rights of the Church, lest it should appear as though he, by his forbearance, approved thereof; and also because, according to the example given by his predecessors, who had not failed frequently to raise their apostolic voice when the Church suffered injuries even far less serious, he was bound, so far as lay in his power, to maintain the interests and rights of the Church.4 Amongst the examples of former Popes the accompanying note of Cardinal Consalvi cited the following: (1) that of Innocent X. in relation to the peace of Westphalia ;5 (2) that of Clement XI. in 1707 and 1714; (3) that of Benedict XIV. in 1744.7 This very comparison proves that the Bull of Innocent X. was understood only in the sense of an earnest protest. Still Herr Hubers cannot refrain from saying, 'The protestation of Cardinal Consalvi against the result of the Vienna Congress of June 14, 1814, is further proof that the rejection of the peace of Westphalia is insisted upon by Rome. Indeed since the time of Henry IV. it has been a tradition of Papal politics to raise civil war in Germany, and thus render the empire powerless.' Any person acquainted with the untold misery of the Catholic Church in Germany since the secularisation, and the state of things then introduced, is well able to estimate how idle it is thus to speak of so just a defence of rights.

1 Bullar. Rom. Contin. t. xiii. pp. 403-407 (Italian). Klüber, Acten des Wiener Congresses, Erlangen, 1838, vol. vi. p. 442. Roscovány, Monum. Cath. t. ii. pp. 96-99, n. 297. Also in French in the Monde, 3 Dec. 1863, n. 168, though not in full.

? Allocution of Sept. 4, 1815, Bull. Rom. Cont. 1.c. p. 398.

In the note accompanying the protest are the words: 'Il Santo Padre, responsabile a Dio, alla Chiesa ed ai fideli non potrebbe senza mancar ai suoi doveri, osservar il silenzio intorno a risoluzioni di questa sorta.'

In the protest itself: Non solo non li può passare sotto silenzio, affinchè non sembri col tolerarli che Egli li approvi, ma sull' esempio ancora de suoi predecessori che contro pregiudizii di minore importanza fatti alla Chiesa non omisero di far sentire la loro apostolica voce, è costretto a difendere ed a conservare intatti per quanto esso può i diritti e le ragioni della Chiesa.'

The protest itself mentions only the protest made at Münster by the Bishop of Nardo, Fabio Chigi, as a precedent for such a declaration on the part of the Papal legate; and the Papal Allocution, § 8, simply says:

'Haec ab eo, qui nostram gerebat personam, agenda erant omnino, ut jura Ecclesiae ponerentur in tuto.'

6 Supplem. ad Natal. Alex. H. E. t. ii. pp. 194, 308. Schröckh, Kirchengeschichte seit der Reform. vi. p. 383.

It appears that the protest against the treaty of Worms, Sept. 13, 1743, is meant. Cf. Gfrörer, Geschichte des 18 Jahrh. herausgegeben von Weiss, vol. iii. p. 228 seq.; Carutti, Carlo Emanuele III. vol. i. c. ix. pp. 237, 238.

Huber, p. 68.

$18.

To furnish grounds for the complaints against the protest of Innocent X. history has been ransacked, and an attempt made to get together a list of accusations. Rome and the Jesuits have been charged with stirring up the war of religion,1 and Bunsen is declared to have been right in saying, 'The Thirty Years' War was caused and perpetuated by the Jesuits' !2 Are we then to believe that France and Sweden and the Protestant princes in general were guiltless, and that the Jesuits inspired the all-powerful Richelieu and the princes leagued in defence of the pure Gospel; and this, although Richelieu was exasperated against the Jesuits, while the princes fled from them as from the plague? As a fact, the two works Political Mysteries and the Warning to the most Christian King, published in 1625 by the German Jesuit Keller, confessor to Duke Max of Bavaria, irritated the king3 even more than Santerelli's pamphlet somewhat later; moreover, the Jesuit Theophil Raynaud of Sosprello, in the territory of Nice, refused to place his able pen at the disposal of Richelieu, and suffered many persecutions in consequence; indeed many members of the Society were in similar opposition to France. Again, the edict of restitution, we are to believe, was due to the pressure of the Curia and of the Jesuits.' True, the emperor's confessor may alone have had influence in this matter; but the four Catholic electors had spoken in favour of the edict, as also the Papal nuncio. It may indeed be doubted whether the edict was politically wise, but there is no doubt that it was legally justified. From the strictly legal point of view,' says K. A. Menzel, it would be hard to find fault with the edict of restitution.' But Urban VIII., we are told, 'looked with no friendly eye upon the victory of

