so great a blunder, nor would the bishops of all lands have assented to it. 14 Frederick himself had not at first disputed the competence of the Church to pass judgment ; it was only after the Lyons sentence that he did so. 15 This sentence was in no way out of keeping with the character of the times : the Pope made the declaration that Frederick had rendered himself unworthy of all honours and VOL. I. Y 322 Principles of the Middle Ages. dignities, and had thereby forfeited them ; and that he (the- Pope), in virtue of the binding and loosing power in the Church, released his subjects from their oath of allegiance. 16 The ana- thema, as well as the release from oath, was au exercise of the- spiritual power of the keys ; the deprivation and removal from office were a consequence of the spiritual and civil laws then universally recognised, and with a view to these they were pro- nounced. Fenelon's account of the matter may be here mentioned as quite satisfactory. 17 1 Bianchi, t. i. 1. i. 12, n. 1, p. 111. 2 Natal. Alex. H. E. saec. 13 et 14, dissert. 5, art. 3, n. 8, p. Ill seq, Bossuet, I.e. 7, 8. pp. 349-351. 3 Hard. vii. 379, 380. Matth. Paris, a. 1245. 4 Matth. Paris, h.a. : ' Dominus igitur Papa et praelati assistentes Concilio candelis accensis in dictum imperatorem Fridericum, quijamjam imperator non est nominandus, terribiliter, recedentibus et confusis ejus procuratoribus, fulgurarunt.' s Hefele, v. p. 319. 9 Gosselin, ii. p. 182. It is always supposed that the members of a tribunal agree in the sentence pronounced by the president in their pre- sence, unless they expressly say to the contrary. Cf. also Roncaglia r Animadv. in Natal. Alex. H. E. saec. 11, diss. 2, 3, v. fin. 7 Hard. vii. 380. 8 Huillard-Breholles, vi. 336. 8 D'Archery, Spicil. iii. 684, ed. Paris, 1723, sentence against the King of Aragon. Cf. Mamachi, Antiqu. t. iv. p. 247 seq. 10 Muratori, Rer. Ital. Scr. iii. i. p. 592 : ' Sententiam depositionis- saepe dicti Friderici protulit summus Pontifex in majori Ecclesia Lugdu- nensi A.D. 1244 Quae fuit ab universis ecclesiarum praelatis in eodem Concilio residentibus approbata, sicut liquere potest omnibus tarn praesentibus quam futuris per subscriptions ipsorum et eorumdem sigilla 'pendentia in eadem.' 1 11 Guillelm. Nang. in gestis Philippi, iii. p. 538. Matth. Paris, a. 1247. Monach. Paduan. 1. iii. Chron. p. 591, ed. Urstis. 12 ' Cum fratribus uostris et S. Concilio deliberatione praehabita dili- genti.' 13 Cf . Schulte, Lehrbuch des Kirchenrechts, 16, pp. 60, 61, 2d ed. 14 Bianchi, I.e. 1. i. 18, n. 1-6, pp. 148 157. Gosselin, ii. pp. 180- 183. 15 Greg. IX. Ep. 2, ad Stephan. Cant. Aep. (Labbe', xi. p. 313). Fleury, t. xvi. 1. Ixxix. n. 37 ; t. xvii. 1. Ixxxi. n. 9, 20, 46 ; 1. Ixxxii. n. 30, 31. Michaud, Hist, des Croisades, t. iv. pp. 512, 514. 18 Labbe, xi. i. p. 645 : ' Nos itaque . . . cum Jesu Christi vices im- meriti teneamus in terris nobisque in B. Petri per sona Bit dictum : Quod- cunque ligaveris super terram, &c., memoratum principem, qui sese im- Excommunication in the Middle Ages. 323 perio et regnis omnique honore ac dignitate reddidit tarn indignum, qui- que propter suas impietates a Deo, ne regnet vel imperet. est abjectus, suis ligatum peccatis et abjectum omnique honore et dignitate privatum a Domino ostendimus, denunciamus, ac nihilominus sententiando privamus, omnes, qui ei juramento fidelitatis tenentur adstricti, a juramento hujus- modi perpetuo absolventes.' 17 Fenelon, de Auctor. Summi Pontificis, c. xxxix. p. 387 : ' Idem est pror- sus ac si diceret : Declaramus eum ob f acinora et impietatem indignum esse, qui gentibus Catholicis praesit ; declaramus contractum ab impera- tore palam violatum jam populos imperii non adstringere ; quandoquidem populi nonnisi pactis conditionibus subesse et parere volunt. In hoc Innocentius exercet potestatem a Cbristo datum : Quodcunque ligaveris super terrain, &c., videl. ut Fridericum ligatum peccatis et populos jura- mento fidelitatis solutos declaret.' 17. No less clearly speak the Councils of the fifteenth century, especially those of Constance and Basle, (a) The first issued a decree (July 14, 1415) against all who should in any way mo- lest the German King Sigismund on his journey to the Anti- pope Benedict; for the Dauphin of France, the Duke of Austria, and the Count of Savoy were suspected of being in conspiracy against him. 1 The decree menaced all possessors of spiritual, temporal, and even kingly dignities, with loss of the same in case of disobedience. 2 (b) This same Council had decreed (May . 20, 1415) that neither of the claimants of the Papal chair could be again elected Pope, and warned all the faithful, of all ranks, even kings and emperors, against rendering them obedience, under pain of being chastised as promoters of schism. 3 (c) In like manner all holders of spiritual and temporal dignities are included in the decree of July 4th, by which it is prohibited to leave or to disturb the Council ; even kings and emperors are menaced with perpetual infamy and forfeiture of office ; and this was to take place at once, without further sentence, and to bring with it incapacity for all spiritual or temporal dignities and hon- ours. 4 (d) Even in the command to keep perfect silence and peace, read and approved in the meeting of July 6th, excom- munication and two months' imprisonment were laid down for all those, whatsoever their dignity, whether kingly or imperial, who should disobey it, together with the penalty inflicted on 324 Principles of the Middle Ages. the promoters of heresy. 5 (e) In the Monitorium, issued No- vember 21, 1415, against Frederick Duke of the Austrian Tyrol, for plundering and injuring the bishopric of Trent, he is strictly enjoined, ' in virtue of holy obedience, and under pain of ana- thema, of sacrilege, and of the forfeiture of all the feudal posses- sions which he holds from the Church or the Empire,' to give back that which he had robbed, and to acknowledge the sove- reignty of the prince-bishop within his territory. 6 (/) On March 3, 1417, the above-named duke, together with his accomplices, was declared a rebel, and a robber of the Church, was laid under anathema, and punished with the loss of his dominions, and incapacity for holding others. 7 (g) On July 26, 1417, sentence of deposition was passed on Peter de Luna (Benedict XIII.) ; 8 and all the faithful, without distinction of rank or position, were forbidden to consider and honour him as Pope, under the penalty of promoters of heresy and schism, the loss of all spiritual and worldly offices and dignities, together with other canonical penalties. 9 (It) The decree on the Papal elec- tion, October 9, 1417, pronounced against those who should offer violence to the electors, injure their freedom, or cause it to be injured, the penalties of infamy and loss of office decreed by Boniface VIII. against those who should assault cardinals. 10 (/) In the order issued for the protection of the ecclesiastical liberties and possessions of the president of the Council (accord- ing to the resolutions of September 23, 1415), by which the laws of the Emperors Frederick II. (1220) and Charles IV. (1377) on this subject were confirmed, all emperors, kings, and other dignitaries were admonished, under heavy penalties, not to burden the churches, even under pretext of the consent of the bishops, without obtaining leave of the Pope. 11 (k) In like manner the Bull ' Inter cunctas,' issued by Martin V., with the consent of the Council, February 22, 1418, inflicted on the adherents of the heresy of "Wicliffe and Huss, without distinc- tion of rank, the usual penalties, and amongst the rest the loss of all offices and dignities. 12 (Z) The Council, convoked first (1423) by Martin V. in Pavia, in accordance with the decree of Constance, and [afterwards moved to Siena, confirmed the Excommunication in the Middle Ages. 325 decrees against the adherents of Peter de Luna with precisely the same formulas. 13 (in) The Council of Basle used the same terms (July 18, 1432) in the passport delivered to the Papal envoys, 14 and spoke no less strongly (n) when it accepted the protection of Sigismund and the Duke of Bavaria. 15 1 Hefele, Cone. vii. p. 231, n. 2. 2 Hard. Cone. viii. 441, Sess. xvii. : ' Quicunque cujuscunque status aut conditionis existat, etiam regalis, cardinalatus, patriarchalis, archiepis- copalis, episcopalis, ducatus .... seu alterius cujuscunque dignitatis et status ecclesiastic! vel saecularis existat, qui serenissimum et Christianis- Bimum principem D. Sigisinundum Romanorum et Hungariae regem vel alios cum eodem ad conveniendum cum D. rege Aragonum pro pace Eccle- siae .... ad dictam conventionem euntes vel redeuntes impediverit, per- turbaveritvelmolestaverit . . . . sententiam excommunicationis auctoritate hujus sacri Concilii generalis ipso facto incurrat, absolutione ejusdem ipsi sacro Consilio seu futuro unico et indubitato summo Pontifici, praeterquam in mortis articulo, speciafiter reservata, et alterius omni honore et digni- tate, qfficio, beneficio ecclesiastico velsaeculari, sit ipso facto privatus.' 3 Sess. xii. Hard. I.e. p. 375: ' Nullus cujuscunque dignitatis vel praeeminentiae, etiamsi imperiali, regali, cardinalatus vel pontifical! dignitate praefulgeat, eis vel eorum alteri contra hoc decretum ullo un- quam tetnpore obediat seu adhaereat, sub poena fautoriae dicti schismatis et maledictionis aeternae, ad quas contra praesumptores, si qui in pos- terum fuerint, etiam cum invocatione auxilii brachii saecularis, et alias rigide procedatur.' * Sess. xiv. Hard. I.e. pp. 400, 401 : ' Synodus statuit, ordinal et diffinit, quod quaecunque persona Concilii, cujuscunque status, gradus, ordinis aut praeeminentiae existat, ab hoc S. Concilio deinceps sine licentia Con- cilii vel ad hoc deputandorum recesserit, et quaecuuque Concilii aut quae- vis alia persona ipsum Concilium quomodolibet perturbaverit .... perpetuo sit infamis omnique dignitate, honore, statu, officio et beneficio, ecclesias- ticis et saecularibus, etiamsi imperialis, regalis, cardinalatus aut ponti- ficalis existat, ipso jure privata, spe promotionis omnino sublata, nee aliquatenus ei aperiatur janua dignitatis aut honoris ecclesiastici aut mundani.' 5 Sess. xv : ' SS. Synodus Const. .... praecipit et mandat sub poena excommunicationis latae sententiae, quam contravenientes vult incurrere ipso facto et sub poena carceris duorum mensium et fautoriae haeresis, ne aliqnis, cujuscunque status, auctoritatis, gradus, ordinis, praeeminentiae aut conditionis fuerit, etiamsi imperiali, regali, cardinalatus, archiepis- copali aut episcopali praefulgeat dignitate, in hac praesenti sessione ipsam sessiouem seu pronunciantes et loquentes in eadem perturbet, murmuret, impediat, et quemvis strepitum voce aut pedibus faciat.' Sess. xx. Hard. I.e. pp. 465-471. 7 Sess. xxviii. Hard. l.c. p. 697 seq. 8 Sess. xxxvii. Hard. p. 835 seq. 9 The words are: 'Atque privationis omnium beneticiorum, dignitatum 326 Principles of the Middle Ages. et bonorum ecclesiasticorum ct nmndanorum, etiamsi episcopalis et patri- archalis, cardinalatus, regalis sint dignitatis aut imperialis ; quibus si contra hanc inhibitionem fecerint, sint auctoritate hujus decreti et sen- tentiae ipso facto privati, et alias juris incurrant poenas, ne eidem Petro de Luna tanquam Papae obediant.' 10 Sess. xxxix. Hard. p. 855 seq. : ' Quod si quis hujusmodi metum vel impressionem aut violentiam elec oribus ipsis aut alicui ipsorum in elec- tione Papae intulerit seu fecerit aut fieri procuraverit, aut factum ratum habuerit, aut in hoc consilium dederit vel favorem . . . cujuscunque status, gradus, aut praeeminentiae fuerit, etiamsi imperiali, regali, pontificali vel alia quavis ecclesiastica aut saeculari praefulgeat dignitate, illas poenas ipso facto incurrat, quae in constitutione fel. rec. Bonifacii, p. viii. quae incipit Felicis (c. v. de Poenis, v. 9 in 6) continentur, illisque effec- tualiter puniatur.' 11 Sess. xix. Hard. I.e. pp. 463, 923 seq. Cf. Hefele, vii. p. 237 seq. The words are : ' S. Synodus hoc perpetuo statuit et ordinat, quod nulla persona saecularis cujuscunque dignitatis, status et conditionis existat, etiamsi imperiali, regali, vel quaecunque praefulgeat dignitate, sub prae- textu consensionis episcopi clero tallias, impositfones vel subsidia imponat, exigat vel recipiat, nisi prius Romano Pontifice consulto, sub poenis, ban- nis, et censuris eisdem.' This is spoken quite in the style of the hated Boniface VIII. * 12 Hard. I.e. p. 905 seq. Hefele, p. 345 seq. Here it is said : ' Volu- mus insuper . . . . ut contra omnes et singulos utriusque sexus hujusmodi errores tenentes, approbantes ac fautores et receptatores eorum, cujus- cunque dignitatis, status vel conditionis existant, auctoritate nostra in- quirere studeant (episcopi et inquisitores) et eos, quos hujusmodi .... erroris labe respersos repererint, etiam per excommunicationis poenam .... nee non priv ationis dignitatum .... corrigant et puniant.' 13 Inhibitionem factam omnibus et singulis Christifidelibus sub poenia fautoriae haeresis et schismatis ac privationis omnium benefciorum, digni- tatum et bonorum ecclesiasticorum et mundanorum, et alias poenas infli- gendo, ut dicta sententia praefati Concilii (Const.) .... latius continetur, ratam et gratam habens, ejus executionem continuari volens, decernit, statuit et declarat, omnes et singulos post obitum dicti Petri de Luna con- tinuantes seu perseverantes in credulitate vel obedientia erroris et schis- matis ejusdem Petri .... seu in vice ejus succedentes, eorumque recep- tatores, defensores et fautores, cujuscunque. status, praeeminentiae vel conditionis existant etiamsi pontificali, cardinalatus, imperiali vel regali aut alia quaecunque ecclesiastica vel saeculari praefulgcant dignitate .... fore obnoxios et ligatos poenis et censuris in dicta sententia contentis. 14 Exhortatur omnes et singulos Christifideles cujuscunque dignitatis, status, gradus aut praeeminentiae existant, spiritualis et temporalis, etiamsi regali, ducali, archiepiscopali, episcopal!, vel alia quavis praeful- geant dignitate .... eisque virtute obedientiae mandat, ut si per eorum dominia, terras, territoria, civititates, oppida .... aut alia loca vos et quem- libet vestrum transire coutingat, sub poenis, sententiis et censuris tarn in Constantiensi et Senensi quam hujus S. Synodi decretis contentis et fulmi- natis, districte injungendo quatenus vos et quemlibet vestrum .... secu- Excommunication in the Middle Ages. 327 TOS, liberos et tutos cum rebus et bonis vestris universis ire, stare et redire sine molestia et impedimento permittant. 16 Sub poena excommnnicationis et privationis dignitatis cujuslibet eccle.siasticae vel mundanae interdicit, 2 P. ii. p. 275. 15 Huber, p. 6. 14 According to the sentence : ' Cui jurisdictio data est, ea quoque con- cessa esse videntur, sine quibus jurisdictio explicari non potuit' (1. ii. Cui Dig. ii. 1, de Jurisd.). ESSAY VIL CIVIL RULERS AND THE HOLY SEE. CIVIL rulers in the Middle Ages regarded their relation to the Church as it was regarded by Popes and theologians, and shared their opinions except when passion or self-interest inter- fered. They considered that to support the action of the Church by their civil authority, to punish those who disobeyed her, and to act always as her defenders and protectors, were amongst their gravest duties. 