ISSUES BETWEEN CHURCH AND STATE
1559–1870
1. Venice and the Papacy 1606–1696.
2. Spain and the Papacy 1559–1770.
3. Controversies concerning the Gallican Church 1600–1758.
4. Ecclesiastical-Political Contests 1700–1750.
5. England and the Papacy 1606–1853.
6. The Gallicans and the Liberal Catholics 1845–1870.
=1. Venice and the Papacy, 1606–1696.=--The contest that arose between
Paul V and the Venetian Republic caused to the Pope a larger measure
of trouble than had arisen in connection with the controversy _De
Auxiliis_. The Venetian Senate, in laws enacted in 1603 and 1605,
had brought under its direct control the building of new churches,
monasteries, and hospitals; it had prohibited the transfer, either
by sale or by gift, of real estate to any ecclesiastical bodies, and
it had brought for trial before the civil court two ecclesiastics
who were charged with common crimes. In December, 1605, Paul writes
a brief to the Doge and a second brief to the Senate in which he
declares these laws to be annulled and demands the delivery to the
papal nuncio of the two clerical delinquents. The Venetians refused
obedience to the demand in the briefs; thereupon the Pope transmits to
the ecclesiastical bodies of Venice in April, 1606, a _monitorium_
in which he places under excommunication the Doge and the members
of the Senate unless, within twenty-four days after the publication
of this _monitorium_, the demand of the brief be complied with. The
Doge, Leonardo Donato, prohibits the publication of the papal decree.
The Jesuits, the Capucins, and the Theatins, the only bodies who were
affected by the interdict placed upon the territory of the Republic,
were expelled. The Pope now threatened the Venetians with war, but in
the course of a few months, through the intervention of the French
Ambassador and of Cardinal Joyeuse, the two priests were delivered to
the French Ambassador, with the declaration that the Republic reserved
for itself the right to punish ecclesiastics for civil offences. The
laws in regard to such procedure were not recalled, but the Senate
agreed to have the same administered with due reserve. The Senate also
recalled its manifesto against censorship. The Cardinal, in the name
of the Pope, thereupon recalled the several decrees issued against
the Republic. The Venetians refused, however, to take back the order
expelling the Jesuits, and it was not until fifty years later, in 1657,
that the latter again found place for themselves within the Republic.
In 1606, were included in the Index a number of controversial treatises
which had been written for the defence of the contentions of the
Republic or which concerned themselves with the interdict issued by
the Inquisition. During the time of Alexander VII, was placed upon
the Index a general prohibition of the record of the interdict issued
by Paul V against the Venetian Republic. This entry was cancelled by
Benedict XIV. During this contest, were placed upon the Index certain
treatises by Suarez and by Sanchez, both leaders among the Jesuits, on
the ground that editions of their works, printed by Venetian printers,
had omitted passages which sustained the authority of the Holy See.
The printers had been able to secure from the Senate a privilege for
the printing of these volumes only on condition of the elimination of
these passages. The most famous of the representatives of Venice in
this contest was Paolo Sarpi (1552–1626). Sarpi was, in 1626, ordered
by the Inquisition to report to Rome, but he refused obedience and made
a formal protest against the order. Sarpi’s _History of the Council
of Trent_ was prohibited promptly after its publication in 1619,
and later, several other writings of his found their way also into
the Index lists. There is, however, no condemnation under the name of
Sarpi of his _Opera omnia_. In 1656, was published the official
_History of the Council of Trent_, compiled by Pallavicini. The
Index contains the titles of a number of writings which were written in
criticism of this history.
In the _Discorso_ concerning the Inquisition in Venice (printed in
1639), Sarpi (in a reference to certain decrees issued in 1609 and 1610
by Yotella, master of the palace) complains of the attempt on the part
of the papacy to undermine and violate the Concordat made in the year
1596, between the Republic and the pope, which among other obligations
stipulated that no other Index than that of Clement VIII should be
enforced or allowed. In contravention of this stipulation, new decrees
were year after year being imposed, “chiefly through confessors, which
were to be enforced in all cities, territories, and places of whatever
kingdom or nation, and which were to have authority even without
publication.”
In the latter part of 1607, Sarpi was set upon by three assassins (two
of whom were monks) and was very nearly killed. He was in fact stabbed
in fifteen places. The attempt was (not unnaturally) charged to the
papal representatives in Venice and did not a little to embitter the
contest between the city and the pope.[37]
Sir Henry Wotton, writing from Venice to the Earl of Salisbury in
September, 1607, says of Sarpi:
“Now to say yet a little more of this man upon whom and his
seedes there lyeth so great a work, he seemeth as in countenance
as in spirit liker to Philip Melanchthon than to Luther, and
peradventure a fitter instrument to overthrow the falsehood
by degrees than by a sodayne, which accordeth with a frequent
saying of his own: That in these operations _non bisogna far
salti_. He is by birth a Venetian, and well-skilled in the
humour of his own country. For learning, I think I may justly
call him the most deep and general scholar of the world, and
above other parts of knowledge he seemeth to have looked very
far into the subtelties of the Canonists, which part of skill
gave him introduction into the Senate. His power of speech
consisteth rather in the soundness of reason than in any other
natural habilitie. He is much frequented and much intelligenced
of all things that passe, and lastly, his life is the most
irreprehensible and exemplar that hath ever been known.”--Public
Record Office, State Papers, Venice, Misc. 12, f. 805.
