partly by extending its limits." In spite of the opposition of some Italian governments, which, however, was soon withdrawn, it was accepted by the faithful with universal joy and satisfaction. It is quite untrue that by Gregory's Bull murder was only to be refused right of sanctuary when it had been committed in a consecrated place. In this, as in all her jurisdiction, the Church has always complied with well-grounded remonstrances of governments. The restrictions laid upon the right of sanctuary in the States of the Church since the time of Gregory XIV. were in 1737 extended to Spain by Clement XII., and in 1741 and 1742 to Naples and Sardinia. 10 Clement XIV. limited it still more in certain countries at the request of the governments.

1 Cod. Theod. ix. 45, c. i. iv. vi. Thomassin, P. ii. 1. iii. c. xcv. xcvi. 2 In the East, vide Neander, Chrysostomus, ii. p. 71 seq.; Vita S. Tarassii (of Epl.), c. vi. n. 25-27 (Migne, PP. gr. xcviii. p. 1403 seq.); Phot. Ep. 4, p. 68, ed. Montac.; Theod. Stud. 1. ii. Ep. 202; Nicol. Mystic. Ep. 3, ad Simeon. Bulg. pp. 170-175, ed. Mai. In the West, vide Council of Carthago, 399; of Orange, 441, c. 5; of Orleans, 511, c. 1; Epaon, 517, c. 39; of Lerida (between 524-546), c. 8; of Orleans (iv.), 541, c. 21 (Hefele, ii. pp. 65, 276, 643, 666, 686, 760); of Clermont, 549, c. 22; Macon, 585, c. 8; Rheims, 624, 625, c. 7; Toledo, 681, c. 10; ib. xvi. 693, c. 5; Paderborn, 785, c. 2; Mainz, 813, c. 39 (Hefele, iii. pp. 5, 37, 70, 289, 319, 593, 710); and others. Thomassin, P. ii. 1. iii. c. c.

3 Innoc. III. c. 6, Inter alia, iii. 49, de Immun. Eccl. (ad reg. Scot.). Gregor. IX. c. 10, Immunitatem, h.t. Julius II. ap. Raynald. a. 1504, n. 35.

Huber, p. 55.

5 Constit. 17, Bullar. t. v. P. i. p. 271.

There was at one time a controversy whether the Bull was published only for Italy or for the whole Church; the majority of canonists decided with good reason in favour of the latter view. Schmalzgrneber, in 1. iii. tit. 49, § 2, n. 96-98.

Bened. XIV. Instit. Eccles. instit. 41, § 4, p. 286, ed. Ingolst. 1751: 'Cum Romani Pontifices, ac praesertim S. Pius V. et Sixtus V. petentibus principibus indulserint, ab Ecclesia eos quoque divelli, qui criminibus per leges minime cautis tenebantur, et cum maxima rerum perturbatio ex hoc dimanaverit, Gregorius XIV. literas apostolicas promulgavit, quibus concessiones principum gratia . . . . obsignatas abrogavit. . . . partim veteres canones secutus, partim ipsorum terminos extendens.' Cf. de Syn. Dioec. 1. xiii. c. xviii. n. 12, 13.

Pignatelli, Consult. Canon. t. vi. Cons. 4, n. 59 seq. p. 19 seq., gives several documents. The Congregation of the Immunities, on 10 May 1667 and 4 Sept. 1668, maintained the authority of the Bull in opposition to the reclamations raised concerning it by the senate of Milan

(2 July 1666), and by the royal council of Spain (15 April 1667). Especial faculties were granted in 1652 and 1668 to the nuncios of Florence and Naples with reference to the easier extractio reorum.

8 It belonged, as Clement XIV. in a Constitution published for Spain (Const. 200, Ea semper, Bull. Rom. Contin. t. iv. p. 488 seq.) says, like the following of Benedict. XIII. (Const. 73, Ex quo divina, 15 June 1725, Bull. t. xii. p. 1), Clement XII. (Const. 171, In supremo, 1735, Bull. t. xiv. p. 17; t. xv. ed. Lux. pp. 14-18), and Benedict XIV. (Const. 29, Officii, 1750, Bull. Bened. XIV. t. iii. p. 160, ed. Ven. 1754), to those 'quae omnibus Christi fidelibus collaudantibus et plaudentibus in lucem prodierunt.' The Bull excludes from the right of sanctuary publici latrones, grassatores viarum, agrorum depopulatores, committentes homicidium in ecclesia vel homicidium proditorium' (this means every kind of assassination), assassini, rei laesae majestatis, haereseos,' &c.