1 The most powerful princes have expressed in many documents their desire to secure, through pious zeal for the Church, peace and prosperity to their governments and ever- lasting blessedness to themselves. 2 I. The jurisdiction of the Church was especially exercised by Popes over princes in their matrimonial affairs. II. This ecclesiastical jurisdiction was ex- pressly recognised by princes. PART I. ECCLESIASTICAL JURISDICTION EXERCISED BY THE POPES OVER CIVIL PRINCES IN THEIR MATRIMONIAL AFFAIRS. 1. King Robert of France. 2, 3. Simony of Philip I. 4-7. His marriages. 8-11. Philip Augustus. 12. The King of Leon. 1- That kings were, as Christians, subject in their private lives like all other believers to the supremacy of the Church was never doubted, and Popes often punished and censured their misdeeds. Pope Nicholas I. maintained the sanctity of marriage in regard to Lothair II., who had divorced his wife Theut- berge, and lived in adultery with Waldrade. 3 Another striking instance is that of King liobert of France, who, with the consent of several bishops of his kingdom, had incestuously married his 340 Civil Rulers and the Holy See. kinswoman Bertha. For this satisfaction was required of him from Gregory V., A.D. 997 ; and the following year he was sentenced to do penance for seven years. 4 In the year 1000 the zealous Abbot of Fleury (who died in 1004) succeeded in induc- ing the king to submission ; he renounced his connection with Bertha, and lived till his death in 1031 an exemplary life. 5 Even if the stories of St. Peter Damiani 6 are mere hear- say, we have plenty of proof of the impression made in France by ecclesiastical censures. There was no cause for deposing the king, 7 and Robert's final decision set him quite straight with the Church. 8 Later, in 1069, a new scandal threatened the Church when Henry IV. of Germany wished to separate from his wife ; but St. Peter Damiani dissuaded him from his idea. 9 1 Childebert in Capitul. (Labbe, Cone. vi. p. 487, ed Venet.) : ' Et qnia- necesse est, ut plebs, quae sacerdotis praecepta non ita ut oportet cus- todit nostro etiam coi-rigatur imperio,' &c. Facundus of Hermiane (pro Defens. trium Capitulorum, 1. xii. c. iii.) praised the Emperor Marciam be- cause he 'suo contentus officio ecclesiasticorum canonum executor esse voluit.' 2 Cf. the diploma granted in 1150 by Conrad II. to the monastery of Corvei (Migne, PP. Lat. clxxxix. p. 1497). 3 Baron, a. 866, n. 37-42. Lothair wrote : ' Cerntto lumine vestram affatim deposcimuspaternitatem, ut dum nos vobis missisque vestris .... per omnia super omnes coaequales nostros obedire volumus, non aliquem nostri Deo rniserante consimilem super nos extollere aut terrae prae- ponere vestrae libeat paternitati.' Nicholas had only -warned him that if he did not amend a severe sentence would fall upon him : ' Coram tota et cum tota Ecclesia luce clarius peremtorio Dei judicio, tota producta spicula, patieris et procul dubio cunctis videntibus praecipitaberis' (Floss, Leonis P. Privilegium, Doc. iv. p. 32). 4 Mansi, xix. 233, 223. Pertz, v. 694. Hefele, iv. 619, 622. Hofler, Deutsche Papste, i. 125, 170. 5 Mabillon, Ann. O.S.B. 1. i. c. Ixxiv. Helgaldi, Epit. Vitae Roberti Reg. ap. Bouquet, x. 107. Hofler, I.e. p. 184. 6 Petr. Dam. Opusc. 34, c. vi. ; Opp. iii. 260. 7 Bossuet clearly shows that there was none, Defens. P. i. 1. ii. c. xxvii. p. 237. 8 Leo IX. wrote subsequently to King Henry (Jaffe, n. 3270, p. 377) : ' Pater tuus Robertus laude et consultu episcoporum regni tui Bertam, matrem Odonis comitis, duxit uxorem; ob quam rem, qnoniam sibi erat carnis affinitate conjuncta, ab antecessore nostro cum episcopis, qui placito interfuerant, excommuuicati, post ad Sedem Apostolicam venientes cum satisfactione, sumpta poenitentia, redierunt ad propria.' 9 Hefele, iv. p. 817 seq. The Popes and Royal Marriages. 341 2. Half a century after Kobert, the French King Philip I. was a cause of great sorrow to the Holy See, on account of his op- pression of the Church, his practice of simony, and his immoral conduct. 1 In a Brief of the year 1073, addressed to the Bishop of Chalons-sur-Saone, 2 Gregory VII. complains of him, saying at the same time that as he hears through the chamberlain Alberich that Philip has promised amendment, he has delayed to proceed against him with canonical severity ; Philip shall now, however, renounce the practice of simony, and without demanding any payment allow the Archdeacon of Autun, elected lawfully and with the royal consent, to be consecrated for the long- vacant see of Macou. If this were not done the Pope would no longer suf- fer the corrupt state of things, but would punish his stubborn obstinacy with the authority of the Prince of the Apostles. ' For either the king will abandon the shameful trade of simony, or the French people, if they do not wish to renounce the Chris- tian faith and be laid under an interdict, will refuse any longer to obey him.' 3 This censure was used as a last resort for the amendment of the king ; its terms, as well as those of the fol- lowing Briefs, show plainly that the temporal effects of ecclesi- astical censure had a recognised authority in France. The king did not dare to disobe}', and he made known to the Pope his fidelity and willingness to comply. 4 Gregory answered him on the 13th April 1074 in a truly sublime Brief. 5 Philip should first make good the injuries done to the Church at Beau- vais, and reconcile himself to God, considering well that his pre- decessors enjoyed much fame as long as they defended the Church, thus receiving for their virtue honour and power, and losing them with the loss of their virtue. But Philip's obedience proved to be one of words merely, not of deeds; whereupon the Pope sent an encyclical letter to all the French bishops, lamenting the ruin of France, the multitude of crimes and the impiety that prevailed, and laying all to the charge of the bad king. 6 He said Philip had disgraced the kingly dignity by sacrilege, adultery, and per- jury, and by plundering foreign merchants like a common high- 34 2 Civil Rulers and the Holy See. wayman ; that it was the duty of the bishops solemnly to warn him, to resist him in his unrighteousness, and to hold a synod for concerting measures against him ; if the king remained deaf to their voice, they were by virtue of the apostolic authority to lay him under a ban, and France under an interdict ; if he still remained obdurate, it should be the care of the Pope with the help of God to free France of him. 7 Gregory called upon Count William of Poitiers and the other nobles to expostulate with the king, threatening that if everything proved unsuccessful he would excommunicate not only the king, but all who still ac- knowledged him their ruler. 8 The Pope wrote also in the same sense to Archbishop Manasses of Eheims. 9 1 Ivo Carnot. Ep. 35, 66. Guibert. de Nogento, de Vita sua, 1. iii. c. ii. Fleury, Hist. Eccl. t. xiii. 1. Ixxxii. n. 6, 16, 20. - Greg. VII. 1. i. Ep. 35, p. 317, ed. Migne. Jaffe, Reg. n. ,3571. Cf. also 1. i. Ep. 36, p. 318, to Archbishop Humbert of Lyons. 3 Nam aut rex ipse, repudiata turpi simoniacae haeresis mercimonia, idoneas ad sacrum regimen personas promoveri permittet, aut Franci pro certo, nisi fidem Christianam abjicere maluerint, generalis anathematis mucrone percussi, illi ulterius obtemperare recusabunt. 4 ' Significasti . . . . te B. Petro devote ac decenter velle obedire et nostra in his, quae ad ecclesiastic am religionem pertinent, monita desider- anter audire atque perficere' (Greg. 1. i. Ep. 75, p. 348. Jafle, n. 3617). 5 Hefele, Cone. v. p. 27 seq. 6 ' Quarum rerum rex vester, qui non rex, sed tyrannus dicendus est, suadente diabolo caput et causa est, qui omnem aetatem suam flagitiis polluit et suscepta regni gubernacula miser et infelix inutiliter gerens sub- jectum sibi populum non solum nimis soluto ad scelera imperio relaxavit, sed ad omnia, quae dici et agi nefas est, operum et studiorum suorum exemplis incitavit' (1. ii. Ep. 5, p. 362 seq. J. n. 3637). 7 Nulli .... dubium esse volumus, quin modis omnibus regnum Franciae de ejus occupatione tentemus eripere. * ' Si in perversitate perduraverit, nos Deo auxiliante et nequitia sua promerente in Rom. Synodo a corpore et communione S. Ecclesiae ipsum et quicunque sibi regalem honorem vel obedientiam exhibuerit, sine dubio sequestrabimus' (1. ii. Ep. 18, p. 376. J. n. 3650). 9 L. ii. Ep. 32, p. 387. J. n. 3666, d.d. 8 Dec. 1074. 3. Whilst many of the French bishops manifested a weak and lukewarm spirit, some even openly took part with the king. Seeing the Pope deprived of the assistance of the bishops, Philip The Popes and Royal Marriages. 343 endeavoured to stay his hand by making many fair promises, and by repairing, at least in part, the injury he had done to the Church. The Roman Synod of Lent, 1075, had threatened him with excommunication, unless he gave assurance of his repent- ance and amendment to the legate sent expressly to France. 1 But since first of all with the bishops the principles of the Church had to be asserted, the legate Hugo of Die, at the Synods he held in 1076 and 1077, occupied himself principally with pun- ishing bishops guilty of simony and other crimes. 2 King Philip was on the one hand writing the fairest promises to the Pope, whilst at the same time he was seeking to prevent .the bishops from appearing at the Synods, because he said that was injurious to the lustre of his crown. It became more and more evident that interference was necessary against criminal prelates, for in- stance, the Archbishops of Tours and Rheims, and that it was necessary also to publish the laws of the Church against simony and lay-investiture. This was done at the Synod of Poitiers in 1078. 3 When in 1080 Gregory VII. definitively removed Archbishop Manasses of Rheims from his see, he entreated the king 4 not to afford him protection, and not to hinder the choice of a successor. He declared to him that he would pardon the sins of his youth if he would from henceforth show himself the friend of justice and mercy, and lead a new life, which did at last seem more likely. Philip had not only not recognised the Antipope Henry IV., but had placed himself in more friendly relations with the Church, and not resisted the measures taken against, those bishops who had allowed themselves to forget their duty. 5 He knew the right time in which to ward off the blow that threatened him. 1 Hefele, v. p. 36 seq. 2 Ib. p. 101 seq. 3 Ib. pp. 104 seq. 142 seq. L. viii. Ep. 20, p. 593. J. n. 3917. s Hefele, I.e. p. 192. 4. But this same King Philip was the cause later of great trouble in another matter. In the year 1092 he divorced his wife Bertha, 344 Civil Riders and the Holy See. to whom he had been married since 1071, and who was the mother of his heir Prince Louis, and he married Bertrada of Montfort, who had left her first husband, Count Fulk of Anjou. The canonist Ivo, who since 1090 had been raised to the bishopric of Chartres, in place of the deposed Gaufried, earnestly remon- strated against this step, both with the king and with Archbishop Rainald of Rheims. He was not deceived by the pretence of the alleged approval of the Pope, and in spite of the king's in- vitation held aloof from the marriage ceremony, which was per- formed in Paris by the Bishop of Senlis. For this he was im- prisoned by- King Philip. 1 In a Brief of 1092, Pope Urban II. censures the Archbishop of Rheims and his suffragan for their compliance with the desires of the sensual king, charged them to speak to him conscientiously, and to threaten him with the spiritual sword, and required, above all, the release of the faith- ful Bishop of Chartres. 2 The last was effected, and in November 1093, Ivo came with the Pope to Rome, and remained with him till January 1094. 3 Through Philip's management a great Synod was held at Rheims, which ratified his marriage, for in the mean time Bertha had died. It was also to pass judgment upon Ivo, being held under the presidency of his metropolitan, Archbishop Richer of Sens, Rainald of Rheims being supposed to be pre- vented by illness. This, however, was not really the case, and Rainald appeared; but the ambitious Richer had been won over to the king's side by promises, and had ratified his marriage with Bertrada. Ivo refused to allow himself to be judged out of his own province, and he appealed to the Pope. 4 The legate, Archbishop Hugo of Lyons, 5 at a Synod held in October 1094, at Autun, excommunicated Philip because he had taken a second wife during the lifetime of the first. The king not being able to go himself, sent an ambassador to the Synod at Piacenza, bearing his excuses and begging for a reprieve, which was granted him till Whitsuntide (from the beginning of March to the 13th May 1095). 6 In November 1095, at the Synod of Clemont, in Philip's own dominions, Urban pronounced against him and Bertrada sentence of excommunication," even, according to some accounts, against all who recognised him as king, or who The Popes and Royal Marriages. 345 held unlawful intercourse with him. 8 This is very probable when all the circumstances are considered : Ivo of Chartres had as early as 1092 represented to the king that by his adulterous connection with Bertrada he was risking his crown and his king- dom ; he had kept back for some time the Pope's encyclical letter, believing that a rising would take place aginst the king. He had already warned the Pope of the craftiness of Philip's ambassador. 9 Urban, on his side, had seen that an energetic condemnation of the king was now a necessity ; and indeed Philip required very strong measures to bring him to submis- sion. 10 1 Pag. a. 1094, n. 5. Bianchi, t. ii. 1. v. 9, n. 2, p. 274 seq. 2 Mansi, xx. 686. Jaffe, n. 4088, p. 456. 3 Jaffe, pp. 458, 459, from Ivo, Ep. 27, Opp. ii. 13. Ivo (Ep. 28, ad Philipp. Keg.) says the Pope had forbidden the bishops from crowning the king's unlawful wife Bertrada. 4 Hefele, p. 192. * Ct. the letter of May 16, 1094 (Jaffe, n. 4134, p. 460). 6 Berthold. Constant, a. 1094, 1095. Hefele, pp. 193, 194. 7 Bernoldi, Chron. h.a. p. 464. Chron. Andegav. a. 1095, ap. Labbe, Nov. Bibl. MSS. 1. Paris, 1657, i. 281. Hefele, p. 197. 8 Guillelm. Malmesbur. de Gest. Angl. 1. iv. c. ii. : ' In eo Concilio ex- communicavit D. Papa regem Philippum Francorum et omnes, qui eum vel regem vel dominum suum vocaverint et ei obedierint et ei locuti fuerint, nisi quod pertineret ad eum corrigendum.' Also the Chronicle of the chorister Guido of Chalons and Alberich of Trois Fontaines apud Gos- selin, ii. p. 142. 9 Ivo, Ep. 15, ad Philipp. Keg.; Ep. 23 (al. 24), ad Widonem Dapifer; Ep. 46, ad Urban P. 10 Gosselin, pp. 144, 145. 5. But even before the Pope left the French dominions the king sought to make his peace with the Church. He vowed with his hand in the hand of the Pope, at .Mimes, 1096, to leave Bertrada, and received the promise of being absolved as soon as he had given proof of the sincerity of his intention. 