In November 1607 the Earl writes to Wotton:
“SIR HENRY WOTTON,--His Majesty hath well approved your care and
industry, and he hath commanded me to return you thanks for it,
being much pleased in the constant and magnanimous proceedings
of that State upon all occasions offered, and particularly in
the carriadge of the matter concerning il Padre Paolo, of whose
escape from so foule an assassinate his Majesty is right glad,
as he expressed himself to the Venetian Ambassador here at his
last audience, to whom he did also make known his particular
good declination towards il Padre Paolo, for his learning,
modesty and zeale in the defence of so good a cause as is the
sovereign power of an estate which hath dependence of none but
of God against the usurpations of the Pope of Rome, who being
not only contented to have intruded himself into the sole power
and authoritie for matters belonging to religion, doth seek
also cunningly to wynd himself, by little and little into the
civil government and lift himself up above all the Monarchs of
the Earth, as the examples in that State and elsewhere to make
manifest; for which also his Breve against the oath of obedience
here may serve for an instance, whereof I do send you a copy
here enclosed, together with another Breve, which for better
explication of the former hath since been published at Rome, to
prevent all exceptions that might be conceived against it, both
which you may impart to the partie you wrote of, for his better
satisfaction and encouragement in the course he hath begun, to
which His Majesty wishes all good success, for the propagation
of God’s glory.”
In 1892, a Monument to Sarpi was erected in Venice with funds secured
by public subscription. This monument commemorates not only the life
and work of a high-minded, far-seeing patriot, but the successful issue
of the long contest waged by Venice against Rome in behalf of the
freedom of the press.
=2. Spain and the Papacy, 1559–1770.=--From the beginning of
the policy of censorship down to the date of the issue of the latest
Index, the Papacy maintained its claims as the sole authority to make
definitions of faith or of morals and to the exclusive control of the
supervision of literature. The record shows, however, that outside
of certain divisions of Italy, the papal decrees in the matter of
censorship secured scant obedience. Spain, which continued through the
centuries to be the most orthodox of States, proved the least willing
to recognise, in the matter of censorship, the authority of Rome.
Montanus is authority for the statement that the issue in 1559, of
the first Roman Index of Paul IV excited the indignation of scholars
throughout the world, and that in Spain the Index was not permitted
to be published. Valdés, the Inquisitor-General, announced that a
catalogue of books had been issued in Rome and further lists in Louvain
and in Portugal, and that the Inquisition would itself prepare an Index
or catalogue based upon these. This first Spanish Index was, however,
framed with little respect for the papal decisions, and this policy was
followed in the whole succeeding series. Books prohibited in Rome were
permitted in Spain, and certain books were condemned in Spain which had
secured the approval of the papal authorities. After the Index of Trent
(published in 1564) had given evidence of a more liberal policy on the
part of the Roman Church, the Spanish authorities declined to accept
the modifications. Valdés, the Inquisitor-General, actually suspended
the publication of the decree of Pius IV and remonstrated with Philip
II for permitting currency to these lax papal regulations. The decree
in question had permitted the reading of Bibles in the vernacular and
also works written by heretics which had to do with matters outside
of the domain of theology and religion. The Spanish authorities
thereafter asserted the right of issuing Indexes under their own name
and authority.[38] Condemnation of a book in Rome carried no weight in
Spain unless such condemnation was itself confirmed by the Inquisition.
When a book had been examined by the Inquisition, it was forbidden to
make any appeal in the matter to Rome.
In 1599, Juan de Mariana published in Valladolid a Latin treatise on
the _Institution of Royalty_ and dedicated it to Philip III. The
work was liberal in its general political tone and even intimated that
there are cases in which it may be lawful to put a monarch to death;
but it sustained with great acuteness the power of the Church and it
tended to the establishment of a theocracy. The work was regularly
approved by the censors of the press and is said to have been favoured
by the policy of the Government which, in the time of Philip II, had
sent assassins to cut off Elizabeth of England and the Prince of
Orange. In France, where Henry III had been thus put to death a few
years before, and where Henry IV suffered a similar fate a few years
afterward, the book excited a great sensation. Indeed, the sixth
chapter of the first volume directly mentions, and by implication
countenances, the murder of the former of these monarchs and was
claimed, although without foundation, to have been among the causes
that stimulated Ravaillac to the assassination of the latter.... Among
the papers found after the death of Mariana was one on the errors
in the government of the Society of Jesuits. It would appear that,
notwithstanding the strong support of the authority of the Church,
the learned author had incurred the enmity of the great Order which
directed the Inquisition.
The Congregation of the Index was instituted by Pius V in 1571.
Gregory XIII, in 1572, issued letters stating that the operations
of the Congregation were in no way to interfere with the powers and
jurisdiction of the Holy Office in Spain. This utterance was in line
with that made by Paul III in 1544, in which the Pope declared, in
reference to the Roman Inquisition that had been instituted in 1542,
that this was not to come into conflict in any way with the powers
and the jurisdiction of the Inquisition in Spain. A similar statement
was made in 1587 by Sixtus V, and in 1595, Clement VIII specifically
committed to the inquisitor in Spain cognizance in the matter of
prohibiting books. There were, however, notwithstanding this series of
papal briefs, occasional protests from Rome concerning the independent
action of the Spanish Inquisition. Catalani, writing in 1680,
pronounces it “ridiculous to suppose that any one could confer on the
Spanish Inquisition the power to rescind the judgments of Rome.”[39] A
letter written by the secretary of the Congregation of the Index to the
Bishop of Malaga, takes the ground that the decrees of the Congregation
were binding on all Christians, and that the bishops were under
obligations, in virtue of their episcopal authority, to punish those
who transgressed their decrees. Lea is of the opinion, however, that
few Spanish bishops would have ventured to put themselves in opposition
to the Inquisition.[39] This conflict of authority produced a series
of issues in regard to certain authors, among whom the most noteworthy
were Poza, Sa, and Moya. There is not space here to give the details
of these issues. It may simply be said that, in the larger number of
instances, the Spanish Inquisition succeeded in maintaining, at least
for Spain, its own authority.
