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. 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 administer any public office.27

1 1 Cor. v. 11; 2 Thess. iii. 14; 2 Joh. x. 11. Ambros. Ep. 40, ad. Theodos. Synes. Ep. 58. Isidor. Hispal. in can. 18, Iren. adv. Haer. iii. 3. c. xi. q. 3. Nicol. I. can. 3; ibid. can. ap. 11, 13 (al. 10, 12). Antioch. c. 2. Carth. 387-390, c. 7 (Hefele, i. 777, 494; ii. 46). Conc. 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. Conc. Hohenaltheim, 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.

2 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, h.t. in 6.

836.

3 Cf. Bossuet, 1.c. c. xxii. p. 157, § Pertinet etiam.

4 Childeb. Constit. n. 2. Baluz. Capitul. t. i. p. 17.

5 Conc. Vermer. can. 9 (Mansi, xii. p. 578 seq.). Baluz. 1. c. pp. 172, Cf. Hefele, iii. p. 551.

Capitul. 1. v. 300; vii. 215. Baluz. t. i. pp. 885, 1071.

Const. a. 825, c. i. (Pertz, 1. iii. p. 248).

8 Hard. vi. 440.

• Canciani, Barbar. Leg. Ant. t. iv. pp. 291, 309.

10 Hefele, v. p. 464. Cf. letter of St. Thom. à Becket to Card. Albert, 1170, Thom. Cant. 1. v. Ep. 22, Bouquet, Recueil, xvi. 419, Ep. 258.

11 Kober, Kirchenbann, p. 439. The petition of the Catholics of Antioch 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

(Hard. i. 964, seq. 889). For examples in ninth century, vide Hefele, iv. pp. 52, 112.

12 Joh. Saresb. Ep. 326, pp. 376, 377: Tandem cum D. Anglorum rex doleret illum tamdiu excommunicationi subjacere, regiam adjecit manum, eundem compellens, ut exhibitione justitiae se a sententia excommunicationis, qua tenebatur, faceret absolvi.' The 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, 1.c. et 1. iii. c. iv. 14 Ivo, Decret. 1. xiv. c. 69, Ep. 186, ad Laurent. Opp. ii. p. 78. is Hurter, Innoc. III. vol. iii. p. 114.

16 Hefele, v. pp. 787, 816 seq. Pertz, Leg. iv. 236. 17 Huillard-Bréholles, Diplom. i. p. 76 seq. Kirchengeschichte, vol. lii. (new series, vii.) p. 43.

Stolberg Brischar,

18 Senkenberg, Corp. Jur. Germ. t. ii. Jur. Alam. c. iii. 127.

19 Council of Taragona, 1233, c. 18; of Paris, 1248, c. 20; of Milan, 1287, c. 28; of Anfe, 1300, c. 7; of Trêves, 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, 1.c. p. 438).

29 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 Trêves, 1238, treating of those who remain six weeks under anathema (Hefele, v. p. 938 seq.).

seq.

Hefele, 1.c. p. 1019. Hard. vii. 319, 413, 1509. Kober, p. 434

Can. 13 (Hefele, v. p. 750 seq.).

24 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 Compiègne, 1304, c. 4 (Hard. 1.c. p. 1276; Hefele, p. 355); of Pressburg, 1309, c. 7 (Hefele, p. 427); Kober, 1.c. p. 437 seq.

28 Urban II. can. 5, c. xv. q. 6. Jaffé, Reg. n. 4291, p. 474. "Innoc. III. 1213, 1. xvi. Ep. 116, p. 913: Cum excommunicatorum communio sit aliis interdicta, ipsi officia publica exercere non debent.' 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

with excommunicated persons, so that their wives, families, and servants, 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 support life. 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. 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 infliction of the greater excommunication except after canonical warning 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. 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; 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.

Urban. Ep. ad. Genebald. (Hard. vi. p. 1651 seq.).

Innoc. III. 1. i. Ep. 381, p. 361, ed. Migne: 'Nullus omnino nominatim excommunicato scienter communicare tenetur, nisi quaedam personae, quae per illud Gregorii P. capitulum quoniam multos specialiter

excusantur.'

5 Hefele, v. pp. 194, 931.

in 6.

Hefele, v. p. 991 seq. This decree is c. iii. de Sent. Excom. v. 11

C. 9, de Sent. Excom. v. 11 in 6 (Hefele, vi. p. 137).

• Const. Ad evitanda scandala (Hard. Conc. 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 (insordescentia). 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 incapacity 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 warning, 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. This was completely 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 excommunication alone was concerned.5

'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).

Council of Paris, 846, c. 56; of Savonnières, 859, c. 9; of Troyes, 878, c. 1 (Hefele, iv. pp. 111, 198, 512); Pope Nicholas I. Ep. 7, et in Conc. Rom. 863 (cf. can. 2, c. iv. q. 1); Johan. VIII. c. 12, c. iii. q. 4; and else

VOL. I.

X

where. Thus Celestine III. c. 10, Cum non ab homine, ii. 1, de Jud.: Qui si depositus incorrigibilis fuerit, excommunicari debet, deinde contumacia crescente anathematis mucrone feriri.' The Pontificale Romanum also makes this distinction (Phillips, Lehrbuch der Kirchenrechte, § 189, p. 544, note.

Kober, Kirchenbann, p. 403.

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 suprà. 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 refrain from intercourse with those under anathema. It was 'in criminibus' alone that no one was to hold intercourse with them.

$7.

But kings and princes were no more exempt from excommunication than the rest of the faithful. 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 be raised but 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." 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.; and it was fully defended by Samuel Basnage."

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.

3 Ambros. serm. de Basilicis. Joh. VIII. P. in c. xi. dist. 96.

4 J. H. Boehmer, Jus Eccles. 1. v. tit. 39, n. 40.

Sam. Basnage, Annal. Politico-Eccles. ii. diss. 3, § 10.