1 Some bishops who were completely on Philip's side declared that they would not give up communion with Philip, and would even free him from the ban, although he should continue to live with Bertrada. The Pope in answer to this 346 Civil Rulers and the Holy See. wrote to Eicher of Sens and the other French bishops, saying it was not within their power to absolve those excommunicated by the Holy See. 2 In the following year Philip despatched an envoy to Rome, who was to declare on oath that since the meet- ing at Nimes, Philip had held no unlawful intercourse with Bertrada. The Pope, whose suspicions were only too well founded, required that some of the bishops and nobles of the realm should come to Rome and take the same oath. 3 He re- moved the interdict which had been pronounced by the Arch- bishop of Lyons, and allowed Philip again to wear the crown. 4 Whether the French bishops actually came to Rome and took the oath is not known, but it is certain that in 1098 Philip was again living with Bertrada, and had broken the promises he had made in his submissive letters. 5 1 Chron. Malleacens. Bemoldi, Chron. a. 1096, Ep. Urban! II. ap. Jaffe, n. 4323, p. 475 seq. Hefele, pp. 218, 222 seq. 2 Mansi, xx. 665. J. n. 4218, p. 467 seq. 3 Urban. Ep. dat. Lat. viii. Kal. Mail 1097, al. 1098. J. n. 4323, cit. 4 Ib. : ' Ab interdictionis, quae pro hac causa in eum prolata fuerat, vinculo absolvimus et utendi pro more sui regni corona auctoritatem prae- buimus.' 5 Labbe, xii. 758. 6. Cardinals John and Benedict, legates of the new Pope, Pas- chal II., went immediately after the Synod of Valence (30th Sept. 1100) in person to the king to induce him to leave Bertrada. As their mission was ineffectual, they declared at the Synod of Poitiers in November of the same year that Philip and Bertrada would be again excommunicated. The spiritual and lay followers of the king raised a tumult at this ; but the legates and the ma- jority of the bishops were firm. 1 Ivo of Chartres, who had before shown himself so severe, used his influence to induce the Pope to show the utmost moderation possible towards the weak king, and to preserve the kingdom from the danger which the anathema would bring upon it. 2 Philip felt his position to be crit- ical, and associated his son Louis in the government, as he feared a revolt among his powerful vassals, 3 which the prevailing con- viction of his guilt would easily render formidable. He therefore The Popes and Royal Marriages. 347 anew entered into negotiations with Pope Paschal, and obtained the promise of absolution under certain conditions. For this purpose Cardinal Eichard of Albaro was sent to Fiance by the Pope in the spring of 1104. He convened a Synod at Troyes, and later, by the advice of Ivo, another at Beaugency on the Loire, before which Philip and Bertrada appeared m the course of the summer. Both pledged themselves upon the gospels to separate from one another, and never even to speak together, except in the presence of honourable witnesses, until the Pope should dispense them. As Cardinal Eichard was not to act with- out the advice of the French bishops, and as they expressed no opinion, nothing further was done ; whereupon Philip laid a complaint before the Pope of alleged ill-treatment, whilst Ivo, still inclined to clemency, thought that the absolution might have been granted. 4 Paschal II. gave authority to Bishop Lambert of Arras, in case Cardinal Richard had left France, to absolve Philip and Bertrada in presence of the other bishops, if they would perform satisfaction and keep their oath, and he apprised of it the bishops of the dioceses of Eheims, Tours, and Sens. 5 Philip and Bertrada fulfilled the required conditions before the end of the year at the Synod of Paris, and were received again into the Church. 6 They subsequently gave no cause for complaint. Philip died in 1108, after having, together with his son Louis, promised to the Pope to protect the Church against Henry V. 7 Bertrada, converted by Eobert of Arbrissel, ended her days as a penitent in the convent of Fontevraud. 1 Labbe, xii. 1081. Mansi, xx. 1117 seq. Hefele, p. 234 seq. 2 Ivo, Ep. 144 (al. 89) : ' Nostrae suggestionis summa est, ut imbecilli- tati hominis amodo, quantum cum salute ejus potestis, condescendatis et terrain, quae ejus anathemate periclitatur, ab hoc periculo eruatis.' 3 Daniel, Hist, de France, t. iii. pp. 398, 613. Velly, Hist, de France, t. ii. p. 425. Gosselin, p. 146. 4 Hefele, p. 245 seq. 5 Mansi, xx. 1015. J. n. 4462, p. 487. Pag. a. 1014, n. 4-6. : Suger, Vita Ludov. Grossi, p. 289. Jaffe, p. 494. 348 Civil Riders and the Holy See. 7. In this long struggle we see how slow the Popes were in their proceedings against Philip. They appear throughout to be pressed on by the opinion of the best of their contemporaries and by their official duty. On repentance they are always ready to remove the ban, and the idea of a formal deposition does not seem to occur to them. Philip was not in open opposition to the Church ; he did not defy her ; he even submitted himself several times after he had relapsed into his sin. His crime was not directly against religion, nor against the welfare of the Christian community, although it gave very bad example and much scandal ; but as he never positively refused to give satisfaction to the Church, further proceedings were not called for, neither could much result have been hoped from them. 1 As we have seen, the excommunication was not immediately followed by the forfeiture of political and civil rights ; a length of time and certain conditions must have intervened. It was easy for those upon whom the ban was laid, by negotiations and promises of obedience, to obtain a respite ; and as long as an amendment could be hoped for, the smoking flax was not to be quenched. 2 If the fact related by Odoricus Vitalis, who said that whilst Philip was excommunicated he never wore his diadem and held no royal feasts, is not to be taken quite literally, 3 it at least tallies with that related by Ivo, that at some Church festivals the bishops about the court placed, as usual, the crown upon- the king's head, 4 to inspire him with courage and confidence, whilst more zealous prelates, when he was in their dioceses, omitted to do so, in accordance with the prohibition of the Archbishop of Lyons, when Papal legate, to keep up communion with him. 5 1 Bianchi, t. ii. 1. v. 9, n. 1, p. 274 seq. ; n. 6, p. 283 seq. - Gottfried of Vendome, Opusc. iv. (Migne, t. clvii. 220), says: ' Tune quis a Satana circumvenitur, quando sub specie justitiae ilium per mmiam tristitiam perire contingit, qui potuit liberariperindulgentiam. Praeterea bonus et discretus Augustinus in Ep. ad Parmen. dicit, vix aut numquam excommunicandum eum esse, qui in malo opere obstinatam multitudinem habet secum ; nam tolerabilius videtur uni parcere, ne in Ecclesia schisma seminetur multorum.' Cf. ib. pp. 289, 290. The Popes and Royal Marriages. 349 * Odor. Vital. H. E. 1. viii. a. 1092 : ' Tempore Urban! et Paschalis RR. PP. fere quindecim annis interdictus fuit. Quo tompore numquam diadema portavit nee purpuram induit, neque solemnitatem aliquam regio more celebravit.' 4 Ivo, Ep. 66, ad Lugd. ; Ep. 67, ad Urban II. upon the Archbishop of Tours. * Natal. Alex. H. E. saec. 11 et 12, c. x. a. 2, t. xiii. p. 434. In Eng- land, under Archbishop Dunstan, King Edgar was not allowed to wear his crown for seven years for having dishonoured a nun. Cf. Mohler, Ges, Schr. i. p. 80. Still more important were the affairs concerning the marriage of the French King Philip Augustus, who after the death of his first wife Isabella married, on the 14th August 1193, Ingeburge, sister of the Danish King Canute II. ; but after a short time, having taken a dislike to her, demanded a divorce. A Synod held at Compiegne declared the marriage null, because Ingeburge was related in the fourth or fifth degree to the deceased Queen Isabella, and was therefore a connection of the king's. The beautiful and virtuous Ingeburge, who was treated like a prisoner, appealed to the Holy See, where her brother Canute also lodged a complaint. 1 Pope Celestine, on the 13th May 1195, declared that the hasty divorce granted by the Synod of Compiegne was null, 2 and despatched envoys to France, who at the beginning of the year 1 195 held a Synod at Paris, which however produced no result. In defiance of the Pope's warning against contracting a fresh alliance Philip Augustus, in June 1196, married Agnes of Meron. 3 The new Pope, Innocent III., made every effort of kindness to induce the misguided king to mend his ways ; he made him the most moving representations, and required that the Bishop of Paris should do the same (1198). He assured him of his fatherly love and his affection for France. 4 placed before him the evil he had committed in divorcing Ingeburge, and re- minded him that in case of the death of his son Louis, born of his first wife Isabella, he would be in danger of having no heir, since the offspring of his connection with Agnes would be ille- gitimate. 5 In September 1198 the Pope despatched Cardinal Petrus to repeat the former warnings, and in case of obstinacy 35 Civil Riders and the Holy See. to threaten the interdict. 6 In a fresh letter he, in a paternal and tender manner, renewed his representations. 7 He approved the pains the legate had taken to establish a cessation of arms "between France and England, 8 and commissioned the French bishops and abbots 9 to prevail upon the king to put away Agnes and take back his wife ; he told them how hardly it went with him to take measures against the king, but he was determined at all costs to execute his stern duty, more especially as Philip's bad example was inducing other rulers, for instance, the Duke of Bohemia, likewise to violate the sanctity of marriage. In conclusion he desired them to obey the sentence that would be pronounced by his legate. 1 Mansi, xxii. 667, 671. Gesta Innoc. III. n. 48 seq. p. 93 seq. Migne, t. ccxiv. Hurter, Innoc. III. vol. i. p. 168 seq. Hefele, v. p. 668 seq. 2 Jaffe, Reg- n. 10,531-10,533, p. 901. 3 Gesta Innoc. I.e. n. 50, p. 96. Innoc. 1. i. Ep. 171 (Migne, I.e. p. 149). Hefele, I.e. 4 Innoc. III. 1. i. Ep. 171, p. 148 : ' Licet dextera Domini suam fecerit in nostra promotione virtutem, de terra suscitans inopem et de stercore erigens pauperem, et illud nos voluerit dignitatis solium obtinere, ut non solum r.umprincipilms, sed de principibus etiam judicemus, cum tamen con- ditionem humilitatis nostrae conspicimus et de quo ad quid simus vocati, pensamus, praeter generale debitum pastoralis officii, quod singulis nos conetituit debitores, tibi et. regnotuo specialiter nos fatemur teneri, in quo nos recolimus in studiis literarum aetatem transegisse minorem ac divino munere quantaecunque scientiae donum adeptos beneficiorum impeusam multiplicem suscepisee. Ad cumulum autem hujus praecipuae dilectionis accedit progenitorum tuorum grata memoria' &c. 5 Innoc. 1. i. Ep. 4, ad Paris. Ep. pp. 3-5. * Vide letter to the legate, 1. i. Ep. 347, pp. 320, 321: 'Ita quod praeter baptisma parvulorum et poenitentias morientium nullum divinum officium celebretur.' Cf. Ep. 345, 346, p. 319 seq. i L. i. Ep. 348, 355, pp. 321, 329. 8 L. ii. Ep. 23, p. 552 ; Ep. 24, ad Phil. Eeg. p. 533. 8 L. ii. Ep. 197, p. 745 seq. 9- In the mean time Cardinal Petrus had left no stone unturned to induce the king to renounce his connection with Agnes of Meron, but in vain. He therefore convened in 1199 the great Synod of Dijon, in which the subject of the interdict now to be proclaimed was discussed for seven days. The king sent a de- The Popes and Royal Marriages. 351 puty with an appeal to the Pope himself, hoping thereby to postpone the interdict ; but this did not mislead the legate, who having convened a fresh Synod at Vienne on the l^th January 1200, in the Pope's name proclaimed the interdict, of which a communication was made to all the French bishops. 1 Many of these begged permission to postpone the execution of the sen- tence, but the Pope refused their request ; and all then rendered obedience, with the exception of Bishop Hugo of Auxerre. The king was furious against the faithful hierarchy, ill-treated and banished many of the prelates, and testified extreme exasperation. He said he envied Saladin, who had no Pope to deal with. But the calm firmness of the Pope, the courage displayed by the bishops, even by the once time-serving William of Rheims, uncle of the king, and the fear of further measures on the part of the Pope, obliged him to enter into negotiations, and give assurance of his submission. 2 Innocent despatched as cardinal legate Octavius of Ostia, a relation of the king, with powers to remove the in- terdict if Philip Augustus would make good the injuries he had done to many of the prelates, would put away Agnes of Meron, and reinstate Ingeburge as his lawful wife ; if in every way things were restored to what they had been, the Pope would, if the king demanded it, cause the validity of his first marriage to be investigated. He informed the divorced queen of what he had done for her, and bade her continue her prayers ; 3 he called upon her brother in Denmark to send competent witnesses and advocates, that the divorce pronounced by the French bishops might be annulled on the ground of non -observance of justice. 4 The Cardinal of Ostia was received honourably in France. 5 The bishops consulted with him, the king went out to meet him, and declared himself willing to make atonement. 6 He indemnified the priests whom he had injured, promised to see Agnes no more until the question of the divorce from Ingeburge had been de- cided, and in the mean time to treat the latter as queen. On this the interdict was removed, the 7th September 1200. But the king persisted in desiring a divorce from Ingeburge on the ground of kinship, and demanded afresh trial; this the legate appointed to be held at a Synod at Soissons, to take place after 35 2 Civil Rulers and the Holy See. a delay of six months, six weeks, and six days. 7 Innocent re- joiced at the course of events, but desired that his instructions should be executed with even more exactness. Ingeburge had been solemnly acknowledged queen, but had shortly afterwards been once more treated as a prisoner, and was not prayed for by name in the king's chapel. Innocent required that she should be restored to complete freedom, 8 and reminded the king, who complained of too great severity on the part of the legate, 9 that he was bound to render him obedience, that the legate had put upon him no undue constraint, but had only fulfilled the require- ments of justice, and had made use of the fitting remedy. 10 Another matter in which the Pope's instructions had not been accurately followed was that Agnes had not been removed from France, but only from the king's immediate neighbourhood; her approaching confinement was given in justification of this. 11 The Pope removed the interdict from the disobedient Bishop of Auxerre, but rejected his appointment to the archbishopric of Sens. 12 1 Mansi, xxii. 707 seq. Gesta Innoc. n. 51, 52, p. 97 seq. Hefele, p. 705. 