The contentions for the independent control of the national Church
were maintained with no less vigour in Spain than in France although
a somewhat different ground was taken by the Spanish writers. Whatever
success may have been secured in the claim of the Kings of Spain to
control the affairs of the Spanish Church, this control never took
the secular character which characterised much of the action of the
administration of France on ecclesiastical matters. The throne of
Spain was so directly and so completely under the influence of the
Spanish Inquisition that the direction of the affairs of the Spanish
Church, while often entirely independent of Rome, was, with hardly an
exception, kept within complete ecclesiastical control. Under Urban
VIII, were placed in the Index certain Spanish writers who had been
prominent in maintaining the authority of the Crown in the control
of the Spanish Church. The writers of this group came to be known as
Regalists. The most noteworthy among them were Cevallos and Salgado.
The condemnation of these authors was, however, by no means accepted in
Spain and was vigorously protested against by Philip III and by Philip
IV. Later, there came into the Roman Index a long series of treatises
by Spanish, Portuguese, Neapolitan, and Sicilian Regalists who were
maintaining the views originally presented by Cevallos and Salgado. In
1610, a treatise by Cardinal Baronius, in which strong ground was taken
for the authority of the pope to control Church appointments and Church
property in Sicily, was, under an edict of Philip III, prohibited for
Sicily and also for Spain, and the printing or circulation of copies
was forbidden under heavy penalty.
The Spanish kings had in practice usually been able to maintain the
_regalias_ or rights which they held to be inherent in the Crown, but
there were still questions left to be debated by publicists and canon
lawyers. The advocates of the royal prerogative were known as Regalists
and came naturally into antagonism with the authority of Rome and with
the contentions of the Ultramontanists. The issue was complicated
by the determination of the Inquisition to maintain at any cost the
supremacy of its jurisdiction over that of all secular tribunals.[40]
The Inquisition was able to utilise its powers of censorship to sustain
its aggressions upon the other departments of government. In the
Index of Clement VIII, published in 1596, the instructions that had
been reprinted in the successive Indexes ordered the expurgation of
all propositions which were antagonistic to ecclesiastical liberty,
immunity, and jurisdiction. In 1606, the Jesuit Henriquez, in his
treatise entitled _De Clavibus Romani Pontificis_, defended the right
of appeal from the ecclesiastical courts to the Royal Council (of
Spain). By order of the papal nuncio, the edition was cancelled so
successfully that only three or four copies survived. In 1618, in a
treatise by Cevallos, a similar contention was maintained on behalf
of the authority of the State. In 1624, this work was prohibited
by a separate decree, notwithstanding the application made by the
King (Philip III) through his ambassador at Rome, to prevent the
condemnation of a book that maintained the rights inherent in the
sovereign. The censorship authorities of Spain declined to ratify the
papal decree. In a case such as this, the Inquisition and the Crown
had interests in common. If the Crown had failed to vindicate its
independence, the Inquisition would have been reduced to subjection
to the Roman Congregations.[41] When the Inquisition failed in its
duties in regard to the examination of books before publication,
the State assumed for itself the direct exercise of the functions
of condemnation and suppression. In 1694, a treatise attributed
to Barambio was issued under the title of _Casos reservados a su
Santidad_, in which the royal prerogative was impugned. The book was
never placed upon the Index, but it was formally condemned under royal
decree, and the edition was ordered cancelled. In 1760, King Carlos III
issued regulations prescribing the rules respecting papal briefs, and
prescribing further the system under which the censorship functions of
the Inquisition were to be kept under subordination to the State. The
decree was recalled in 1763, but was reissued in 1768 with an appeal
to the spirit of the _Constitution_ of Benedict XIV, issued in 1753,
under which _Constitution_ the proceedings of the Roman Congregations
had been reformed. No edict concerning censorship was thereafter to
be published until it had been submitted to and approved by the King.
The Inquisition was thus placed under wholesome restrictions, but,
although it could not openly resist the royal prerogative, in practice
it continued to condemn books in secret without giving a hearing to the
authors, and to a great extent rendered the submission to the King a
mere formality after the publication of the edict of prohibition. It is
Lea’s conclusion that, as a result of the long series of contests, the
State gradually succeeded in asserting for its own protection the power
of sovereignty, and did not hesitate to exercise the function which had
at first been relegated exclusively to the Inquisition.
In 1751, an issue arose between Spain and Rome over the Catechism of
Mesengui. In this case the Spanish and Roman censors were in accord.
The contest represented an attempt on the part of King Carlos III to
free the throne from the domination of the Inquisition. The catechism
in question was contained in six volumes entitled _Exposition de la
Doctrine Chrétienne_. It was published in 1744 and was placed on
the Index in 1757. It proved particularly obnoxious to the Jesuits
and, at the instance of their general, Ricci, it was again condemned
under a formal Bull. The main ground for the antagonism to the book
was its utterances in regard to the claim of the popes to supremacy
over sovereigns. Its condemnation was virtually a challenge to all the
monarchs of Europe. King Carlos forbade the publication of the Bull
in Spain; the inquisitor-general, in defiance of the royal authority,
caused the Bull to be distributed throughout the churches and convents
of Spain. A royal edict of 1762 ordered that no Bull or papal letter
issued from Rome should be published without having been first
presented to the King by the nuncio and having been approved. This
edict was withdrawn in 1763 under pressure brought to bear upon the
King by his confessor, but it was reissued in 1768. With the close of
the reign of Carlos, the royal edict fell, however, into abeyance, and
the Inquisition again secured for itself full control of the matter of
censorship.
