ÆäÀÌÁö À̹ÌÁö
PDF
ePub

BOOK I.

CHAP. XII.

canon law declares expressly, It is indecent for laymen to judge a churchman.* The popes Paul III., Pius V., and Urban VIII., excommunicated all lay judges who should presume to undertake the trial of ecclesiastics. Even the bishops of France have not been afraid to say on several occasions, that they did not depend on any temporal prince; and, in 1656, the general assembly of the French clergy had the assurance to use the following expressions-" The decree of council having been read, was disapproved by the assembly, because it leaves the king judge over the bishops, and seems to subject their immunities to his judges." There are decrees of the popes that excommunicate whoever imprisons a bishop. According to the principles of the church of Rome, a prince has not the power of punishing an ecclesiastic with death, though a rebel or a malefactor; he must first apply to the ecclesiastical power; and the latter will, if it thinks proper, deliver up the culprit to the secular arm, after having degraded him. History affords us a thousand

belongs to the spiritual court:-"Cog-
nitio causæ contra ecclesiasticos, etiam
pro delicto læsæ majestatis, feri debet
a judice ecclesiastico." RICCI Synops.
Decret. et Resol. S. Congreg. Immunit.
p. 105.-A constitution of pope Ur-
ban VI. pronounces those sovoreigns
or magistrates guilty of sacrilege, who
shall banish an ecclesiastic from their
territories, and declares them to have
ipso facto incurred the sentence of ex-
communication. Cap. II. De Fora.
Compet in VII. To this immunity
may be added the indulgence shown
by the ecclesiastical tribunals to the
clergy, on whom they never inflicted
any but slight punishments, even for
the most atrocious crimes. The dread-
ful disorders that arose from this cause,
at length produced their own remedy
in France, where the clergy were at
length subjected to the temporal juris-
diction for all transgressions that are in-
jurious to society. See PAPON Arrêts
Notables, book i. tit. v. act 34.

Indecorum est laicos homines viros
ecclesiasticos judicare. Can. in nona
actione 22, xvi. q. 7.

See the Statement of Facts on the
System of Independence of Bishops.

In the year 1725, a parish priest,
of the canton of Lucerne, having re-
fused to appear before the supreme
council, was, for his contumacy, ba-
nished from the canton. Hereupon
his diocesan, the bishop of Constance,
had the assurance to write to the coun-
cil that they had infringed the ecclesi-
astical immunities-that "it is unlaw-

ful to subject the ministers of God to the decisions of the temporal power." In these pretensions he was sanctioned by the approbation of the pope's nuncio and the court of Rome. But the council of Lucerne firmly supported the rights of sovereignty, and, without engaging with the bishop in a controversy which would have been derogatory to their dignity, answered him-"Your lordship quotes various passages from the writings of the fathers, which we, on our side, might also quote in our own favour, if it were necessary, or if there was question of deciding the contest by dint of quotation. But let your lordship rest assured that we have a right to summon before us a priest, our natural subject, who encroaches on our prerogatives-to point out to him his error to exhort him to a reform of his conduct and, in consequence of his obstinate disobedience, after repeated citations, to banish him from our dominions. We have not the least doubt that this right belongs to us; and we are determined to defend it. And indeed it ought not to be proposed to any sovereign to appear as party in a contest with a refractory subject like him-to refer the cause to the decision of a third party, whoever he be--and run the risk of being condemned to tolerate in the state a person of such character, with what dignity soever he might be invested," &c. The bishop of Constance had proceeded so far as to assert, in his letter to the canton, dated December 18th, 1725, that

examples of bishops who remained unpunished, or were but slightly chastised, for crimes for which nobles of the highest rank forfeited their lives. John de Braganza, king of Portugal, justly inflicted the penalty of death on those noblemen who had conspired his destruction: but he did not dare to put to death the archbishop of Braga, the author of that detestable plot.*

For an entire body of men, numerous and powerful, to stand beyond the reach of the public authority, and be dependent on a foreign court, is an entire subversion of order in the republic, and a manifest diminution of the sovereignty. This is a mortal stab given to society, whose very essence it is, that every citizen should be subject to the public authority. Indeed the immunity which the clergy arrogate to themselves in this respect, is so inimical to the natural and necessary rights of a nation, that the king himself has not the power of granting it. But churchmen will tell us they derive this immunity from God himself; but till they have furnished some proof of their pretensions, let us adhere to this certain principle, that God desires the safety of states, and not that which will only be productive of disorder and destruction to them.

BOOK I.