2 Hefele, p. 706. 3 Innoc. 1. iii. Ep. 11, pp. 881-883. * Ib. Ep. 12, pp. 883-884. 5 Bishop Odo of Paris and Bishop Nivelo of Soinsons extol him in their letters to the Pope. Innoc. 1. iii. Ep. 13, 14, pp. 884-887. 6 Eeport of the legate to the Pope, 1. iii. Ep. 15, p. 887 seq. 7 Mansi, I.e. p. 721. Hefele, pp. 706, 707. 8 L. iii. Ep. 16, pp. 891-895. 9 Ih. Ep. 17, pp. 895, 896. 10 Ib. Ep. 18, pp. 896-898. 11 Hefele, p. 707. " L. iii. Ep. 20, pp. 898-899. 10. At the Synod of Soissons, opened on the 2d March 1201, were present the king, followed by many lawyers, and Inge- burge, supported by the delegates of her brother. The Danish envoys mistrusted the legate and appealed to the Pope himself; and in spite of all entreaties to await the arrival of Cardinal John of Paul, commissioned especially by the Pope for the The Popes and Royal Marriages. 353 Synod, they set forth at -once upon their journey. Three days later the cardinal arrived, and for the space of two weeks the marriage of Philip Augustus and Ingeburge was treated of. The king anticipated the judgment of the cardinal, saying that he recognised Ingeburge as his wife, and would part from her no more. He took her from the convent where she was stay- ing, and with her hastened from Soissons. The Synod was thereupon dissolved, as the crafty king desired. Ingeburge was again kept as a prisoner and not treated like the king's wife, although in the same year Agnes, her rival, died. The two children Agnes had borne to the king were declared legi- timate by the Pope, because the king had married her in good faith after the decision of the bishops at Compiegne. 1 The Pope was much blamed for too great indulgence towards the king, who, on the other hand, complained of his severity. Innocent strove to convince him how little ground he had for such a complaint by referring him to former examples, assuring him that he could not, by deviating from the right path, offend a Heavenly King for the sake of an earthly one. 2 1 Hefele, pp. 707, 708. 2 Iiinoc. III. 1. v. Ep. 50, pp. 1015-1018. 11. The oppressed queen, in 1203, had recourse once more to the Pope, as ' Vicar of Christ and successor of St. Peter as the colleague of St. Paul, who had not feared to slay the inces- tuous Corinthian with the sword of the Spirit as the zealous imitator of Phinees as the mountain to which all must lift their eyes, the protector of the oppressed, the refuge of the un- fortunate.' She laid her wrongs before him, and besought him to obtain for her release and justice. 1 Innocent III. sent re- peated and most pressing letters to the king concerning the queen's hard lot, endeavouring also to influence him through his envoys. 2 In 1205 he wrote to console the queen, 3 but did not conceal from her that up to that time his efforts to move her husband had been fruitless ; the latter not only persisted in demanding a divorce on account of relationship, but also be- VOL. i. AA 354 Civil Riders and the Holy See. cause he said he was prevented by witchcraft (maleficium) from approaching her. In 1207, Innocent endeavoured anew to in- duce Philip to take her back, or at any rate to cause her to re- ceive better treatment ; 4 and soon after the king informed him that he would endeavour to live with her in wedlock, but that if he did not succeed this endeavour was not to prejudice his suit for divorce. The Pope agreed, 5 and in 1208 deputed Cardinal Gualdi for further negotiations. 6 Philip Augustus laid before the cardinal a third reason for divorce that his marriage with Ingeburge had never been consummated, and that she wished to become a nun (for a declaration to this effect had been forced from the imprisoned queen), and that therefore his marriage- bonds might be loosed. He begged that the Pope 7 would with- out any further appeal empower his legate to dissolve the mar- riage, whether it were on account of the alleged witchcraft, or on account of Ingeburge's desire for a religious profession, or for any other canonical reason ; he was ready to swear that the marriage had never been consummated. Innocent replied in two letters : in the shorter of the two he recommended him to desist from his plan of getting a divorce, and to take back Inge- burge ; in the other and longer letter he pointed out to him that his case, as now represented, did not correspond with for- mer statements. He laid stress upon Ing^burge's assertion that she had lived with him as his wife, and that Philip Augustus had admitted having at least endeavoured to behave to her as such. Her resolution to enter the cloister was not freely made, but was the result of an imprisonment that had lasted eight years, and was accepted by her as affording a prospect of more happi- ness ; for the rest, he authorised the legate to institute further judicial inquiries. 8 In the mean time the only change was that Ingeburge was treated in a more becoming fashion. The state- ment that the marriage had never been consummated was a matter of grave doubt. Finally, Ingeburge was induced to re- move the doubt by a declaration made before two creditable witnesses. Then the king had again recourse to the Holy See.9 But the Pope, having consoled Ingeburge, anew declared in 1212 that, after mature deliberation upon the subject, he The Popes and Royal Marriages. 3 55 could not dissolve the king's marriage, and entreated Philip Augustus not to weary him with fresh solicitations concerning it. 10 In the following year the king effected a honest recon- ciliation with Ingeburge, and continued to live with her in har- mony. In his will he openly testified to the esteem in which he held her. Thus the firmness of the Pope obtained at length the victory. 11 1 L. vi. Ep. 85. Migne, ccxv. pp. 86-88. 2 L. vi. Ep. 86, 182, pp. 88 seq. 198 seq. Hefele, p. 768. 3 L. viii. Ep. 113, p. 680. 4 L. x. Ep. 42, pp. 1135, 1136. 5 L. x. Ep. 176, p. 1266. 6 L. xi. Ep. 86, p. 1403. 7 L. xi. Ep. 180, p. 1493. 8 L. xi. Ep. 181-183, pp. 1494-1499. 9 Hefele, p. 770. 10 L. xv. Ep. 106, 107, pp. 617, 618. 11 Hurter, Innoc. III. vol. ii. p. 477 seq. Hefele, I.e. 12. In the same pontificate there were several other cases of important suits concerning the marriages of princes. When the King of Leon incestuously married the daughter of the King of Portugal, Pope Celestine III. excommunicated the latter as well as the married pair, and laid their dominions under an interdict. This connection was in consequence abandoned. But then the king married his own niece, the daughter of the King of Cas- tile. Innocent III. despatched the legate Rainer to Spain, 1 who repeatedly but ineffectually admonished the king to dis- solve the union. He appointed time and place, awaited him beyond the designated period, and then, as all was of no avail, finally laid upon him the ban, and the interdict upon the coun- try. He took no measures against the King of Castile, who did not resist the Papal ordinances, and was willing, on the contrary, to receive his daughter back again. Then the Arch- bishop of Toledo and the Bishop of Valencia appeared at the chair of the Apostles on the part of the King of Castile, and the Bishop of Zamola on the part of the King of Leon, to re- quest a dispensation for the King of Leon and the Princess of 356 Civil Rulers and the Holy See. Castile. 2 As their request, according to the strict practice of that day, was not granted them, they besought that the inter- dict might be removed, since it exposed the kingdom to a three- fold danger from heretics, from Saracens, and also from Chris- tians. 3 The Pope, whilst fully estimating the evils represented to him, thought it not fitting to reverse a canonical sentence until due satisfaction was made. 4 He was unwilling to make so great a deviation from the letter of the law ; he did not wish to appear to act with partiality, and suffer a bad ex- ample to be given to other countries. He allowed a partial mitigation, because where many participate in the punishment its severity may be relaxed, so as by clemency to avert greater evils, 5 and he partially limited the interdict in order to prove spirits, and to see whether the consequence he anticipated would arise. 6 Divine worship was once more permitted, 7 and later Innocent III. gave permission for sermons to be preached. 8 (In general, from his time forward the interdict was much mitigated.) Still, however, no Mass could be solemnised in the presence of the excommunicated pair or of their counsellors. In the mean time it appeared that the King of Castile had made only a feigned submission. The kingdom of Leon had been forced to do allegiance to the son of this incestuous marriage, and the king of that country was loth to renounce the towns he had received in dowry with his wife. 9 But in 1204 the Princess of Castile submitted herself to the Church, left the King of Leon, and applied for absolution ; soon after her example was fol- lowed by the king, and the only matter then remaining for settlement was the restitution of the places received in dowry. The bishops were empowered to confer the absolution ; and thus in this case as well as in the last the interdict fulfilled its purpose 10 1 Innoc. III. 1. i. Ep. 92, 93, 125. - Innoc. III. 1. ii. Ep. 75, p. 610 seq., to the Archbishop of Compostella, where the event is narrated in detail. 3 L.c. p. 626 : ' Asse'entes, quod ex eo triplex toti regno periculum ab haereticis, Saracenis et Christianis etiam imminebat. 1. Ab haereticis : quia cum per interdictum ipsum clausa essent in partibus illis ora pastorum, non poterant fideles per eos contra haereticos instmi et ad resistendum eis The Popes and Royal Marriages. 357 aliquatenus informari, unde cum ex hoc turn quia rex Leg. ab Ecclesia se asserens aggravatum eis minime resistebat, iuvalescebant contra fideles baeretici et in regno ipsi baereses variae pullulabant. 2. A Saracenis : quoniam cum per exhortationes et remissiones Ecclesiae Hispaniarum populus consuevisset ad expugnationem paganorum induci, cessante prae- dicatorum officio, populi etiam devotio tepescebat, quia cum se cum prin- cipe BUO, quoad interdictum, eidem videret poenae subjectum, a culpa, cui vel tacendo consenserat, forte non se credebat immunem, propter quod minus circa debellationem Saracenorum fervebat, ne decederet in peccato. 3. A Catholicis : quia cum clerici laicis spiritualia ministrare non possent, laici clericis temporalia subtrabebant, oblationes, primitias et decimas detinentes ; unde cum clerici pro majore parte in pai'tibus illis consueverint sustentari, eis subtractis non solum mendicare, sed fodere et servire Judaeis in Ecclesiae et totius cbristianitatis opprobrium cogebantur.' 4 The Pcpe proves it thus : ' Ex animo quidem, quia sicut Deus per- hibet testimonium conscientiae nostrae, ad hoc nonnisi justitiae et hones- tatis obtentu processimus, cum ex contrario potius contra nos oriii prae- sumptio potuisset, si tarn detestabile facinus duxissemus in patientia tolerandum. Ex ordine, quia dictus frater R. post commonitiones et dila- tiones legitimas tandem districtione percussit ecclesiastica contumacem. Ex causa: exemplo divino et humano. Divi no, quia cum David in populi numeratione peccasset, Dominus in populum vasa sui furoris effudit, unde idem David dixisse legitur peccatum suum Domino confitendo : Ego sum qui peccavi .... isti, qui oves sunt, quid fecerunt ! Auferatur, obsecro, fades tua, Domine a populo tuo (2 Reg. xxiv. 17) ; humano : cum janidiu praedecessor noster in praedictos Portugalliae et Legionis reges et regna ipsorum praedictas sententias curaverit promulgare.' * Quia ubi multitude est in causa, detrahendum est aliquid severitati, ut majoribus malis sanandis charitas sincera subveniat. Relaxavimus ergo, non in totuin, sed in una parte soluminodo inter- dictum, nee perpetuo, sed ad tempus, quamdiu sc. nobis placuerit et vide- rimus expedire. 7 Ut in regno ipso divina celebrentur officia. Only religious burial (that is, the customary funeral rites) was not allowed. Well might this appear ' absonum,' the Pope says. But the Cone. Later, iii. c. 20, or- dains that those who are killed in tournaments should be denied Chris- tian burial, even if by repentance they have made their peace with the Church ; and in this manner the mourning of the Church found special expression. ' C. 43, Response, v. 39, de Sent. Excom. 9 L. vi. Ep. 80, ad Reg. Castil. p. 82. L. vii. Ep. 93, 94, pp. 373-376. 35 8 Civil Rzders and the Holy See. PART II. THE PRINCES RECOGNISED ECCLESIASTICAL JURISDICTION. 1. The right of censure over them gradually reserved for the Pope. 2. Recognition of Papal authority. 3. Titles of honour and inter- cession with the Popes. 4-7. Letters of princes. 8. The Pope as protector of kingdoms. 9. Papal ratifications of treaties, laws, donations, &c. 10. Louis IX. of France. 11. Resistance of in- dividual princes. 12. Their superiority to all laws. 13. Ignorance of princes was not fostered by the Church. 1- The princes recognised that they were subject to the juris- diction of the Church. Charles the Bald, at the meeting at Savonnieres in 859, declared in the statement of grievances against Archbishop Wenilo of Sens, that as a crowned king he could be deprived of his kingdom by no one, at least not before the bishops had been heard on the question and had passed sen- tence ; for by them he had been crowned, and to their paternal correction and chastisements he was willing to submit. 1 In the reign of his father Louis the Pious the conviction prevailed that the king could only be deposed by the sentence of the bishops, 2 and in the dissensions of his sons the authority of the Church was the strongest weapon each could use against his rival. The bishops who had called the war of Louis and Charles against their brother the Emperor Lothair I. a righteous war declared at a Synod at Aix-la-Chapelle in 842, that Lothair had forfeited the kingdom by his sins, and that God had given it to his bro- thers. These were, however, called upon, before undertaking the actual government of his States, to swear that their govern- ment should not be arbitrary, but regulated by the will of God. 3 This view of the power of the bishops was important in so many ways, that later French historians hit on the notion that the sub- jection of kings to ecclesiastical authority was an error intro- duced into France by the policy of Pipin and his successors, with the view of enhancing their authority in the eyes of the people by giving it a sacred character. 4 When, after the death of Lothair II. in 869, the claim of his brother the Emperor Louis II. to his possessions was disregarded by Louis the German and Recognition of Papal Supremacy. 359 Charles the Bald, Louis II. appealed to the intervention of Pope Hadrian II., who gave a decision in his favour, which, however, was not acted upon. 5 This principle continued in full force. The terms in which Fulco of liheims, in 898, endeavoured to withdraw Charles the Simple from the proposed alliance with the Normans 6 presup- posed an ecclesiastical authority not merely to excommunicate the king, but to withdraw from him the allegiance of his sub- jects. 