=3. Controversies concerning the Gallican Church, 1600–1758.=--While
there was an increasing tendency on the part, not only of the civil
authorities in Paris but also on that of the divines of the Sorbonne,
to bring into condemnation the works of the more extreme of the
Ultramontane writers, this policy had as one result the directing of
the attention of the authorities in Rome to the series of treatises
by French jurists and theologians in which was contested the claim of
the pope to authority in civil matters, and in which was upheld the
claim to independent authority on the part of the Gallic Church and
the right of the king to control the appointments in the Church. The
French writers gave special attention to the responsibilities of the
French bishops in regard to the control of the Church property of their
dioceses, responsibilities which, according to the French view, were
to be discharged not to Rome but to the State authorities. Among the
writers of this Gallican school of thought whose names came into the
Index during the 17th century may be noted the jurists, Simon Vigor,
Louis Servin, and Pithon Du Puy; the theologians Edmond Richer, Véron,
de Marca, Gerbais, and Boileau. The treatise of the latter had been
written under the instructions of Richelieu. These censorships of the
Holy See secured as a series no recognition in France. The condemnation
of the treatise of Rabardeau was, however, confirmed by an assembly of
the French clergy. In one way or another, the authority of the Holy
See made itself felt in France. Richer, for instance, even before the
formal prohibition in Rome of his writings, was, at the instance of
the authorities in Rome, dispossessed by the French Government from
his post as syndic of the Sorbonne. De Marca, who in 1642 had been
nominated as bishop, was refused confirmation by the Holy See on the
ground of the condemnation of his treatise _De concordia sacerdotii et
imperii_, and it was only in 1647, when after long negotiations he had
made retractation of the doctrine presented in this thesis, that he was
given authority to take charge of his diocese. In the Spanish Index,
are entered a few only of the titles of these French defenders of the
authority of the State which had been condemned in Rome.
[Sidenote: Declaration of the Sorbonne, 1663]
In May, 1663, the divines of the Sorbonne, on the ground of the
development of extreme Ultramontane views, published the following
declaration: I. It is the contention of this faculty that the pope
possesses no authority whatsoever concerning matters belonging to
the State or affecting the control on the part of the most Christian
King over matters of State. This faculty has, in fact, always opposed
the contentions of those who hold for even an indirect authority on
the part of the Church in State matters. II. It is the doctrine of
this faculty that the Christian King recognises in matters of State
no higher authority than God himself. III. It is the doctrine of
this faculty that the subjects of the king can, under no pretext or
suggestion, be freed from their obligation of loyalty and obedience to
the monarch. IV. The faculty can approve no propositions or theories
which are opposed to the complete freedom of the Gallican Church or to
the full authority for this kingdom of the canon law of France. The
faculty denies that the pope has the authority to issue instructions
that are contrary to the authority of these canons. This faculty holds
that the authority of the pope does not take precedence of that of a
general council of the Church. V. This faculty holds that without the
collaboration of the Church as expressed in a general council, the pope
does not possess infallibility. This declaration was the view which was
later confirmed, first by the Parliament of Paris, and later by the
King (Louis XIV). The King at the same time prohibited the printing or
distribution of any writings maintaining contrary doctrine. In 1664
and 1665, the Sorbonne published a censure of certain Ultramontane
propositions which had been found in books by de Vernant and Guimenius.
These censures were themselves condemned in very sharp terms in a Bull
issued in 1665 by Alexander VII. The Parliament of Paris promptly
prohibits the publication of the Bull and confirms the censures of
the Sorbonne. Diplomatic negotiations followed but did not succeed
in bringing any satisfactory conclusion for the issue. In 1671, was
published the _Exposition de la Doctrine de l’Église Catholique_,
by Bossuet, a treatise which, while it by no means supported the
contentions of the Holy See, found in Rome a favourable reception and
secured the individual commendation of Innocent XI.
[Sidenote: The Rights of the Crown in Ecclesiastical Matters]
In 1673, Louis XIV made claim for a material extension of the rights
of the Crown over the appointments in the French dioceses and for the
control of the property of the French Church. This declaration of the
King brought about a sharp conflict with Innocent XI, which continued
until 1682. In that year, a statement of principles arrived at by the
Gallican Church and presented in four articles brought the earlier
issue to a close. As a result of this first contest, one or two French
publications came into the Index. Among these was a treatise by the
Jesuit Rapin (published anonymously), prohibited in 1680. As late as
1710, was prohibited, by a brief of Clement XI, a volume by Andoul
on the matter of the Regalia rights. This papal brief the Parliament
of Paris refused to confirm and, in 1712, the Inquisition therefore
condemned the declaration that had been issued by the Parliament.
A similar course of condemnations had taken shape in 1680, in which
year a previous letter or enactment of the Parliament had been in like
manner condemned by the Inquisition of Rome. In 1682, the assembly of
the French clergy presented a conclusion in support of the contention
of the Crown in regard to the Regalia rights, which conclusion was
expressed in the following declaration:
I. To the pope has been given by God no authority over civil matters
of State. In these matters, kings and princes are subject to no
ecclesiastical authority, and they cannot either directly or indirectly
be brought under the control of the Church, nor can their subjects be
freed through any ecclesiastical intervention from the loyalty and
obedience due from them to their civil rulers.