CHAP. XII.

ty of church

The same immunity is claimed for the possessions of the 2 152. church. The state might, no doubt, exempt those posses-7. Immunisions from every species of tax at a time when they were possessions. scarcely sufficient for the support of the ecclesiastics; but, for that favour, these men ought to be indebted to the public authority alone, which has always a right to revoke it, whenever the welfare of the state makes it necessary. It being one of the fundamental and essential laws of every society, that, in case of necessity, the wealth of all the members ought [73] to contribute proportionally to the common necessities-the prince himself cannot, of his own authority, grant a total exemption to a very numerous and rich body, without being guilty of extreme injustice to the rest of his subjects, on whom, in consequence of that exemption, the whole weight of the burden will fall.

The possessions of the church are so far from being entitled to an exemption on account of their being consecrated to God, that, on the contrary, it is for that very reason they ought to be taken the first for the use and safety of the state. For nothing is more agreeable to the common Father of mankind than to save a state from ruin. God himself having no need of anything, the consecration of wealth to him is but a dedication of it to such uses as shall be agreeable to him. Besides, a great part of the revenues of the church, by the "churchmen, as soon as they have fore." Memorial on the Dispute between received holy orders, ceased to be natu- the Pope and the Canton of Lucerne, ral subjects, and are thus released from p. 65. the bondage in which they lived be

Revolutions of Portugal.

CHAP. XII.

BOOK I. confession of the clergy themselves, is destined for the poor. When the state is in necessity, it is doubtless the first and principal pauper, and the most worthy of assistance. We may extend this principle even to the most common cases, and safely assert that to supply a part of the current expenses of the state from the revenues of the church, and thus take so much from the weight of the people's burden, is really giving a part of those revenues to the poor, according to their original destination. But it is really contrary to religion and the intentions of the founders to waste in pomp, luxury, and epicurism, those revenues that ought to be consecrated to the relief of the poor.*

153.

8. Excom

of men in office.

Not satisfied, however, with rendering themselves indemunication pendent, the ecclesiastics undertook to bring mankind under their dominion; and indeed they had reason to despise the stupid mortals who suffered them to proceed in their plan. Excommunication was a formidable weapon among ignorant and superstitious men, who neither knew how to keep it within its proper bounds, nor to distinguish between the use and the abuse of it. Hence arose disorders which have prevailed in some protestant countries. Churchmen have presumed, by their own authority alone, to excommunicate men in high employments, magistrates whose functions were daily useful to society-and have boldly asserted that those officers of the state, being struck with the thunders of the church, could no longer discharge the duties of their posts. What a perversion of order and reason! What! shall not a nation be allowed to intrust its affairs, its happiness, its repose and safety, to the hands of those whom it deems the most skilful and the most worthy of that trust? Shall the power of a churchman, whenever he pleases, deprive the state of its wisest conductors, of its firmest supports, and rob the prince of his most faithful servants? So absurd a pretension has been condemned by princes, and even by prelates, respectable for their character and judgment. We read in the 171st letter of Ives de Chartres, to the Archbishop of Sens, that the royal capitularies (conformably to the thirteenth canon of the [74] twelfth council of Toledo, held in the year 681) enjoined the priests to admit to their conversation all those whom the king's majesty had received into favour, or entertained at his table, though they had been excommunicated by them, or by others, in order that the church might not appear to reject or condemn those whom the king was pleased to employ in his service.*

154.

sovereigns

The excommunications pronounced against the sovereigns 9. And of themselves, and accompanied with the absolution of their themselves. subjects from their oaths of allegiance, put the finishing stroke to this enormous abuse; and it is almost incredible

*See Letters on the Pretensions of the Clergy.

BOOK I.

that nations should have suffered such odious procedures. We have slightly touched on this subject in §§ 145 and 146. CHAP. XII. The thirteenth century gives striking instances of it. Otho IV. for endeavouring to oblige several provinces of Italy to submit to the laws of the empire, was excommunicated and deprived of the empire by Innocent III. and his subjects. absolved from their oath of allegiance. Finally, this unfortunate emperor, being abandoned by the princes, was obliged to resign the crown to Frederic II. John, king of England, endeavouring to maintain the rights of his kingdom in the election of an archbishop of Canterbury, found himself exposed to the audacious enterprises of the same pope. Innocent excommunicated the king-laid the whole kingdom under an interdict-had the presumption to declare John unworthy of the throne, and to absolve his subjects from their oath of fidelity; he stirred up the clergy against him-excited his subjects to rebel-solicited the king of France to take up arms to dethrone him-publishing, at the same time, a crusade against him, as he would have done against the Saracens. The king of England at first appeared determined to defend himself with vigour; but soon losing courage, he suf fered himself to be brought to such an excess of infamy, as to resign his kingdoms into the hands of the pope's legate, to receive them back from him, and hold them as a fief of the church, on condition of paying tribute.*