7 Rulers, however, sought more and more to withdraw their dominions from the penal jurisdiction of the bishops, who had several times inflicted censures which were unjust, and which the Pope had reversed. 8 And thus it came about that the right to excommunicate kings and princes was reserved to the Pope. 9 1 Libell. Proclamations. Hard. Cone. v. 488. Hefele, iv. p. 197. 2 Hefele, iv. pp. 78, 79. 3 Nithard, de Dissensionibus Filiorum Ludovici Pii, 1. iii. iv. Pertz, M. G. ii. 6, 62, 668. Cf. Fleury, Hist. Eccles. t. x. 1. xlviii. n. 11 ; 1. xlix. n. 46 ; Hefele, I.e. pp. 98, 99. 4 Moreau, Discours sur 1'Histoire de France, t. ii. pp. 22, 30. Daniel, Hist, de France, t. ii. pp. 335, 388, 393. Garnier, Hist, de France, t. xxi. p. 189. Fleury, I.e. 1. xlix. n. 46 ; t. xiii. disc. 3, n. 10. 5 Baron, a. 869, n. 93 seq. Flodoard, Hist. Rhems. 1. iv. c. v. Contra Bossuet. Defens. P. i. 1. ii. p. 285 seq. Vide Bianchi, t. ii. 1. iv. 9, n. 5, p. 122 seq. 8 E.g. Innocent III. (1. xii. Ep. 37, p. 46), that of the Bishop of Sois- sons. 9 Kober, der Kirchenbann, pp. 122, 123. Schmalzgrueber, in 1. v. De- cret. tit. 39, 1, n. 40, who cites for this Avila, Palao, Reiffenstuel, Wiest- ner, La Croix. At first the Popes granted to individual princes particular privileges, that they and their lands should not be visited by ban or in- terdict ' absque r.itionabili et manifests causa,' or that it should be only after previous admonition, and that when they had appealed to Rome any sentence delivered against them should be null ; e.g. Innocent III. to the Landgrave of Thuringia (1. vi. Ep. 42, p. 46), and to the Emperor Henry of Constantinople (1. xi. Ep. 120, pp. 1216, 1217). The Popes then granted to individual princes the privilege of not being visited with censure by the bishop or Papal legate, which was in practice and in the teaching of canonists extended to all reigning princes. A privilege of the latter kind was conferred by Urban II. upon King Peter I. of Aragon, 1095 ; it was confirmed by Innocent III. in 1213 (1. xvi. Ep. 87, p. 888). This Pope in 1214 forbad that King John of England, who had become his vassal, should be censured ' sine speciali mandate Sedes apostolicae' (Supplem. Ep. 185, Migne, ccxvii. p. 226). 3 6o Civil Rulers and the Holy See. 2- The words of Constantino the Great, related by Rufinus, were often repeated ; he had said he did not wish to pass judgment on bishops, because they had authority to judge him. 1 Familiar also was the readiness with which the Emperor Theodosius had sub- mitted to the judgment of St. Ambrose. 2 Henry IV. of Germany acknowledged that he might be deposed by the Church for heresy or apostasy. 3 Even Frederick Barbarossa admitted the right of the bishops to judge him, 4 although at Pavia in 1160, appealing to the example of Constantine, Theodosius, and Justinian, he claimed the right of convening a General Council. The French King Louis VI., in 1119, laid his complaints and grievances against Henry I. of England, before Pope Callixtus II. at the Council of Eheims. 5 Henry's nephew Stephen ofBlois begged Innocent III. to ratify his ascent of the throne ; later he was forced to undergo many humiliations from the bishops on account of unjust actions committed by him against the Church. 6 Queen Maria of Aragon laid a complaint before Pope Innocent III. 7 against the Count Montpellier, for having retained some castles and places belonging to her dowry. The count, on the other hand, complained that she had taken possession of his domi- nions. 8 The Counts of Flanders repeatedly sought protection in Rome against the superior strength of the French king ; on December 29, 1299, the Flemish envoys called the Pope uni- versal judge in things spiritual and temporal, by reason of his position as Vicar of Christ, and of his authority over the emperor, the foremost among civil princes.9 The famous Abbot Wibald, for many years adviser of the Kings of Germany, who restrained Henry son of Conrad III. from hasty measures against Papal decrees, 10 wrote thus in 1148 to Pope Eugenius III. : 'With. you is the manna, with you is the rod (of Aaron), with you is canonical dispensation, with you is the interpretation of laws, with you is the moderation of rules, with you is wine and oil ; it is your privilege to spare the submissive and to resist the proud.' 11 1 Kufin. H. E. i. 2 : ' Deus vos constituit sacerdotes et potestatem. dedit de nobis quoque judicandi, et ideo nos a vobis recte judicamur, vos Recognition of Papal Supremacy. 361 autem non potestis ab hominibus judicari. . . Vos etenim a Deo nobis dati estis Du et conveniens non est ut homo judicet Deos, sed ille solus, de quo scriptum est: Deus stetit in synagoga Deorum, in medio autem Deos dijudicat.' Cf. Soz. H. E. v. 17; Gelas. Cyzicen, Hist. Cono. Nic. 1. ii. c. viii. (Migne, PP. gr. Ixxxv. p. 1244). In the epistle from Constantiue to the bishops concerning the Donatists, in the Append, ad Optat. Milevit. ed. Paris, Labbe, Cone. i. p. 1455, ed. Ven., it is said: ' Dico enim, ut se veritas habet, sacerdotum judicium ita debet haberi, ac si ipse Dominus residens judicet.' - Job. Saresbur. Polycrat. 1. iv. c. vi. p. 524. 3 Mansi, xx. p. 472 seq. : ' Nee pro aliquo crimine nisi ab fide, quod absit, exorbitaverim, deponendum.' Cf. Baron, a. 1076, n. 20 ; Fleury, Hist. Eccl. t. xiii. 1. Ixiii. n. 52 ; Launojus, de Simonia, Observ. 3, 4, 5, 11, Opp. t. ii. P. ii. 4 Radevic. 1. ii. c. Ixviii. : ' Deus constituit vos sacerdotes et potestatern vobis dedit de nobis quoque judicandi.' 5 Hefele, Cone. v. p. 315. 6 Ib. I.e. pp. 386, 394 seq. 435 seq. 7 Innoc. III. 1. xvi. Ep. 23, pp. 814, 815. 8 Ib. 1. xv. Ep. 104, p. 615. 9 Kervyn de Lettenhove, Histoire de Flandre, 1847, t. ii. pp. 421, 604 seq. 10 Wibald, Ep. 73 (Migne, clxxxix. p. 1173), to Henry : ' Timemus nam- que, ne in Romanam Ecclesiam aliquorum suggestione impingatis, quod vobis esse posset lapis offensionis et petra scandal!.' Ep. 79, p. 1178, to his sister : ' Juniorem dominum regem nostrum quaedam non exiles per- sonae ad haec dedita opera impellebant, ut in quibusdam dominum Paparn offenderet et canonicis decretis contrairet, quod ne fieret, Dei largissima bonitate et nostro studio praeventum est et in meliorem statum omnia commutata.' 11 Novit dextei'a vestra 'parcere subjectisetdebellaresuperbos' (Virgil r Aen. vi. 853). Wibald, Ep. 114, p. 1209. 3. Usurpers often sought to make their position more secure by means of the Pope's authority ; the usurper Suerus did this in Norway by appealing to a counterfeit Bull of Celestine III. In- nocent III. reproved him sharply; but after his death acknow- ledged his son, who was a much better man. 1 Rightful princes frequently besought the Popes for special titles of honour; 2 even Henry VIII. applied for one, and received the title of ' Defender of the Faith ;' 3 and later still the King of Portugal received that of ' Most faithful King.' 4 At an earlier period, Charles the Bald, and after him his son Louis, received from John VIII. the 362 Civil Riders and the Holy See. title and dignity of ' privy councillor,' 5 conferred also at that time upon bishops. Kings and princes often besought pious and in- fluential members of the regular clergy to be their mediators with the Holy See, as, for example, King Alphonso of Spain 6 besought the Abbot of Clugni, Peter the Venerable. In 1142, St. Ber- nard complained to Louis VII. that he had busied himself about the king's affairs with the Holy See until he had almost done violence to his conscience and incurred the just anger of the Pope, and that now the king's continual excesses led him to repent of what he had done. 7 1 Innoc. III. 1. i. Ep. 382-384, p. 362 seq. Supplem. Ep. 11 (Migne, ccxvii. p. 36). Cf. 1. vi. Ep. 214, p. 241 seq. ; Gesta Innoc. n. 59, p. cviii. seq. 2 The most ancient of these titles is undoubtedly that of the kings of France, ' Rex Christianissimus.' 3 Pallavic. Hist. Cone. Trid. 1. ii. c. i. n. 8. Rymer, Foed. xiii. 756. Cf. xiv. 13, Cone. M. Brit. iii. 693, 702 ; Gieseler, Kirchengeschichte, iii. ii. p. 3. No. 4. 4 Bened. XIV. Const. Maxima, 23 Dec. 1748. 5 John VIII. Ep. 87, ad Ludov. Balbum : ' Te quoque, carissime fili ad vicem genitoris vestri D. Carol! perpetui Imperatoris Augusti, a secretis constituo ineum consiliarium.' Cf. Thomassin, p. i. 1. ii. c. ci. n. 15. ' Petrus Vener. 1. iv. Ep. 9, pp. 313, 314, ad Innocent II. : ' Imperator Hispauus, magnus Christiani populi princeps, . . . licet apud pietatem vestram multum possit et posse debeat, tamen quia inter modernos reges praecipuus amicus et benefactor Cluniacensis ecclesiae est, me ad praesens mediatorem et apud vos intercessorem elegit. ' The same abbot also inter- ceded for King Louis of France and for the town of Pisa (ib. Ep. 3, p. 304; Ep. 44, p. 462). 7 Bern. Ep. 221, c. iii. p. 387, ed. Migne. Cf. Ep. 224, c. i. p. 392, ad Steph. Ep. Praenest. The letters sent to the Pope from even the most powerful princes testify the esteem in which they held the dignity and power of the Holy See. Ferdinand, King of Spain, when he declared in favour of Alexander III. against the Antipope set up by Barbarossa, informed the Pope of his adherence in these words : ' I have recognised your dominion with my whole king- dom.' 1 It was the custom in letters of congratulation sent to a new Pope on his accession to lay all the most important affairs of Christendom on his heart. 2 Otho of Brunswick, 3 elected Recognition of Papal Supremacy. 363 King of Germany, expresses a special loyalty in his letters, as was the case also in those of the princes and nobles who interceded for him with Pope Innocent III. 4 They extolled the jus- tice and wisdom of the Holy See, which Otho's rival, Philip, 5 also did in 1207, when he petitioned for the promotion of the Danish Bishop Waldemar 6 to the see of Bremen. Whether the decrees published by the General Councils of the Lateran and of Lyons had or had not the influence which some authors have ascribed to them, 7 the recognition they met with shows the conviction entertained by the most powerful princes of the day of the predominant authority of the Church. 1 ' Vestrum cum toto regno meo suscepi dominium' (Migne, PP. Lat. t. cc. p. 1370, n. x.). - Vide the formula of Petr. Bles. Ep. 118 (Migne, ccvii. pp. 463, 464). 3 Innoc. III. Reg. iii. p. 999 ; Ep. 19, p. 1016, in which he venerates che Pope as father and lord ; Ep. 20, p. 1016 seq. ; Ep. 53, 54, 81, 106, p. 1054 seq. 1087 seq. 1108 ; Ep. 77, 187, 189, 190, p. 1084 seq. 1167 seq. 4 King Richard of England engages for him : ' Quod vobis tamquam uuico domino suo et Ecclesiae Rom. debitam et juratam fidelitatem im- pendet' (Reg. Ep. 4, p. 1000 seq. Cf. Ep. 5-10, p. 1001 seq.). 5 Innoc. III. 1. x. Ep. 215, p. 1323 : ' Cum plene cuilibet constare pos- sit, quod ab illo fonte, in quo totius spiritualis juris et ecclesiastici pleni- tudo consistit, nihil aliud procedere possit vel abinde derivari, nisi quod sanctum sit et quod contineat aequitatem, semper hoc inde eperandum est, per quod unicuique consulatur, conservata tamen huic fonti totius suae auctoritatis integritate.' ' This Bishop Waldemar had been imprisoned on account of a con- spiracy in Denmark, was at length, upon the Pope's remonstrance, sent to Rome, but on departing thence without leave was excommunicated and deprived of his see. Innoc. III. 1. vi. Ep. 181, p. 194 seq. ; 1. viii. Ep. 192, 193, p. 768 seq. (respectful letter of the King of Denmark to the Pope and the Pope's answer) ; 1. x. Ep. 4l, p. 1134 ; 1. xi. Ep. 10, p. 1346 ; 1. xii. Ep. 63, p. 69 seq. 7 Cf. supra, Essay vi. 15, 16 seq. 5. When Henry II. was persecuting St. Thomas of Canterbury, there Avas much anger at the court of France, because of the ap- parent delay of Pope Alexander III. in coming to the assistance of the archbishop, and using his authority against the king. The nobles and clergy sent letters of remonstrance to the Holy See, 1 3 64 Civil Rulers and the Holy See. and King Louis VII. 2 and his queen 3 also wrote to the Pope on the subject. After the murder of the archbishop, Louis required that severe measures should be taken against Henry. 4 And later he demanded of the Pope a reform of existing abuses, according to the authority confided to him, by virtue of which he was set as a light for the nations, above all men, high and low, that everywhere he might punish evildoers. ' For your Holiness, to whom so great a power of action is given, can carry out your pious intentions. For who believeth not your testimony ] Who hearkeneth not to your word? Who submitteth not to your command ? If any venture to resist you, let only the high praises of God and words of power be in your mouth, to execute ven- geance upon the heathen and punishments upon the people ; to bind their kings with chains, and their nobles with fetters of iron (Psalm cxlix. 7, 8).' 5 Louis VII. agreed with John of Salisbury 5 in believing that the Pope was entitled and empowered to chastise all crimes in princes, and to free the Church of them, if their yoke oppressed her; he was firmly convinced that his kingly office obliged him to use the sword confided to him by God, for the defence of the Church and the overthrow of her oppressors. 7 1 John of Salisbury, who was at that time living in France, Ep. 198, ad Alex. III. (Migne, cxcix. p. 218) : ' Utinain essent aures vestrae ad ora regis et optimatum Franciae ! Utinam audiretis, quomodo vobis insultant hostes Ecclesiae et fere universi detrahunt vobis !' William of Chartres wrote to the Pope (Migne, cc. p. 1409, n. 50) : ' Exspectat christianissi- mus rex Francorum, exspectant Ecclesiae et optimates regni, quam opem adversus tyrannum saevientem feretis Archiepiscopoprojustitiaexulauti.' Philip, Count of Flanders, wrote (ib. p. 1393, n. 36) : ' Exsurgatis in ira vestra et inimicos Ecclesiae debellate, et sic erit Deus vobiscum.' 2 Migne, t. cc. p. 1376, n. 17. The king, moreover, says : ' Non est nostrum, vos, qui dominus estis, reprehendere. ' 3 Ib. p. 1380, n. 22. Here it is said: 'Vobis sicut patri loquar et domino, cujus honorein dominus meus rex et ego et totum regnum nostrum desideramus ut proprium.' The letter does not merely complain that the Pope lends insufficient protection to the archbishop, but also that the King of England receives ' auctoritatem impune peccandi et archiepiscopum perpetuo proscribendi.' 4 Ib. p. 1378, n. 20 : ' Excitetur exquisitae genus justitiae, denudetur gladius Petri in ultionem Cantuarensis martyris, quia sanguis ejus pro universal! clamat Ecclesia, non tarn sibi quam universae Ecclesiae con- querens de vindicta.' Recognition of Papal Supremacy. 365 s Ib. pp. 1378, 1379, n. 21 : ' Profecto supernus ille mortalitatis nostrae moderator et arbiter ideo vos in diem hanc sic, ut confidimus, reservavit, nt accepto temporejustitiasjudicetis et ponatis prava indirecta et aspera in vias planets (Luc. iii. 5). ... Date simul et vos voci vestrae voceia vir- tutis, ut audiant et intelligant universi, quod posuerit vos Dominus in Incem gentium, ut sitis salus ejus usque ad fines terrae (Isai. xlix. 6). Praesto est enim piae intentioni vestrae operandi facultas, cui tanta con- ceditur sanctae operationis auctoritas. . . . Quis enim non credit auditui vestro ? Qnis non obedit verbo ? Quis non obtemperat jussioni ? Quod etsi reluctari quispiam pro sua malignitate praesumpserit, sonent exsulta- tiones (al. exaltationes) Dei infaucibus vestris ad faciendum vindictam in nationibus, increpationes in populis, ad alligandos reges eorum in compe- dibus et nobiles eorum in manicis ferrets.' 