II. The pope possesses full control in spiritual affairs, as specified
in the conclusions arrived at during the fourth and fifth sessions of
the Council of Constance. The Church of France takes the ground that
these conclusions arrived at in the council did not apply only to the
time of the schism but remained of binding authority.
III. The Apostolic authority is always to be exercised subject to the
restrictions of the canon law; and as far as France is concerned, the
laws of the monarchy and the old customs and regulations of the French
Church are not to be interfered with.
IV. It is the case that in matters of faith, the decision of the
pope retains a controlling influence and his decrees are rightly
to be issued to all the churches of the world. The papal judgment
is, however, not to be held as infallible, final, or not open to
modification unless and until it has secured the assent of the Church
universal, such assent as is expressed through the conclusions of the
general council.
This declaration was, in March, 1682, confirmed under the edict of
Louis XIV, duly registered by the Parliament of Paris. The declaration
brought out not a little antagonism and criticism in Rome but was not
at once condemned. In 1691, however, a brief of Alexander VIII declared
that the conclusions of this convention of 1682, and the edicts in
which the same were represented, were to be considered as null and
void. Through the prohibition of various writings in which the opinions
of this declaration were defended, the papal view in regard to the
same was also made clearly evident. In 1684, was prohibited, under a
special brief of Innocent XI, a treatise from Natalis, in 1685, one
from Neimburg, in 1688, one from Dupin. During the same period, the
Index Congregation condemned writings to the same purpose by Choiseul,
Borjon, Fleury, Févret, Arnauld, and others. The defence of the French
position made by Bossuet was also under consideration for condemnation
but was never formally prohibited.
The following statement from the historian Dejob, while referring to
issues that were under discussion at the Council of Trent, is equally
applicable to opinion in France on ecclesiastical organisation in the
succeeding century:
“Frenchmen of the sixteenth century found as a rule no
attraction in puritanism, in mysticism, or in epicureanism.
They approved of the conclusions of the Council of Trent in
maintaining against the Protestants the invocation of the
Saints, the use (as symbols) of images, the feeling for the
ceremonials of religious observance. Feeling assured that all
homage was actually and finally addressed to God, they approved
the action of the Council in maintaining for the government
Church a monarchical hierarchy, always provided that the
national clergy should lose none of its privileges, and that the
prerogatives of the King should not be assailed. Finally, they
realised that Catholicism had the advantage of being in accord
with the feeling of the people and with justice and common
sense, in defending against the partisans of predestination the
belief in the freedom of the will and in justification by works;
for, while concerning themselves little with equality under
the law, they held stoutly to equality before God. It may, in
fact, be said that their theory of relations of man before God
could be summed up in the three famous words that were adopted
by their descendants in expressing a political ideal: liberty,
equality, fraternity....
“They believed further that while it was not the duty of
believers to abandon the joys of this world, their salvation
in the world to come could be assured only through self-denial
and penitence. In accepting the aims and the ideals of the
Counter-reformation, France was, therefore, called upon for no
sacrifice of convictions or of practice.”[42]
[Sidenote: The Gallican Church Historians]
In 1684, 1685, and 1687, Innocent XI prohibited in special briefs
the Church history of Alexander; in 1685, an historical treatise by
Neimburg; in 1687, the same author’s biography of Gregory I, and
in 1689 a group of other of his writings. Between 1662 and 1693, a
series of treatises by de Launoy on Church history and Church law were
prohibited. In 1688, a brief of Innocent XI prohibits the treatise
on Church law of Dupin, and in 1693, the Inquisition prohibits the
_Bibliothèque_ of the same author. Later, the remainder of his
works came into the Index. In 1707, the writings of Tillemont were
denounced, but were saved from prohibition through a protest on the
part of certain Roman scholars. The Church history of Fleury escaped
the Index and of his works on Church law, only the _Catéchisme
Historique_ was prohibited and with a _d.c._ The learned Mabillon
came under consideration with the Index authorities more than once.
In 1703, a treatise of Mabillon, which had to do with the misuse and
misinterpretation of certain relics taken from the Roman catacombs, was
sharply criticised but escaped formal prohibition with the instruction
that Mabillon must produce an improved edition. His _Traité des Études
Monastiques_ was prohibited in the Italian edition. The Church history
of the French Jesuit Avrigny, covering the period of 1600–1718, was
prohibited on the ground of its Gallican views. Through a special brief
was condemned, in 1740, the translation by Le Courayer of Sarpi’s
_History of the Council of Trent_. Benedict XIV decided to recall the
prohibition of the Church history of Alexander, but at the same time
placed on the Index a series of treatises of Roncaglia the conclusions
in which were practically identical with those of Alexander.
Among the works condemned by the State may be cited:
Bellarmin, _Tractatus de potestate summi Pontificis in temporalibus_,
Rome, 1610, condemned under a decree of the Parliament of Paris
in November, 1610, on the following ground: _Contenant une fausse
et détestable proposition, tendante à l’éversion des puissances
souveraines ordonnées et établies de Dieu, soulévement des sujets
contre leurs princes, soustraction de leur obéissance, induction
d’attenter à leurs personnes et états, troubler le repos et la
tranquillité publique_.
Casaubon, Isaac, _De libertate ecclesiastica_. This book was condemned
by Henry IV, who undertook to have collected and destroyed all the
copies that had been brought into print.
Charron, Pierre, _Traité sur la sagesse_, Bordeaux, 1661. The first
edition was condemned by the Sorbonne until it should have been
expurgated. The later revised editions secured approval.