The popes were not the only persons guilty of such enormities: there have also been councils who bore a part in them. That of Lyons, summoned by Innocent IV., in the year 1245, had the audacity to cite the emperor Frederic II. to appear before them in order to exculpate himself from the charges brought against him-threatening him with the thunders of the church if he failed to do it. That great prince did not give himself much trouble about so irregular a proceeding. He said "that the pope aimed at rendering himself both a judge and a sovereign; but that, from all antiquity, the emperors themselves had called councils, where the popes and prelates rendered to them, as to their sovereigns, the respect and obedience that was their due." emperor, however, thinking it necessary to yield a little to the superstition of the times, condescended to send ambassadors to the council, to defend his cause; but this did not prevent the pope from excommunicating him, and declaring him deprived of the crown. Frederic, like a man of a superior genius, laughed at the empty thunders of the Vatican, and proved himself able to preserve the crown in spite of the election of Henry, Landgrave of Thuringia, whom the ecclesiastical electors, and many bishops, had presumed to declare

* Matthew Paris.-Turretin. Compend. Hist. Eccles. Secul. xiii.

The [75]

HEISS'S History of the Empire, book ii. chap. xvi.

BOOK I. CHAP. XII.

3155.

10. The

thing to

of justice.

king of the Romans-but who obtained little more by that election, than the ridiculous title of king of the priests.

I should never have done, were I to accumulate examples; but those I have already quoted are but too many for the honour of humanity. It is an humiliating sight to behold the excess of folly to which superstition had reduced the nations of Europe in those unhappy times.*

By means of the same spiritual arms, the clergy drew every thing to themselves, usurped the authority of the triclergy draw-bunals, and disturbed the course of justice. They claimed ing every a right to take cognisance of all causes on account of sin, of themselves, which (says Innocent III.†) every man of sense must know and disturb that the cognisance belongs to our ministry. In the year ing the order 1329, the prelates of France had the assurance to tell King Philip de Valois, that, to prevent causes of any kind from being brought before the ecclesiastical courts, was depriving the church of all its rights, omnia ecclesiarum jura tollere.I And accordingly, it was their aim to have to themselves the decision of all disputes. They boldly opposed the civil authority, and made themselves feared by proceeding in the way of excommunication. It even happened sometimes, that as dioceses were not always confined to the extent of the 76] political territory, a bishop would summon foreigners before his tribunal, for causes purely civil, and take upon him to decide them, in manifest violation of the rights of nations. To such a height had the disorder arisen three or four centuries ago, that our wise ancestors thought themselves obliged to take serious measures to put a stop to it, and stipulated, in their treaties, that none of the confederates should be sum

Sovereigns were sometimes found, who, without considering future consequences, favoured the papal encroachments when they were likely to prove advantageous to their own interests. Thus, Louis VIII., king of France, wishing to invade the territories of the Count of Toulouse, under pretence of making war on the Albigenses, requested of the pope, among other things, "that he would issue a bull declaring that the two Raymonds, father and son, together with all their adherents, associates, and allies, had been and were deprived of all their possessions." VELLY'S Hist. of France, vol. iv. p. 33. Of a similar nature to the preceding is the following remarkable fact:-Pope Martin IV. excommunicated Peter, king of Arragon, declared that he had forfeited his kingdom, all his lands, and even the regal dignity, and pronounced his subjects absolved from their oath of allegiance. He even excommunicated all who

should acknowledge him as king, or perform towards him any of the duties of a subject. He then offered Arragon and Catalonia to the Count de Valois, second son of Philip the Bold, on condition that he and his successors should acknowledge themselves vassals of the holy see, take an oath of fealty to the pope, and pay him a yearly tribute. The king of France assembled the barons and prelates of his kingdom, to deliberate on the pope's offer, and they advised him to accept of it. "Strange blindness of kings and their counsellors!" exclaims, with good reason, a modern historian; "they did not perceive, that, by thus accepting kingdoms from the hands of the pope, they strengthened and established his pretensions to the right of deposing themselves." VELLY'S History of France, vol. vi. p. 190.

† In cap. Novit. de Judicis.

See Leibnitii Codex, Juris Gent. Diplomat. Dipl. LXVII. 2 9.

« ÀÌÀü°è¼Ó »