1 St. Bernard also applies this passage to the Pope. Job. Saresb Ep. 201, p. 224, ad Albert. Card. : ' Si Ecclesia Romana volnerit et de Domino non diffidat, eum (Henricnm), facile perdomabit.' Ep. 219, p. 244, ad Alex. III. : ' Si ilia (Rom. Eccl.) post Deum decre- verit salvare nos, continuo liberabimur. Si manus erexeritis, sternetur Amalech, et qui vos Pharaoni dedit in Deum, dijiciet omnes adversaries Ecclesiae a facie vestra.' 7 Ludovic. VII. Ep. a. 1171, ap. Baluz. Addit. ad 1. ii. de Concordia Petri de Marca, c. xii. post 8 : ' Digna vox est majestate regnantis, Dei servum et Ecclesiae defensorem et principem profiteri. Adeo de divinae promissionis et clementiae culmine nostra pendet auctoritas, ut ad ho- norem, laudem et gloriam ipsius et opera nostra et ipsorum intentionem operum referamus. Inde est, quod commissum a Deo nobis gladium et in defensionem ecclesiarum et in oppressionem debemus ac volumus exer- cere tyrannorum.' 6. After the murder of the archbishop, Henry II. sent envoys to the Pope, deputed to convey his horror at the crime, and his repentance for the hasty expressions which had given occasion to it. In September 1172, he was reconciled to the Church on his undertaking to fulfil the required conditions. 1 Before the crime of the 29th December 1170 he had shown himself very submissive to the Pope, 2 and he manifested the same submission in a still higher degree when, in 1173, he besought the assistance of the Pope against his unruly sons ; he acknowledged himself to be a vassal of the Pope, and promised obedience to all his commands. 3 His sons also applied to the Pope with offers of all possible concessions; but the Pope's desire was not to side with one party or the other, but to reconcile them. 4 The court of England recognised even more strikingly the extent of the power 366 Civil Riders and the Holy See. of the Holy See, when Richard Coeur de Lion was taken prisoner by Leopold, Duke of Austria, at the command of the Emperor Henry VI. in 1192, and kept in confinement till 1194. Queen Eleanor, his mother, sought to obtain from Pope Celestine III. his release from this unjust imprisonment. She implored the Pope, in letters composed by the learned Peter of Blois, 5 to aid her by excommunicating those guilty of the act, and by exert- ing all his authority on her behalf. She spared not even re- proaches to move him, saying : ' What excuses can cover your negligence and apathy ? for all the world knows you have the power to aid my son ; the will only is wanting. Has God not entrusted the guidance of every empire and every power to the Apostle Peter, and in him to you ? No king, no emperor, no duke is free from the yoke of your jurisdiction. Where is now the zeal of Phinees ? Let it be seen that the two-edged swords have not been put in vain into your hands, and those of the other bishops.' 6 'But you will say,' she continues, 'that this- authority is given you over souls, not over bodies. Let it be so ; it is sufficient for us that you should bind the souls of those who keep my son chained in a dungeon. It is easy for you to loose his chains if the fear of God shall drive away the fear of men. Restore to me my son, O man of God, if indeed you be a man of God, and not a man of blood.' 7 1 Cf. Hefele, Cone. v. pp. 603, 611 seq. - Migne, CC. pp. 1383, 1384, n. 26 : ' Salutem et debitam in Christo subjectionem. . . . Vos in patrem et dominum .... in vestris legatis re- cepi solemnitate debita et veneratione.' With even greater humility to- wards St. Thomas, n. 27, pp. 1384, 1385. He calls himself, n. 30, p. 1338, ' juri semper stare paratissimum.' 3 Ib. pp. 1389, 1390, n. 32 : ' Quoniam ergo vos extulit Deus in eminentiam officii pastoralis ad dandam scientiam salutis plebi ejus (Luc. i. 77), licet absens corpore, praesens tamen animo, me vestris advolvo genibus, consilium salutai-e deposcens. Vestrae jurisdictionis est regnum Angliae et quantum ad feudatarii juris obligationem vobis dumtaxat ob- noxius teneor. Experiatur Anglia, quid possit Rom. Pontifex et quia materialibus armis non utitur, patrimonium B. Petri spirituali gladio tueatur. ... In fide illius, per quern reges regnant, vestrae magnitudini promiito me et disposition! vestrae in omnibus pariturum. ' Henry's oath, ap. Rymer, Foed. i. 27 ; Muratori, Rer. It. Scr. iii. 463 : ' Juramus, quod a Domino P. Alexandra et successoribus ejus catholicis recipiemus et tene- bimus regnum Angliae.' Recognition of Papal Supremacy. . 367 4 Hefele, v. p. 613. s Petri Blesens, Ep. 144, 145, 146, Opp. p. 227 seq. Rymer, Foedera r i. pp. 72, 78. Cf. Fleury, op. cit. t. xv. 1. Ixxiv. n. 41 ; Michaud, Hist, des Croisades, P. ii. p. 862. 6 Petri files. Ep. 145 ; p. 228. 7 Ib. Ep. 146, p. 230. St. Bernard once wrote thus to Inrocent II. r Ep. 198, p. 366 : ' A vobis id omnimodis flagitamus, quod aliunde frustra tentatum est. Circumspeximus et non erat auxiliator. Ventum est ad commune refugium, illo confagimus, ibi confidimus liberari. Tantum adsit pietas ; namfacultas non deest. Et quidem ex privilegio Sedis apostolicae constat, summam rernm ad vestram potissimum respicere summam aucto- ritatem et plenariam potestatem. Verum hoc inter cetera vestri singularis primatus insignia specialius nobiliusque nobilitat vestrum et inclytum reddit Apostolatum, si eripitis pauperem de manu fortiorum ejus. Nulla meo judicio in corona vestra pretiosior gemma zelo illo vestro, quo aemu- lari consuevistis oppresses nee relinquitis virgam peccatoruni super sortem justorum, mmirum propter illud, quod sequitur : Ut non extendant justi ad iniquitatem manus suas (Ps. cxxiv. 3), &c.' 7- When Richard I. had been set at liberty, he besought the Holy See to obtain for him the restitution of the sum of money which Archduke Leopold and the Emperor Henry VI. had ex- torted from him as his ransom ; also to induce the King of France to relinquish some fortresses and other possessions which he had seized during his absence, and to prevail upon the King of Navarre not to withhold from him the castles which his father had agreed to give him as the dowry of his daughter, Richard's wife. Innocent III. warmly espoused his cause. He commis- sioned the Archbishop of Magdeburg to engage the brother of the late emperor to make restitution of the king's ransom. 1 He threatened to excommunicate the King ofNavarre if he did not re- linquish the castles in question, 2 and addressed himself in a similar manner to the King of France. The latter replied that Richard had violated former treaties, had forsaken his sister and married another, had taken all to himself the property of King Tancred and the treasure of Cyprus, which was theirs in common, and had been the cause of much personal injury to himself. Richard's envoys maintained that Philip had been the first to act unjustly at Messina, and had brought forward vain complaints. The Pope 3 communicated these counter-charges to King Richard, and 368 . Civil Rulers and the Holy See. endeavoured to obtain an adjustment, which was accomplished later. After Richard's death in 1199, his widow, Berengaria, addressed herself to the Pope with repeated complaints, 4 that Richard's brother and successor, John, had kept possession of her dowry. 5 The Pope wrote thus in 1204 to the English bi- shops : ' If a judge who feared neither God nor men would at the instance of a widow procure justice for her from her oppressors, how much less should we close our ears to her supplications, we who, however unworthily, hold the place upon earth of Him who bore the wrongs of all men, dispensed justice without re- gard to persons, and gave us the command, as the Prophet says, to relieve the oppressed and defend widows ? Although God, who searcheth the heart and the reins, knoweth that we love the august King John of England as our dearest son, we cannot yield to him if it cause injustice ; for without fear or favour we can deny justice to no one. "VVe owe it to all men, learned and unlearned alike, in virtue of the office of our servitude. For we should consider ourselves guilty of wrong towards his royal majesty if we were in any measure to spare him by showing favour towards him, since we should thereby give occasion for injury to his salvation, which rather we are bound in every way to further and encourage.' 6 1 Innoc. III. 1. i. Ep. 236, p. 203, Ep. 242, p. 206, to Leopold of Austria. 2 L. i. Ep. 211, p. 182. 3 L. i. Ep. 230, pp. 196-199. 4 ' Multiplicatis querelis' Innocent calls it, 1. vii. Ep. 168, p. 475 seq. 5 Innoc. III. 1. vi. Ep. 194, p. 220 ; 1. vii. Ep. 168, p. 476 ; 1. xi. Ep. 223, p. 1537 ; 1. xiii. Ep. 74, p. 268. 6 L. vii. Ep. 168. 8. All the princes who took part in the Crusades 1 were under the special protection of the Holy See, and looked to it for sure defence against violence. When the Latin Emperor Baldwin of Constantinople was taken prisoner by the Bulgarians, his brother Henry turned for redress to Innocent III. as his only resource. 2 When King Waldemar of Denmark went to convert Finland, the same Pope took precautions against the incursions of the Germans into his kingdom. 3 The protection of the Pope was Recognition of Papal Supremacy. 369 undoubtedly at that time the best safeguard against foreign in- justice. 4 The princes were conscious implicitly, if not explicitly, that international law, unlike positive law of States, is unsup- ported by any judicial compulsion, and that sufficient material means are seldom present for the punishment of its violation, especially when the countries concerned are far removed from each other ; and that consequently to carry out its principles there is every need of the cooperation 'of conscience, of the in- fluence of religion, and of the authority of the supreme ruler of Christendom. 5 They felt and understood well the position which necessarily belonged in Christian States to the Head of the Universal Church; they recognised him as the father of the one Christian family, the representative of Christian justice, the avenger of injustice and crime; who, without regard to per- sons or to self-interest, and responsible to God alone, could ad- jus*, arbitrate upon, and decide all international disputes. 'The perfection of international law depends upon two conditions: (1) The degree in which the notion of a common humanity is developed among nations ; (2) The closeness of the connection, by which they feel themselves united. Christendom and the Church forming a visible commonwealth of nations has had a powerful influence upon both these conditions. After the fall of the Eoman Empire it created amongst new States common interests and an international law, which, founded upon the principles and laws of the Church, was administered by her and her Head as an international tribunal under the protection of the penalty of the Church's ban.' 1 Amongst others, Peter of Blois, Ep. 219, p. 508, shows us how very much these agitated the Christian world. He says how the King of Sicily, at bad news from the Holy Land, ' statim se cilicio indnit et per quatuor dies plangens et a facie hominum se abscondens illi terrae suc- currere pro posse suo anxie et constanti devotione promisit.' And the cardinals vowed to renounce all external pomp, to preach the Crusade zealously, to announce a seven years' Truce of God, &c. This is shown too by the letters of St. Bernard, in particular Ep. 256, ad Eugen. III. p. 463 seq. ; Ep. 363, ad Orient. Franc. Cler. et Popul. p. 564 seq. 2 Innoc. III. 1. viii. Ep. 131 (Migne, t. ccxv. p. 709) : ' Summum et praecipuum, imo tmicum spei nostrae refugium et fundamentum, qui solus prae filiis hominum et principibus et regibus in quantalibet potestate con- VOL. I. BB 37 Civil Rulers and the Holy See. stitutis nobis potestis succurrere.' For other respectful letters from Henry, vide Append, ad Innoc. Reg. n. 7, 8 (Migne, ccxvii. p. 292 seq.). 3 Innoc. 1. xii. Ep. 102-104, pp. 116-118, a. 1209. 4 Ferrand, "Esprit de 1'Histoire, t. ii. lettre 47, p. 494. 5 Ancillon, Tableau des Revolutions du Systeme politique de 1'Europe, t. i. Introd. p. 133 s. : ' In the Middle Ages, when there was no social order, the Papacy, and perhaps the Papacy alone, saved Europe from a state of absolute barbarism. It created relations amongst nations far removed from each other, was a common centre for all, a point of union for States otherwise isolated. It was a supreme court of justice raised in the midst of universal anarchy. Its judgments were from time to time received with the respect they merited. It fenced and restrained the despotism of emperors. It compensated for the want of a due balance of power, and lessened the injurious effects of feudal government.-' 8 Walter, Naturrecht und Politik, 464, p. 451. 9. It is quite in accordance with this view of the Pope's posi- tion that Catholic princes repeatedly sought and obtained the Pope's confirmation for their most important acts; for instance, their treaties. Innocent III., in 1198, ratified the agreement be- tween Richard Coeur de Lion and the Archbishop of Rouen, 1 and that between the King of France and Baldwin, Count of Flanders; 2 also in 1199 the truce between England and France : 3 and in 1202 the treaty concluded through the intervention of the Polish bishops between the Duke of Silesia and his uncle ; 4 also subsequently, in 1204, that between the Emperor Baldwin of Constantinople and the Venetian Republic, concerning the con- quered Greek empire. 5 Likewise the King of France, in 1214, Ijesought the same Pope to confirm the covenant he had entered into with Countess Blanca of Champagne ; 6 and John Lackland did the same for a ratification of his agreement with Queen Be- rengaria. 7 From a decree of Pope Honorius III. in 1220, it is clear that an amicable arrangement arrived at through the inter- vention of the apostolic legate between the king and nobles of Cyprus on the one part, and the bishops of the island on the other part, received the apostolic ratification, which was taken advantage of to postpone the execution of some of its clauses. 8 Popes ratified also the laws of princes. Thus Honorius II. (11 25- 1 130) ratified the law of the Emperor Henry V., passed at Rimini, Recognition of Papal Supremacy. 37 1 that the clergy should not be bound by oath.9 There are nu- merous other instances. 10 Popes confirmed also t\\e judgments of princes ; thus we find Hadrian IV. (1156) confirming the sen- tence of Louis VII. of France upon the Duke of Burgundy. 11 They confirmed the privileges conferred by princes; for example, Innocent III. confirmed those granted in 1204 by the Emperor to the Kings of Bohemia, 12 and those -conceded in 1205 to the city of Cologne. 13 Also statutes concerning partition of territory, as we see in the matter of the possession of the town of Cracow in Poland, 14 ratified by the same Pope. Also their wills, as in 1211 with regard to the will of King Sancio of Portugal. 