[Sidenote: Works Connected with the Gallican Church]
In 1729, Benedict XIII wrote a monograph which was to be read before
the Church universal on the commemoration of the feast of Gregory VII,
and in this paper he gave particular emphasis to the statement that
Gregory had deposed the Emperor Henry IV. This papal utterance brought
out protests on the part of a number of the parliaments and bishops
of France. In four briefs, Benedict condemned and ordered cancelled
pastoral letters of three bishops which contained animadversions on his
monograph, and he included at the same time in a general condemnation
all resolutions, decrees, or protests which had emanated from civil
authorities concerning the same matter. The _Officium_ containing
the objectionable statement which Benedict had ordered to be read on
the feast-day, was itself prohibited throughout the Austrian dominions.
Under Benedict XIV, were prohibited a series of writings which
undertook to defend certain measures attempted in 1749 by the
Government of France for the taxation of the clergy. The _Decr.
Generalia_, ii, 9, contain a general prohibition of all works which
bring into question the immunity (from taxation) of the property of
the Church. Shortly after the death of Benedict XIV, a group of six
monographs came into the Index which had to do with the question
whether a converted Jew, by name Barach Levi, was to be permitted
to take to himself another wife during the lifetime of the original
wife, who had decided to remain in the Jewish faith. The same question
had arisen a little earlier in France and had been decided in the
affirmative by Benedict XIV. The authority for the contention that the
convert was free so to act rests upon 1 Corinthians vii, 15.
=4. Ecclesiastical-Political Contests, 1700–1750.=--Clement XI
(1700–1721) plays an important part in the history of the Index. He
is the author of the Bull _Unigenitus_, of the Bull _Vineam
Domini Sabaoth_, and of the Bull concerning Chinese usages, and
he was responsible for the schism of Utrecht. He issued a longer
series of briefs than are to be credited to any other pope for the
prohibition of particular works, and to these are to be added a great
number of decrees published under his orders by the Inquisition and by
the Congregation of the Index, which carried general prohibitions of
whole classes of publications. Clement found himself involved, during
the twenty years of his rule, in serious contests and complications
with the several States of Europe, contests which had as one result
the swelling of the Index lists with a great number of controversial
writings. Under the Index policy of this period, were condemned not
only works which took ground antagonistic to the claims of the pope,
or in defence of the claims of civil authority, but a great series
of civil enactments, State decrees, and court decisions, with the
purport of which the Holy See found reason for dissatisfaction. Public
documents and official records of this general character could of
course be formally condemned, and could in form be prohibited; but it
was not practicable, under any authority possessed by the pope, to
do anything to prevent such enactments, court decisions, etc., from
becoming known and from remaining in force in the territories in which
they applied. The so-called prohibition on the part of the pope may be
considered as simply the expression of a pious opinion, and differs
therefore in its purpose and in its application from the prohibitions
previously attempted by means of the Index. Among the decisions of
magistrates which came into the Index during this period, were a long
series taken from the Neapolitan courts, decisions which indicated
strained relations between the Government of Sicily and the Holy See.
The most important book of the time having to do with these Sicilian
complications was the _Political History of the Kingdom of Naples_, by
Pietro Giannone. This was published just after the death of Clement
and was promptly prohibited under the general policy that had been
in force. By the time of Benedict XIV, the complications between the
Holy See and the Governments of the Catholic States had been pretty
well straightened out and the Index of Benedict contains therefore the
titles of but very few political works. Through a special decree of
the Congregation of January, 1729, was prohibited a history written
by Count Franc. Maria Ottieri, and published in Rome in 1728, of the
_War of the Spanish Succession, 1696–1725_. The book was condemned on
the ground that it contained expressions injurious, if not libellous,
concerning certain princes and political leaders. There seems in
this case to have been no objection on theological or ecclesiastical
grounds. The decree states that the condemnation had received the
personal approval of Benedict XIII. Under the instructions of Benedict
XIV, however, the title was taken out of the Index.
In 1746, Benedict XIV ordered the prohibition of a treatise by Garrido,
general of the Spanish Congregation of the Benedictines, which had been
printed in Madrid in 1745 under the title: _Concordia prelatorum:
Tractatus duplex de unione ecclesiarum et beneficiorum_, etc. This
work was also condemned by the Spanish Inquisition, which was as
heretofore under the control of the Dominicans.
It is the contention of those upholding the reasonableness of the
claims of the Church that there need be no conflict of authority
between the powers spiritual and the powers temporal; that the
allegiance and obedience should be entire towards the sovereign in
matters temporal and entire towards the pope in matters spiritual. In
the application of this apparently simple principle, it was inevitable
that there should arise differences of interpretation. From the
ecclesiastical point of view, it was claimed that all ecclesiastical
property was to be classed with the matters spiritual; to the same
class belonged of necessity ecclesiastical persons, thus securing for
such persons immunities, both personal and real; while from these two
claims arises the jurisdiction of the Church in matters both civil and
criminal. In marriage, for instance, the sacrament is the essential
thing, from which arises the inference that marriage is to be regulated
by ecclesiastical law. Finally, every human act may be the subject of
sin, and on this ground the Church has received divine precepts and has
instituted ecclesiastical laws for the regulation of all actions.
It is evident that, if these assumptions be accepted, there are very
few human activities the regulation of which belongs outside of the
authority of the Church. This is in substance the view presented by an
Austrian Romanist previously quoted, who was writing on behalf of the
liberties of the Austrian Church.[43]
The Rev. Joseph Berington, writing in 1760, uses, in describing the
ecclesiastical polity, the following language:
“The mode of government which Rome maintains in this kingdom
(England) and from which in no kingdom it ever departed but when
driven by hard necessity, draws very near to that feudal system
of polity, to which the nations of Europe were once subject. It
contained one sovereign as suzerain monarch in whose hands was
lodged the _supremum dominium_, and this he apportioned out
to a descending series of vassals who, all holding of him _in
capite_, returned him service for the benefits they received
in honours, jurisdiction on lands; and to this service they were
bound by gratitude, which was strengthened by an oath of fealty.
