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; it follows that the Church should only be a subordinate society within the State; (a collegium' instead of a 'societas perfecta.') 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 concerns 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, inspiciendi, 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 existence 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 application, and the Church can often be content if her rights as a corporation are respected and protected; but she can never regard as a true doctrine that which disregards her divine origin and divine rights.

* Bluntschli, 1.c. p. 85 seq. 2 Ibid. p. 87.

Ibid. p. 88. Bluntschli allows the similitude of marriage between the two, provided the State (l'êtat rather than respublica, civitas, imperium— the State in the modern rather than in the old sense) be taken as the husband, the Church as the wife.

Syllabus, prop. 19, from the Allocution of Dec. 9, 1854, Dec. 17, 1860, June 9, 1862.

5 S. Thom. Sum. 1, 2, qu. 90, a. 3, ad 3.

Samuel Pufendorf, de habitu religionis Christianæ 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 plurium hominum, quae imperio per homines administrato 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.

The proposition of M. A. de Dominis, de rep. Christ. 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 heretical foundation of the heresy which De Dominis afterwards developed further (Du Plessis d'Argentré, Collect. Judic. t. iii. p. ii. p. 194), and which also ex negatione violentae dominationis deduces a negatio legitimae potestatis (ibid. p. 195).

Pufendorf, l.c. § 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.

Ibid. § 39, p. 130 seq. This is further developed by Justus Henning Böhmer, Jur. Parochial. § i. c. i. ii. iii., and Jur. Eccles. Protest. 1. i. tit. 33, n. 8.

10 One of these was called: Principes sur l'essence, la distinction et les limites des deux puissances, spirituelle et temporelle. Ouvrage posthume du Père La Borde de l'Oratoire. It was forbidden by the Roman Inquisition, August 5, 1753, and Benedict XIV. warned the bishops of Poland against it, as it was much spread there. Roscovány, Mon. t. iii. pp. 154156, n. 473.

"Hübler, in Dove's Zeitschrift für Kirchenrecht, 1863, vol. iii. p. 418. 12 Hübler here refers to Bluntschli, Allgem. Staatsrecht, vol. ii. p. 373 seq., and to the Church laws of Baden and Würtemberg 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 Hübler here refers to Aegidi (Erlanger, Theol.Ztschr. N.F.vol. xxxvi.), and Hermann (Meszner's Evang. K. Ztz. 1859).

$10.

Where, however, modern States exist with freedom of conscience,' and several religious denominations with equal rights, it is impossible fully to carry out the principles of the Church.

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 consequence of our present religious divisions there is a certain necessity and justification for it, and for the consequent position of the State. For it is the position which, through the Reformation 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 immediate connection with this is the right in matters of conscience to be independent of any vote of a majority in a political assembly.' 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 marriage, 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

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 moderne Staat und die Katholische Kirche, pp. 63, 64.

PART II. THE DECLARATIONS OF 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. 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. § 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. Individual theologians, as Bellarmine and Suarez, 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 published; and this has not yet taken place.3

1 Cardinal Du Perron, Replic. 1. iv. p. 745. Cf. Bossuet, Defens. Dissert. 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 hic in antecessum expromere. . . . Gregorium VII. aliosve Pontifices . . nunquam decreto ad omnem Ecclesiam edito docuisse, eam sententiam, quae ecclesiasticae potestati talia vindicaret, ad integritatem fidei Catholicae aut ecclesiastici dogmatis pertinere.... Quare etiam ii, qui pontificiam infallibitatem vel maxime tuentur, ab hac sententia abhorrere deque his, ut et de aliis pontificium gestis, libere disputare possunt.' Cf. 1. iii. c. xxiv. p. 326 seq., c. i. seq. p. 272 seq. Pey, De l'Au

torité des deux Puissances, Strassbourg, 1780, vol. i. p. 91: 'Les Papes eux-mêmes dans les décrets, où ils s'efforçaient d'établir leur prétentions, n'ont jamais rien défini expressément là-dessus.' Fleury, Hist. Ecclés. t. xix. 1. 90, n. 18. Gosselin, op. cit. ii. p. 293 seq. Bianchi, t. i. l. i. § 21, n. 1, p. 184. Mamachi, op. cit. t. iv. p. 244. John Trithemius, Chron. Hirsaug. ad annum 1106. Martin Gerbert, of St. Blase, de legitima Ecclesiae potestate circa sacra et profana: typis monasterii S. Blasii, 1761, 1. iv. e. 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. Quoted by Döllinger, Erwägungen für die Bischöfe des Concils, München, 1869, p. 13, § 19.

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 definivit; propterea disputationi 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 decision, 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 definition. 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 distinction, but one that has ever been well known to theologiansand canonists, and also to the Roman Court. The reasons alleged are doubtless often of great importance for rightly understanding 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 misunderstandings about the decision itself.

1 By Janus,' Döllinger, Schulte, and others.