15 Also their donations; for example, those in 1209 of the Emperor Henry of Constantinople, 16 those in 1210 from Frederick II. to his wife Constantia, 17 and those from the King of Leon to a Cis- tercian monastery. 18 Finally, they ratified the recall of dona- tions. Thus in 1211 the Pope, at the request of King Pedro of Portugal, allowed him to revoke the donations made by him during his minority, by which donations the crown had suffered injury. 19 1 Innoc. III. 1. i. Ep. 108, p. 93 seq. 2 Ib. Ep. 130, p. 117 seq. 3 L. ii. Ep. 24, p 553 : ' Treugas .... ratas habemus et praecipimua iuviolabilitev observari.' 4 L. v. Ep. 112, p. 1110. Rayn. a. 1202, n. 19. s L. vii. Ep. 203, ad Episc. pp. 515, 516. In the letter of the Emperor Baldwin, ib. Ep. 201, pp. 510, 511, it is said expressly : ' Sicut tenemur, rogantes, ut dictas conventiones ratas habeatis et eas auctoritatis apos- tolicae munimine confirmetis.' 8 Append, ad Innoc. III. Reg. 1. xvi. n. 5 (Migne, ccxvi. p. 976). 7 Rymer, Foed. i. 137. Migne, ccxvji. p. 303 seq. Append. Ep. 18. 8 Cap. viii. de Confirmat. utili vel inutili, ii. 30. 9 Mansi, xii. 362 Jaffe, Reg. n. 5316, p. 588. 10 Friedberg (De finium inter Eccl. et Civitatem regundorum judicio, &c., Lips. 1861, p. 81, nota 1) gives the following references : Innoc. III. Reg. Ep. 97, a. 1203 ; Honor. III. 1217 ; Suhm, Hist. af. Dan. ix. 747; Gregor. IX. 1233; Wurdtwein, Nova subsid. vi. 17; Innoc. IV. 1248 ; Quix, Cod. diplomat. Aquens. i. 119, 1252 ; Raynald. h.a. n. 17 ; 1254, Cod. diplom. Lubec. i. 190; Alex. IV. 1259; Bohmer, Reg. Nr. 160, 162. 11 Bouquet, Receuil, xv. 674. Jaffe, n. 6929, p. 666. 12 Innoc. III. 1. vii. Ep. 54, p. 339. 13 Ib. 1. viii. Ep. 176, p. 754. 37 2 Civil Rulers and the Holy See. 14 Ib. 1. xiii. Ep. 82, pp. 279, 280 : ' Boleslaus quondam Poloniae dux .... hoc perpetuis temporibus observari praecipiens per Sedem Aposto- licam obtinuit approbari.' 15 L. xiv. Ep. 58, p. 423 : ' Quae omnia suppliciter postulasti per Sedem Apostolicam confirmari. 1 Cf. ib. Ep. 59, 60, 115-118, pp. 424 seq. 473 seq. 16 L. xiii. Ep. 34, 35, p. 227. ir L. xiii. Ep. 84, p. 281 seq. 18 L. xiii. Ep. 176, n. 345, 346 : ' Qui etiam rex nobis humiliter sup- plica-vit ut ad stabilitatem perpetuam concessionem ipsius apostolico dig- naremuv munimine roborare.' Earlier examples of this kind are numerous. Conrad III., in 1146, wrote thus to Eugenius III. : ' Rogamus, ut quod eidem abbati (Wibaldo) et Corbeiensi monasterio de duabus praefatis cellis legitima donatione per praecepti paginam confirmavimus, vos vestri privi- legii scripto roborare non abnuatis' (Wibald. Ep. 13, Migue, clxxxix. p. 1137). The monks of Corvei in the same way sought the Papal ratifica- tion (ib. Ep. 15, p. 1139). 19 L. xiv. Ep. 28, p. 404. 10. Until the close of the Middle Ages, and even beyond, the letters from kings to Popes testify the deepest awe and rever- ence. Louis XI. of France, 1 on the 27th November 1461, wrote thus to Pius II., who had required of him the abolition of the Pragmatic Sanction of 1438 : ' Knowing as we do that God alone by His providence can well provide for the concerns of man, and that cities and kingdoms are better fortified and defended by religion than by arms and troops, we entertain towards you, the Yicar of the living God, such reverence that we are fully re- solved to hear your sublime admonitions, especially in ecclesias- tical matters, as the voice of the Shepherd, and obey it. ... As we are convinced that obedience is better than sacrifice, we have given our consent to that which has been made known to us in your name, namely that the Pragmatic Sanction is antagonistic to you and to your office, because it took its rise in rebellion at a period of schism and revolt and separation from your See, and because it deprives you, from whom all sacred laws proceed, and in whom they have their origin, of all authority, loosening the bonds of all law and all justice. . . . Although some learned men sought to disprove this, and to dissuade us from the abro- gation of the Pragmatic Sanction, we, holding and acknowledg- ing that you are the prince of the whole Church, the primate of Recognition of Papal Supremacy. 373 religion, the shepherd of the Lord's flock, do follow your com- mands, 2 and adhere with full consent to the teaching of St. Peter. Therefore, according to your desire we abolish, proscribe, and abrogate the Pragmatic Sanction in our whole kingdom, in Dauphine, and all our dominions.' 3 Leibnitz acknowledged that in essential matters the sovereigns of the Middle Ages were in accord with the principles upheld by the Popes. ' Nothing was more common,' he says, ' than to see kings submit their treaties to the censorship and correction of the Pope, as in the treaty of Bretigny, A.D. 1360, and that of Staples, A.D. 1492.' 4 Even Vol- taire, in the midst of much malicious exaggeration, acknowledged that every prince who wished to appropriate or receive back a domain addressed himself to the Pope as to his lord ; also that no prince would venture newly to style himself king, nor would he be acknowledged as a king by other sovereigns, without the permission of the Pope. 5 Frederick III. interceded with Eugenius IV. in behalf of young Ladislaus, begging him not to countenance or confirm any other candidate for the kingdom of Hungary. 6 1 Hard. Cone. t. ix. p. 1640. Roscovany, Monum. t. i. pp. 113, 114, n. 144. Inter Epist. Aeneae Sylv. n. 402, ed. vet. Nuremb. 1486. - Teque jubentem sequimur. :1 ' Tu enim, cum scias, quid auctoritate divinitus tibi tradita possis, quas pro regni nostri et ecclesiarum in eo tranquillitate postulabimus, non negliges res necessarias, poterisque semper quod optimum fuerit judicare.' The Pragmatic Sanction was not in fact completely abolished until the Con- cordat between Leo X. and Francis I. 4 Leibnitz, diss. 1, de Auctorum publicorum usu. (Praef. ad cod. di- plom. Jur. gent. 1693, f. Opp. t. iv. p. 299). Cf. Tract, de Jure suprem. P. iii. (Opp. iv. pp. 330, 401). 5 Voltaire, Essai sur les Mceurs, t. ii. ch. xlvi. ; t. irL ch. Ixiv. Cf. also Fleury, t. xiii. disc. 3, n. 10, 18 ; t. xix. disc. 7, n. 5 ; Michaud, Hist, de Croisades, t. iv. p. 163 ; t. vi. p. 225, 4th ed. 6 Aeneae Sylvii, Ep. 168, ed. vet. Nuremb. : ' Etsi non dubitemus Apostolicam Sedem tamquam veritatis doctricem justamque vitae ma- gistram quorumlibet juribus favorabilem esse nullique prorsus injuriam facere, quia quidquid ab ejus solio manat, justitiae lancibus libratur et aequitatis : non tamen abs re fore putamus aliquo per nos scribi beatitu- dini tuae, quibus jus serenissimi principis Ladilai .... commendatum efficiamus et eorum qui ficta pro veris referunt impiis resistamus conati- bus,' &c. 374 Civil Rulers and the Holy See. 11- It is true that, appealing to their absolute independence, some princes in the Middle Ages defied 1 the Holy See for long periods, but generally only in the heat of passion and for their personal interests. The prevailing law is not to be estimated simply by deeds, but these should be judged by their conformity to the law. Powerful criminals may set at naught every sentence of condemnation. And thus excommunicated sovereigns might suc- cessfully employ the means at their disposal to gain the support of a large number of their subjects or even of foreign princes, and thus fortiiied, dispute the justice of a sentence which they would have fully recognised at another time or in a case not personal to themselves. Many times have Popes replied with dignity and patience to insulting letters from princes. 2 Their firmness led, in most cases, to their triumph, and brought power- ful princes back to them repentant. Bishops, too, even in later mediaeval times, have not unfrequently resisted Popes ; but from the opposition of individuals no one can conclude that the rest of the episcopal body desired to dispute the Papal prerogative ; thousands of facts and witnesses would render such a conclusion impossible. Still less can the words and deeds of individual sovereigns in direct conflict with Rome be held to weigh against repeated recognition of the power of the Holy See. 1 In Caron, Remonstrantia Hibernorum, P. ii. cap. xi. pp. 101-104, a series of more or less convincing passages is collected. 2 Gosselin, ii. pp. 147, 148, 373. 8 E.g. the reply of Nicholas I., 865 and 866, to the letters of the Em- peror Michael III. Ep. 8, 9 (Mansi, xv. 187 seq. 216 seq.) ; also Innocent III. to the insults of the tyrannical King of Portugal, 1. xiv. Ep. 8, p. 383 seq. : ' Sancti Petri successores non consueverunt inferre convicia, sed ea exemplo Christi cum patientia sustinere.' 12. It is often objected 1 that many authors, and some even who- wrote in the Middle Ages, lay down the principle that kings have no superior but God, and are restrained from sin only by Recognition of Papal Supremacy. -375 fear of Him. Ivo of Chartres 2 is cited as an instance of this. We need not new point out that Ivo (to whom, by the way, the ' decretum' in question cannot be attributed with certainty) brings forward also proofs of the superiority of the Church and of Papal jurisdiction over kings ; 3 in the chapter on the crimes of kings he shows merely the gravity of their crimes and the difficulties in the way of their repentance. His words, ' God alone is the judge of kings,' if taken literally, would imply that their acts might not even incur ecclesiastical censure ; and Bossuet would not wish them to mean this. 4 They refer pri- marily to the personal motives and intentions of princes in the acts of their administration, 5 and their true meaning is that there is no power over the prince to punish him with the sword for doing ill in those matters in which subjects owe him obedience. If any one thinks from such passages as this in the writings of the Fathers to conclude that a prince sinning against the law of God cannot be called to account by the Church, he must also concede that the subjects of the king have over them no power but the king's, thus denying that God has established two powers. 7 Theologians tell us that princes are not under the law 8 as far as their coercive power is concerned, but are so with regard to their directive power .9 Any one sub- ordinate only to the Pope was in the Middle Ages regarded as subject only to God, for the Pope was considered as simply God's Vicar. 10 His power was not physical or material, but was a moral and spiritual power relying upon public opinion for its efficiency. If simple abbots and monks, such as St. Bernard, could upbraid kings for their crimes, threatening them with the justice of God, 11 the Pope could do so with the better right of one to whom by virtue of his office of chief pastor his position gave a higher power. No constitution had then adopted the principle ' that kings are above all human laws, and acknowledge no judge but God in matters ecclesiastical and civil.' 18 1 BoBSuet, Def. P. i. 1. iii. c. xiv. p. 303. 2 Ivo, Decret. P. xvi. c. xlii. : ' Populi peccantes jndicemmetuunt, reges antem, nisi solo Dei timore metuque gehennae coerceantur, libere in prae- ceps ruunt,' to Isidor Hispal. Sent. 1. iii. o. 1. n. 4. 376 Civil Rulers and the Holy See. :! Ivo, Decret. P. v. c. ccclviii. Ep. 51, ad Henric. Anglor. reg. 4 Bianchi, t. ii. 1. v. 11, n. 5, p. 314. 5 Bianchi, t. i. 1. iii. 6, n. 4, p. 510. Phillips, Kirchenrecht, ii. 109, p. 521 seq. 6 E.g. Optat. Milev. de Schism. Donat. 1. iii. c. iii. Ambros. in Ps. 1., Miserere (ver. ' Tibi soli peccavi'). Chrys. in h.l. Hieron. Ep. 46, ad Rustic ; Ep. 22, ad Eustach. c. v. Greg. Turon. Hist. Eccles. Franc, v. 18. Caron, Remonstr. Hibemorum, P. ii. c. iv. 2, pp. 55-58, gives many similar pass- ages from the Fathers, who for the most part speak of the sin of King David, as also the words of theologians quoted 3, pp. 59, 60. 7 Phillips, I.e. p. 523 seq. 8 John of Salisbury, Polycr. iv. 7, p. 527, disputes the general asser- tion : ' Principem uon esse legi subjectum.' 9 Not quantum ad vim coactivam, but quantum a vim directivatam. S. Thorn. Sum. 1, 2, q. 96, a. 5 ad 3. Pineda, Com. t. ii. in Job xxxiv. 11, 18 : ' Nisi ipse rex et princeps velit sponte se subdere legi et servare jus, quis potuit ilium coercere aut vi adigere?' Here is cited, 1. iv. Cod. i. 14, de Leg. : ' Digna vox est majestate regnantis, legibus alligatum se principem profiteri. Adeo de auctoritate juris nostra pendet auctoritas, et revera majus imperio est, submittere legibus principatum.' 10 Cf. Biauchi, t. ; 1. iii. 5, n. 4, pp. 501, 502. 11 Thus St. Bernard, Ep. 170, p. 329 seq. to the King of France, to whom he says : ' Hon-eudum est incidere in mauus Dei viventis (Hebr. x. 31) etiam tibi, o rex .... quis mihi ti'ibuat mori, ne videam regem bonae opinionis, sed spei melioris conari Dei consilio obviare, irritare ad- versus senietipsum surnmi judicis irani, pedes patiis orphanorum made- f acere lacrymis afflictorum, pulsare coelos clamoribuspauperum, sanctorum precibus, justisque querimoniis charissimae sponsae Christi, qua est Ec- clesia Dei viventis.' Ep. 220, 221, 226 are still more forcible. 12 In the constitution of Frederick III. of Denmark of 1665, art. 2. Although mediaeval sovereigns were chiefly engaged in the practice of arms, they were by no means always without scholarly education. Besides the zeal for learning of Charles the Great, of King Alfred, of the Othos and of Frederick II. of Germany and Sicily, not a few princes possessed an education of some ex- tent, as Henry II. of England. 1 It should he noticed that the Norman clergy begged him to cause his son Henry, for the welfare of the kingdom, to be well instructed in the sciences. 2 St. Ber- nard's comparison of a foolish king upon his throne 3 to an ape on a house-top (looking at that distance like a man) represented the common feeling of the time. From works dedicated to various princes we see that they must have been judges and patrons of Recognition of Papal Supremacy. 377 many sciences and have been educated. Thus St. Thomas dedi- cated his work upon the government of princes to King Henry of Cyprus, 4 who died 1253, and another similar work 5 to Adelaide, Duchess of Brabant. Almost beyond numbering are the works which at the request or encouragement of accomplished princes in various countries were composed for them or dedicated to them. 6 The Church never encouraged or desired their ignorance ; on the contrary, she always desired, revered, and prized well- instructed rulers, 7 and she alone in those days was in a position to impart a higher education. Historical studies were by no means neglected. When Cardinal Caesar Baronius dedicated the tenth volume of his Annals to the Emperor Rudolph II. he reminded him of the recommendation of the Greek Emperor Basil to his son Leo the Wise, diligently to study the history of past times, since much profit might be drawn from them. The wisest priestly tutors of princes, men such as Bossuet and Gerdil, have never forgotten this, and it was only in the last century that classical and historical education was less given to princes, and modern philosophy and polite literature made to prepon- derate, while religion became a subordinate subject. 