The application of the system to the sovereign power of the
pontiff and to a chain of descending vassalage in archbishops,
bishops, and the inferior orders in the ministry, is direct and
inevitable.”[44]
Catalani, writing in 1738, contends that the oath of allegiance to
the pope expresses not only a profession of canonical obedience, but
an oath of fealty not unlike that which vassals took to their direct
lords.[45] He cites as an example, the first oath of the kind, that
taken by the Patriarch of Aquileia to Gregory VII, in 1079.
Mendham concludes, after reference to other authorities, that
allegiance and obedience are divided in the most unfavourable sense
and degree (particularly in the case of heretical rulers) when the
soul and conscience are to be given to a foreign (so-called) spiritual
sovereign, while the actual temporal ruler can claim only what remains
of his subject.[46]
A long series of works came into print during the last half of the
18th century having to do with the issues that had arisen between the
Papacy, under Clement XIII and Pius VI and the Governments of Venice
and of Naples. With a few exceptions, doubtless accidental, these works
were duly prohibited, either by the Inquisition or the Congregation.
The similar contests between Clement XIII and the Duke of Parma did
not bring into the Index any fresh titles. A series of Spanish works
written against the claims and contentions of the Holy See, printed
during the same period, also escaped the attention of the editors
of the Roman Indexes. The Indexes of this period contain the titles
of a number of treatises on Church and State issued by the French
author, Richet, and also of a series of monographs on the reform of
the religious orders and on the policy to be pursued by the State with
its non-Catholic citizens. The list also includes a monograph on the
authority of the pope, published in Amsterdam in connection with the
controversy concerning the Church at Utrecht.
In 1764, were prohibited under a separate decree of the Congregation,
a treatise by Bishop Frevorius, published in 1763, together with a
series of less important works, all of which were concerned with the
issues that had arisen between the Holy See and certain of the German
bishoprics. In 1784, the Congregation prohibits the Introduction to
Ecclesiastical Law written by Eybel; and in the following year was
condemned, by a brief of Pius VI, the treatise by the same author on
Confession. In 1786, the monograph by Eybel, issued under the title of
_Was ist der Papst?_, was also prohibited in a separate brief. The
editors of the Index evidently found it impracticable, however, to make
place for the long series of similar publications by the controversial
writers of Germany which came into print during the same period. The
two or three titles selected cover some of the least important of
the series. The selection was apparently made without any adequate
knowledge of the material to be considered.
=5. England and the Papacy.=--On the 25th of February, 1570, Sixtus V
issues his Bull against Queen Elizabeth, a copy of which Bull was, on
May 15th, nailed on the door of the palace of the Bishop of London. The
Pope describes Elizabeth as “a bastard and usurper,” the “persecutor
of God’s saints.” He declares that it would be “an act of virtue to
be repaid with plenary indulgence and forgiveness of all sins, to
lay violent hands upon Elizabeth and to deliver her into the hands
of her enemies.” He declares Philip of Spain to be the rightful King
of England and the Defender of the Faith. In the same year, Cardinal
Allen, an Englishman, printed in Antwerp a pamphlet entitled _An
Admonition to the Nobility and People of England and Ireland_, in
which, says Motley, Queen Elizabeth is “accused of every crime and vice
that can pollute humanity.” These charges are set forth with “foul
details unfit for the public eye in these more decent days.”
[Sidenote: The English Oath of Allegiance 1606–1853]
An important question in the relations between the Papacy and England
that called for attention under Paul V, was the issue that arose with
James I of England after the discovery of the Gunpowder Plot. An
order had been issued by King James in July, 1606, for a fresh oath
of allegiance to be taken by English Catholics. The Pope forbade the
Catholics to take this oath because it included the statement that
the claim of the Pope to have the right to depose kings and princes
and to absolve their subjects from allegiance was godless, infamous,
and heretical. The several statements brought into print on behalf
of King James in defence of the wording of the oath, were themselves
condemned by the Inquisition. The treatises of the English Catholics,
William and John Barclay and Thomas Preston (“Roger Widdrington”),
in reply to the defence by Bellarmin of the papal contentions, were
promptly placed upon the Index in connection with a long series of
later monographs on the same subject. The oath of allegiance was, under
Urban VIII in 1626, and later under Innocent X and Alexander VII, again
declared to be invalid. Towards the end of the 18th century, an oath
of allegiance substantially identical was, however, approved by six
theological faculties in England and by the Apostolic vicar in England
and this decision was accepted without protest by Rome. In the oath of
allegiance (which is not to be confused with the oath of supremacy, the
latter not being required from his Catholic subjects) James required
the Catholics to acknowledge that he was the rightful King of England,
that the pope had no authority to dispossess him or to incite a foreign
prince to war against him or to pardon his subjects for disobedience to
British law. They were further called upon to swear that, irrespective
of any papal decrees of deposition or any threat of excommunication,
they would remain loyal to the King, and further they were to declare
as godless and as damnable the theory that the pope could release any
subject from obedience to his rightful sovereign. Finally, they were
called upon to declare the belief that neither the pope nor any other
authority could release them from this oath. In 1608, James wrote a
defence of the oath, which was printed in a Latin version prepared by