10 Archiv f. Kath. K.R. vol. xi. p. 377 seq.

§ 9.

6

Janus has (p. 13) referred in the vaguest manner to art. 8 of the Concordat of 1863, drawn up with the free States of South America' according to which civil courts have to execute every punishment decreed by spiritual judges, without any power of refusal. I drew attention (Anti-Janus, p. 23) to the fact that no such article was to be found in those Concordats addressed to the different South American States with the text of which I was acquainted. I still maintain the same, after the explanation given (Huber, p. 76 seq.), that the Concordat concluded in 1863 with the Republic of Ecuador was the one specially referred to; and that the Revue des Deux Mondes, not always to be trusted in such matters, was the source whence the statements concerning arts. 1, 3, 4, 8, 10, 11 were derived. As a matter of fact, the Concordat was concluded with the Republic of Ecuador on September 26, 1862, and, on the exchange of documents, was ratified in Quito, April 19, 1863. The remaining articles nowise differ from other conventions. Article 8 is the only one of special interest, but it does not, as Janus says it does, treat of the execution of every punishment decreed by spiritual jurisdiction, but only of such as were pronounced on ecclesiastics, and it was rendered necessary by the excesses of some of the undisciplined clergy of the country.1 The government of the republic, which entered into detailed negotiations on this subject, was perfectly satisfied; it was by

2

no means in its interest entirely to abolish the legal competence of spiritual courts over the criminal causes of the clergy. The day on which Cardinal Antonelli and the ambassador Ordonnez signed the convention, the former gave four explanatory notes to the latter, which were regarded on both sides as an integral addition to the Concordat; two of these relate to spiritual penal jurisdiction over the clergy. They are, like the entire convention, a sure token of the way in which the Holy See is ready to meet the reasonable wishes of governments, and to make, when it appears necessary, still greater concessions, as in Italy earlier; for example, the Concordat with Tuscany, of 25th April 1851, by which the civil and ecclesiastical causes of ecclesiastics were made over to lay jurisdiction,3 which was also conceded to many other countries.✦

1 The article runs : 'Omnes ecclesiasticae causae et praesertim matrimoniales atque illae, quae respiciunt fidem, sacramenta, mores, sacras functiones, officia et sacra jura tum personae tum materiae ratione, exceptis majoribus causis summo Pontifici reservatis ex S. Concilii Tridentini praescriptis Sess. xxiv. c. 5, de reform. ad tribunalia ecclesiastica erunt unice deferenda. Idem erit servandum in civilibus causis ecclesiasticorum atque in aliis causis, quae delicta respiciant comprehensa in criminali reipublicae codice. In omnibus judiciis quae ad judices pertinent ecclesiasticos, civilis magistratus omnem opem auxiliumque feret, ut sententiae ac poenae ab ipsis judicibus latae observentur et executioni mandentur.' There is nothing in the text about 'no power of refusing.'

2 The first note says: Coll' articolo 8 si è dichiarata et confermata l'existenza del foro ecclesiastico per le cause si civile che criminali dei Chierici. A rendere per altro più efficace l'azione della giustizia punitiva ed a prevenire la rinuovazione di scandali, che, provenendo da ecclesiastici, sarebbero di pessimo esempio ai fedeli, V. Ecc. ha domandato, che si prendano dalla S. Sede le opportune provvidenze, onde i processi e i giudizii del foro ecclesiastico siano condotti a termine nel più breve spazio di tempo ed in piena conformità alle leggi canoniche, come pure che si dichiarino decaduti dal privilegio del foro eccl., sia civile sia criminale, tutti quei chierici, i quali se rendono recidivi negli stessi delitti punibili secondo le leggi dello Stato, e che a tale effetto debbano essere giudicati dal foro laico. A dichiarare poi la recidiva, la Ecc. V. propone che basti provare innanzi ai tribunali dello Stato, che il Chierico commise lo stesso delitto dentro lo spazio degli ultimi dodici mesi. Riconoscendo il santo Padre le giuste ragioni, che muovono il governo dell' Equatore a fare la suespressa domanda, ha ordinato al sottoscritto di dichiarare a V. Ecc., che andrà quanto prima a diriggere una lettera enciclica a tutti i vescovi dell' Equatore, imponendo loro di dar corso con ogni precisione e di conchiudere nel più breve spazio di tempo tutti i processi, sia civili, sia criminali, dei