1 Petr. Bles. Ep. 66, p. 195, to Archbishop Walter of Palermo. 2 Petr. Bles. Ep. 67, pp. 210-213. 3 ' Simla in tecto rex fatuus in solio sedens.' Bern, de Consid. 1. ii. c. vii. n. 15. 4 Uccelli, Intorno a' due Opuscoli di S. Tommaso d' Aquino, p. 10. s De Regimine subditorum (not Judaeorum, as the editions have it). Uccelli, I.e. pp. 14-19. 8 Later ages are still more rich in such works. The Franciscan John a St. Maria dedicated his treatise upon the Chui'ch and the Christian civil commonwealth (Madrid, 1615) to the Spanish king (Balmes, Catholicism and Protestantism, iii. c. lii. p. 112 seq.'; a note gives an abstract of it). The admonitions of the Deacon Agapitus to the Emperor Justinian were translated into various languages by and for rulers (Migne, PP. gr. Ixxxvi. -p. 1159 seq ; Fabric. Bibl. gr. viii. 36 seq ed. Harl.). Concerning several translations from the Classics which were executed by ' the direction of Charles V. of France, as well as of many princes and princesses, vide Schwab, Gerson, p. 79. What tte Medicis and other Italian princes accom- plished for literature is well known. 7 An early example is the case of Pope John VIII. and Charles the Bald (Mansi, Cone. t. xvii. Append, p. 172). ESSAY VIII. POPE GREGORY VII. IT has long prevailed as a custom amongst writers of history to treat the reign of Gregory VII. as the commencement of a new epoch of the Papacy ; but this view is only correct in a partial sense. Earlier pontificates, particularly that of Nicholas I., whose contemporaries held him a second Elias, 1 and that of Bene- dict VIII., which has never yet been properly appreciated ; 2 the deeds of Gregory's immediate predecessors, from Leo IX. onwards, 3 who were animated by a spirit like his own, and wanted but the opportunity to display a like courage in similar conflicts ; the previous relations of Church and State in the Western countries ; all these facts show that if Gregory's pon- tificate is to be considered the commencement of a new epoch, it can only be so as the period of a reform in the relations between the ecclesiastical and civil orders, by the Church making a more extended exercise of the powers which she had long possessed in germ. That the Middle Ages should fulfil their mission it was necessary that the Papacy, obscured by the pernicious influence of Italian nobles and factions during the time of the Othos and of Henry III., should come once more to the light, with powers nndiminished and influence unrestrained. The Papacy alone, not the empire for Charles the Great and his times were gone for ever could weld rival nations into unity, and protect and dif- fuse Christian morality and Christian law; the Papacy alone could guard the Church's dearest attributes of catholicity, liberty, and purity. 4 Before Gregory ascended the pontifical throne, everything had been prepared for the great conflict in which he was to engage. Gregory's good intentions with regard to Church reform are generally admitted ; 5 but he is reproached with having : I. Charges against Gregory. 379 ' surpassed the limits of the doctrine of Christ, in his claims to authority over princes and people, and with having disturbed the organisation of feudal States in the struggle about investi- tures f he is said in this same struggle to have shown a cal- culating policy ill becoming the Vicar of Christ, and to have committed enormous blunders in his immoderate zeal ; and that finally, having involved [?] Germany and Italy in a long and bloody civil war, 7 the conflict failed in attaining the end he contemplated.' II. He is said to have treated all princes as vassals of the Holy See ; 8 and, III. to have claimed for the Pope the right to take and dispose of the possessions of private per- sons, as well as of empires, kingdoms, and principalities. Let us examine these three charges. 1 Reginon. Chron. Pertz. Scr. i. 579. Cf. Lammer, P. Nicholas I. und die Byz. Staatskirche, Berlin, 1857. * Giesebrecht, Gesch. der Deutschen Kaiserzeit, ii. 172 : ' History has hitherto erected no memorial to Benedict VIII., and yet he deserves one before other Popes. However fragmentary may be our sources of infor- mation regarding him, they are sufficient to show us the form of a man who recognised it as his mission to provide for the welfare of all Western Christianity, and who feared neither weariness nor exertion to restore to his high office the value it had lost. Benedict is the connecting link between the famous Popes of the time of the Othos, such as Gregory V. and Syl- vester II., and their great successors Leo IX., Gregory VII., and Urban II. As this was overlooked, the gradual development of Papal power appeared less connected than it was in reality.' 3 Will, Die Anfange der Restauration der Kirche im eilften Jahrh. Marburg, 1859, 1864. 4 The pious Abbot Gottfried of Vendome lays stress on these three attri- butes above all, Tract, de Ori. Episc. (Migne, PP. Lat. clvii. p. 282). Opusc. vi. (ib. p. 222), he says: 'Ecclesia semper Catholica, libera et casta esse debet. . . . Quando vero Ecclesia saeculari potestati subjicitur, quae ante doinina erat, ancilla efficitur, et quam Chr. D. dictavit in cruce et quasi propiis manibus de sanguine suo scripsit chartam, amittit. Hanc enim libertatis chartam Christus vindicavit in cruce et suae sponsae Ecclesiae per semetipsum dedit ut homines alios per peccatum factos diaboli servos, ipsa libera liberos et Dei filios faceret et suos, qui sibi diligenter servirent et tamquam bonae matri devoti filii obedirent.' 4 Huber, p. 5, who is more moderate here than Janus. Neander and other Protestant writers have fully acknowledged the purity of Gregory's intentions. Was the feudal system a kind of ' Noli me tangere,' that must not be ' disturbed' even in a case of necessity, as a defence against peril, as 380 Pope Gregory VII. even Pichler allows that Gregory's was ? Pichler, Gesch. der Kirchl. Tren- nung, i. p. 223. 7 This is Janus all over, p. 124. Huber, p. 8. PART I. GREGORY'S CONFLICT WITH HENRY IV. | 1. Gregory's admonitions. 2. The proceedings of Henry. The Synod of Worms. 3. Excommunication and release from the oath of alle- giance. 4. Henry IV. at Canosea. 5. The Pope unconnected with the election of the opposition king. 6. Recognition of Rudolph. The Antipope Clement III. 7. Occupation of Rome and corona- tion of the Emperor. 8. Gregory's fundamental principles. 9. Justification of his proceedings against Henry. 10. With reference to the dispensation of the oath of allegiance. 11. His principles not novel. 12. St. Peter Damiani. 13. No unfairness in Gregory. 1- In the year 1072, Pope Alexander II. had remonstrated with the King of Germany, Henry IV., concerning whose excesses and crimes his most trustworthy contemporaries speak unani- mously, 1 and in the spring of 1073 he excommunicated Henry's counsellors, who were addicted to the practice of simony, and summoned the king to give account in Rome. 2 The Saxons had already declared that a king rendered more famous by his crimes than by his name should not be left on the throne, especially as he had not received the imperial crown. 3 Gregory's intentions with regard to Henry were in the beginning anything but hos- tile. The king was young, and seemed still capable of amend- ment. Gregory applied to him to confirm his election; 4 he tried every means of reclaiming him, 5 and regarded him as ' future emperor.' 6 The Empress-mother Agnes cooperated in endeav- ouring to arrange an understanding between them. 7 Henry IV. wrote, towards the end of August or beginning of September 1073, to Gregory 'words full of sweetness and obedience, such as neither he nor his predecessors had ever before addressed to the Church of Rome:' he called him father, recognised the ne- cessity for interchanging support between the two powers, testi- fied repentance for his misdeeds, promised amendment and obedience, and besought counsel and assistance. 8 Gregory en- Gregory s Conflict with Henry IV. 381 praised the Empress Agnes for her efforts after peace ; 10 his two letters of the 7th December 1074 11 also bear witness to a thoroughly friendly relation. Henry had given a favourable reception to the Papal legate, and had promised his cooperation for the extirpation of simony and the abolition of clerical marriage. On the 20th July 1075 the Pope wrote to the king with regard to the appointment to the see of Bamberg, and still hoped from him the fulfilment of his promises. 12 1 Lambert von Hersfeld says of him : ' In omnia genera flagitiorum, ruptis omnibus modestiae et temperantiae frenis, praecipitem se dedit/ Further witnesses are Berthold (f 1088), Bernold (f 1100), Paul of Bern- ried, Bruno ' de bello Saxonico,' Donizo, Bonizo, Marianus Scotus, Hugo- of Flavigny. Anselm of Canterbury regarded Henry IV. as a successor of Nero and Julian (' de azymo et ferment,' Praef. Opp. p. 135). Cf. also Vita S. Anselmi Ep. Lucens. (Pertz, Scr. t. xii.). The witnesses in Henry's favour are of far less consideration ; Benzo's Panegyrikus is called by Schlosser a lampoon. Upon the witnesses, cf. Natal. Alex. Hist. Eccl. saec. 11. et 12, dissert. 2, a. 1, t. xiii. p. 523 seq. ed Bing. 1788 ; Bianchi, Delia potesta e della polizia della Chiesa, Rome, 1745, iv. t. i. 1. ii. 1, n. 2, p. 195 seq. 2 Bonizo, Lib. ad Amc. p. 810. Ekkehardi, Chron. Univ. a. 1073, Pertz, vi. 200. Jaffe, n. 3470, 3530, pp. 397, 401. 3 Cf. Bossuet, Defens. Declar. Cleri. Gall. P. i. 1. iv. c. ix. p. 352, ed, Mogunt, 1788. 4 Cf. Hefele, Cone. v. p. 3 seq. 5 Reg. Greg. VII. 1. i. Ep. 9, ad Gothofr. Due. ; Ep. 11, ad Beatr.; Ep. 19, ad Rodulf. Due. ; Ep. 24, ad Brun. Veron. ; Ep. 26, ad Herlemb. Mediol. (Migne, PP. Lat. t. cxlviii. pp. 291 seq. 308, 310. Jaffe, p. 406 seq.). 6 L. i. Ep. 20, ad Rainald. Cum. Ep. p. 303. Cf. p. ii. Ep. 26, p. 671, 7 L. i. Ep. 21, ad Anselm. ; Ep. 85, ad Agnet. Imper. 8 Poet Greg. 1. i. Ep. 29, p. 312, ed. Migne. 9 L. i. Ep. 39, p. 320 seq. d.d. 20. Dec. 1073. 10 L. i. Ep. 85, p. 317. 11 L. ii. Ep. 30, 31, p. 384 seq. Jaffe, n. 3664 seq. p. 415. 12 L. iii. Ep. 3, p. 430. J. n. 3720, p. 419. 2- But soon after (llth September 1075) Gregory had to com- plain of Henry's inconsistency, and earnestly recommend to him the affairs of the diocese of Bamberg, as a reminder of his admonitions. 1 However, Henry's proceedings with regard to the bishoprics became every day more arbitrary and disgraceful | 382 Pope Gregory VII. deavoured to reconcile the Saxon nobles with the king, 9 and his severity towards the Saxons increased, and the insolence with which his victory over them inspired him caused him to disregard all his former promises. At last Gregory (1075) bit- terly complained that he had returned to his friendship for the excommunicated counsellors, and had disowned by his deeds the submission which in letters he had promised to the Church of Rome ; he declared at the same time 2 that he was willing to modify, as far as his conscience allowed, the decrees of the last Synod, which had prohibited the much misused lay-investiture. 3 Gregory declared that he wished to be at peace with the king, if the king would keep peace with God, and repair whatever evil he had done, to the injury of the Church and the peril of his own salvation. 4 The Papal plenipotentiaries were ill-treated at Goslar, at Christmas 1075. Henry, without fear or shame, remained in the company of the excommunicated lords, and would have no reconciliation : he compelled the legates to pro- ceed to the extremity of summoning him to the Synod to be held in Rome in the ensuing Lent, to answer the charges of the crimes imputed to him, and of threatening him with excommu- nication in case of non-appearance. Up to this point Bossuet discovers nothing in the Pope's conduct inconsistent with the legitimate sphere of his authority. 5 Hereupon Henry convened, in January 1076, his Synod of Worms, at which the court bishops declared, upon vain pretexts and with much abuse, that the Pope, whom they had acknowledged till then, was deposed. 6 Thus the unhappy conflict which produced so much injury to the empire began with a crime that threatened to plunge the whole Church into the direst confusion. 1 L.iii. Ep. 5, 7, pp. 433, 435. - L. iii. Ep. 10, p. 439. Jaffe, p. 420. 3 Cf. Hefele, Cone. v. 34-42. L. iii. Ep. 15, ad Wifred. Mediol. p. 446. 5 Bossuet, I.e. P. i. 1. ii. c. xxx. p. 241. Bemoldi, Chron. (Pertz, vii. 432). Lambert, Ann. a. 1076, p. 241 seq. Paul. Bernried, Vita Greg. c. vi. n. 49 seq. Migne, I.e. p. 63 seq. Pertz, Leg. ii. p. 44. Gregory s Conflict with Henry IV. 383 3. At the Synod held the following month Gregory received the sentence of deposition which Henry had the audacity to send him; whereupon, with the consent of 100 bishops, 1 he excom- municated Henry, and released his subjects from their oath of allegiance, at the same time forbidding the king to exercise his right of government. 2 This was neither a deposition nor a de- privation; it was merely a suspension, and was, according to the usage of the time, a necessary consequence of the excom- munication ; for none of the faithful could hold intercourse with an excommunicated person, and no one being excommunicated was capable of governing as long as he remained under the ban. It was not an irrevocable sentence, but a measure to endure until the req'iired satisfaction was performed ; 3 if, how- ever, the obstinacy continued for a year, the sentence was de- finitive. The assembly of princes at Tribur and Henry's advo- cate with the Pope admitted that he would lose his kingdom if he remained under the ban for a year and a day. 4 It was Gre- gory's object to move the king to repent, and perform satisfac- tion ; 5 he reminded the German princes, after the sentence, that he had pronounced it not from earthly motives, but in accord- ance with his duty ; and if Henry returned to God they might receive him in a friendly spirit, and let mercy, not justice, pre- vail. 6 He only desired that Henry should dismiss his bad counsellors, take worthy men in their place, repair the evil that had been done, seriously amend his life, and no longer treat the Church like a slave. Henry's partisans stoutly denied the le- gality of the excommunication ; 7 for they felt what the others expressed, 8 that a prince who no longer belonged to the Church could not conduct the government of a Christian people. Gre- gory laid most stress upon the excommunication, 9 considering the rest of the sentence merely the consequence of this. He reserved it to himself to absolve from excommunication : other- wise timid, timeserving, or unfaithful bishops might have absolved the king, without requiring due satisfaction. 10 1 ' Cunctis qui convenerant, episcopis id fieri decernentibus,' says Lambert. The biography of Anselm of Lucca (c. iii.) has : ' Omnis ilia 384 Pope Gregory VII. synodus jure indignata anathema illi conclamat. ' Omnibus acclamantibus definitum est,' says Paul Bernried, c. vii. n. 62, p. 74. - ' Totius regni Teutonicorum et Italiae gubernacula contradico.' Mansi, xx. 467. 3 Natal. Alex. H. E. saec. 11. diss. 2, art. 4. Bianchi, t. i. 1. i. 2 r n. 9-11, pp. 200-202. Dollinger, Lehrb. d. Kirchengeschichte, ii. P. 218. Phillips, K.R. iii. 125, p. 158 se