Henry Savile. In 1609, this treatise was prohibited by Paul V under
the penalty of _excommunicatio latae_, etc. A further prohibition was
issued by the Inquisition some months later. A treatise by William
Barclay, a Scotch Catholic, printed in 1609 (after the death of the
author), presents the arguments against the authority, either direct or
indirect, of the pope in secular matters. This was duly condemned in
Rome in 1610 and in Paris in 1612. It formed the text for the famous
treatise by Bellarmin, _Tractatus de potestate summi Pont. in rebus
temporalibus_. The treatise written by the Benedictine, Thomas Preston,
under the nom-de-plume of Roger Widdrington, _Apologia Card. Bellarmini
pro jure principium adv. suas ipsius rationes pro auctoritate papali_,
etc., printed in London in 1611, was prohibited in Rome in 1613 in
a general decree. In 1614, the Index of the Congregation issued a
special decree prohibiting this work together with a second treatise
of the same author. Later, were placed on the Index a further group
of essays by Widdrington. Sarpi published in April, 1614, an analysis
of the two earlier books of Widdrington, giving high praise to the
scholarly authority of the author’s conclusions. These had an immediate
bearing upon the contention of the Venetian Republic to control,
without interference from the pope, its own civil affairs. In 1680,
sixty divines of the Sorbonne rendered a judgment to the effect that
the Catholics in England could with a safe conscience swear loyalty
to King James and accept the oath of allegiance. A monograph making
record of this judgment, printed in London, in 1681, under the title
of _English Loyalty Vindicated by the Divines_, or a _Declaration of
Three-score Persons of the Sorbonne for the Oath of Allegiance_, was,
in 1682, prohibited by the Inquisition. A monograph that secured a
wide circulation, being printed in fact thirty-five times in fifteen
years, under the title of _An Abuse Misrepresented and Represented_,
escaped formal condemnation, although it took strong ground in behalf
of the English contention. In 1760, the theological faculties of
Paris, Louvain, Douay, Valladolid, Salamanca, and Alcala united in
a declaration to the effect that the pope possessed in England no
authority over civil affairs and had no power to release the subjects
of the English king from the oath of allegiance, and that no Catholic
was under obligation to accept instructions from the authorities of the
Church that would interfere with this allegiance. In 1853, Professors
Russell, Patrick Murray, and others of the Catholic College of Maynooth
declared, in connection with a Parliamentary investigation, that,
according to their own opinion and to the purport of their teachings
to their students, the pope possessed neither direct nor indirect
authority in the United Kingdom in secular matters. They stated further
that the contrary doctrine was now considered as practically obsolete.
=6. The Gallicans and Liberal Catholics, 1845–1870.=--The contest
of the Congregation of the Index against theological Gallicanism began
in 1851 under Pius IX. Certain books of instruction utilised in the
seminaries of France were, for the purpose of maintaining them in use
against the criticisms of the Ultramontane press, revised with the
elimination of material that could be classed as Gallican. Among the
works belonging to this period which were condemned on the ground of
their Gallican or Liberal Catholic views may be noted the following:
Dupin, André M. J. J., _Manuel du Droit Publique-ecclésiastique
Français_, printed in 1844, prohibited 1845. This manual presents
in eighty-three articles the “Liberties” of the Gallican Church, the
declaration of the clergy made in 1682 on the limits of ecclesiastical
power, and the text of the Concordat.
Bailly, Louis, Canon of Dijon, _Theologia Dogmatica et Moralis, ad usum
Seminariorum_, completed in eight volumes in 1789, reprinted with the
revision by Receveur in 1842, prohibited in 1852 with a _d.c._
Lequeux, J. F. M., _Manuale Compendium Juris Canonici ad usum
Seminariorum_, printed in 1839, prohibited in 1851. The work
had been denounced by five of the French bishops. A decree of the
Congregation issued in 1852 states that the author had “submitted
himself.”
Guettée, l’Abbé, _L’Histoire de l’Église de France_, volumes i to
vii, printed in Paris, 1847, condemned in 1852. The work had secured
the specific approval of no less than forty-two of the French bishops.
Thions, C., _Adresse au Pape Pie IX sur la Nécessité d’une Réforme
Religieuse_, printed in 1848, prohibited in 1852.
Montalembert, _Les Intérêts Catholiques au XIX^{me} Siècle_, published
in 1852, received very sharp criticisms from the Ultramontane journals
and from a number of the bishops, but escaped the Index. In fact no
work of this author was formally condemned in Rome.
A number of the dioceses of France had, on the authority of a Bull
of Pius V, issued in 1568, retained their individual mass books and
breviaries. In 1848, Pius IX issues a Bull recalling the permission
given three centuries earlier by his predecessor and directing the use
in all the dioceses of the Roman liturgy. One or two of the long series
of writings which the Bull brought out were placed upon the Index.
From 1852 on, there came into print a number of controversial writings
concerning the use in the schools of the heathen classics. No one of
these was placed upon the Index, but Pius IX, in an encyclical issued
in March, 1853, emphasises the importance of a very careful selection
of the heathen texts to be so utilised and the necessity, in the case
of certain authors, of providing expurgated texts.
Bellarmin, in his treatise _De Summo Pontifice_, condemned pure
monarchy in the name of a limited monarchy. By the former he appears to
have understood a government (hardly to be conceived as practicable)
in which the king would have ruled entirely by himself, while under
the second he was describing a restricting body made up of delegates
who, having been drawn from the ranks of the people, were invested by
the prince with an absolute authority and were made responsible to him
alone. He denied for the pope the right to exercise a direct control
over the states of the world, but claimed for the Papacy the privilege
of interfering at will.