Chierici in piena conformità delle disposizioni canoniche; ed al tempo stesso S. Santità condiscende che gli Ecclesiastici recidivi, giusta il senso da V. E. indicato, siano privati per punizione del privilegio del foro, accordando le opportune facoltà, onde i giudici possano applicare loro le pene imposte dai ss. canoni, qualora per alcuni delitti, come di ubbriachezza, concubinato, mercatura ed altri simili, non si faccia menzione nel codice criminale dello Stato.'

The second note says: 'Il sotto scritto Card. . . . . ha l' onore di accusare la nota in data di oggi, nella quale V. E. ha dichiarato che se nelle cause civili come nelle criminali per delitti contemplati nel codice penale della nazione . . . . per gravi ragioni e per ispeciali circonstanze fosse necessaria una modificazione o deroga al privilegio del foro, il governo dell' Equatore non prenderà provvidenza alcuna in proposito, senza averne preventivamente riportato il consenso della Santa Sede, la quale condiscenderà ad un amichevole accomodamento giusta il bisogno. Se frattanto nel caso di qualsiasi delitto politico fosse mestieri prendere misura contro gli Ecclesiastici delinquenti, il governo invocherà la debita autorizzazione del prelato diocesano per procedere contro gli ecclesiastici a' termini delle leggi vigenti. Quando occorresse assicurarsi del reo, l' arresto dovrà farsi con le cautele e riguardi dovuti all' eccellenza dello stato clericale; ed i luoghi di prigionia saranno sempre i conventi o altri luoghi ecclesiastici, o se non altro luoghi distinti dalle pubbliche prigioni. Infine quando si tratti di sentenza, che importa la pena capitale, si osserveranno le prescrizioni canoniche.'

3 Art. 6 says: 'La S. Sede consente, che le cause civili risguardanti le persone ed i beni degli ecclesiastici, del pari che quelle che riguardano attivamente e passivamente il patrimonio della Chiesa e della causa Pia vengano deferite ai tribunali laici.' Art. 10: La S. Sede non fa difficoltà, che le cause criminali degli ecclesiastici per tutti i delitti contemplati dalle leggi criminali dello Stato, estranei alla religione, vengano deferite al giudizio dei tribunali laici, liquali applicano loro le pene dalle leggi stesse prescritte, che subiranno in locali separati ed ad essi specialmente destinati negli stabilimenti penali.'

+ Bavarian Concordat, 1817, art. 12, lit. c.; Neapolitan Concordat, 1818, art. 20; Convention with Sardinia of March 27, 1841, on criminal jurisdiction over the clergy (Annali delle Scienze religiose, t. xii. p. 420); Convention with Costa Rica of October 7, 1852, art. 14, 15 (Acta Pii IX. vol. i. p. 457); with Guatemala, eod. d. art. 15, 16 (ib. pp. 515, 516); with Austria, August 18, 1855, art. 13, 14 (ib. ii. pp. 470, 471); with Würtemberg, April 8, 1857, art. 5 (ib. p. 597), &c.

§ 10.

It is indeed said, although concessions have been made in consideration of the circumstances of the time, the right to take another course in altered circumstances has also not been given up. But so long as the circumstances remain unaltered

the agreement holds good; and if it was made originally in the form of a treaty, a new negotiation is required for any alteration. How much soever the conduct of the Austrian government might have justified the Pope in cancelling the concessions granted in the Concordat of August 15, 1855, he has certainly not cancelled them. Moreover, the Church is without the material power necessary to regain her former jurisdiction; her servants are everywhere forced to be content if laws are not made in their disfavour, and if the sanctity of religious life, faith, and worship is not violated by the rude intrusion of the civil magistrate.