the emperor, for he considered the independence of the Papacy endangered by the ascendency of the House of Austria.' But even supposing Urban VIII. to have thought too exclusively of his position as a temporal prince, what follows? Are Popes never expected to make mistakes in politics? And was the independence of the Holy See an object which any Pope could disregard? It is not correct that Urban VIII. refused all subsidies to the emperor. On July 19, 1631, the Pope declared himself ready to give him all aid, and granted him, on the exhaustion of his own treasury, six full tithes of all the churches of Italy. Ferdinand desired not only large subsidies but also that the war should be declared to be one of religion (1632). Every one well read in history must concede that Urban VIII. was right in refusing this; for it is shown by the whole course of the contest. All the Catholic generals in Germany denied that it was a war of religion, and even enrolled Protestant officers and soldiers under their banners;10 how then could the Pope declare it to be such? However, after the death of Gustavus Adolphus (November 6, 1632), Urban VIII. sent fresh supplies12 to Germany, for he perceived that the weightiest Catholic interests were at stake; later he renewed in the emperor's favour the subsidy from Church property.13 The letter of the Secretary of State to the nuncio at Vienna, Archbishop Cyriacus Rocci of Patras, July 9, 1633, declared the Pope to be in favour of a peace, but not on conditions such as to do lasting injury to the Catholic cause.14 At the same time Urban VIII. endeavoured to induce Louis XIII. of France to assist the emperor and the Catholic princes of Germany against the Swedish generals, and to punish the lies of Ferdinand's adversaries, who openly boasted of the aid of France.15 But we are again told that 'when in the year 1636 conferences were held at Cologne, having for their aim the pacification of Germany, they were brought to naught by Urban VIII.'16 That is to say, that Urban sent thither his legate Ginetti, naturally with strict and binding instructions. 17 It cannot be doubted that the Pope was merely fulfilling his office in maintaining the rights of the Catholic Church; it was not his concern to obtain still further

powers for those who,' as K. A. Menzel says, 'looked upon it as their charge to give the last blow to the Papacy;'18 he would, on the contrary, have laid himself open to severe and just censure had he blindly promoted or accepted any peace concluded in any degree at the cost of Catholics. And even supposing the 'Roman policy' to have been to blame for the overthrow of the Catholic cause in Germany, which has by no means been proved, it was still from the Church's point of view a matter of conscience to refuse consent to stipulations positively dangerous to the Church, which were never in the intention of the Pope, which not only injured the interests of Rome' and its sovereign but primarily and directly those of the Church in Germany; stipulations which encroached in so many ways on the domain of spiritual jurisdiction, and were the cause in the future of evils so serious that they may well be considered irreparable. 1 Huber, p. 65.

2 Karl Josias von Bunsen, German edition of Nippold, iii. p. 409.

3 These works were condemned by the assembly of French clergy, Dec. 13, 1625 (Du Plessis, t. iii. P. ii. pp. 231-238); also by the Sorbonne (ib. t. ii. P. ii. pp. 190-198), and by the Paris parliament, Jan. 21, 1626 (ib. pp. 199, 200).

Crétineau-Joly, Hist. de la Compagnie de Jésus, vol. iii. pp. 422 seq.

433 seq.

5 Ranke's Popes, ii. pp. 517, 518, Germ. ed.

6 Neuere Geschichte der Deutschen, vol. vii. p. 182.

Ranke, 1.c. ii. p. 537. Reumont, Geschichte der Stadt Rom. iii. ii.

p. 613.

8 Const. 160, Superna dispositione, xiv. Kal. Febr. 1631, Bullar. M. ed. Luxemb. 1742, t. v. pp. 237-240.

Numerous proofs are given in J. Janssen's Schiller als Historiker, Freiburg, 1863, pp. 97 seq. 110 seq.; Onno Klopp, Kleindeutsche Geschichtsbaumeister, pp. 25, 52, 302. Boguslav Chemnitz, or Hippolitus a Lapide, as he called himself, wrote in 1640, de Ratione Status in Imperio nostro, P. iii. c. i.: Sileat ac cesset tandem vanus ille religionis praetextus; non enim credimus de religione jam amplius principaliter, sed de regione potius agi, ut aut liberi vivamus aut jugo domus Austriacae, hispanico sanguine mixtae, colla nostra turpiter subdamus.'

10 Hurter, Zur Geschichte Wallensteins, p. 69. O. Klopp, Das Rest. Edict im nordwestl. Deutschland, Göttingen, 1860, p. 84.

"The report of the Venetian ambassadors that the death of the King of Sweden was displeasing to the Pope, and that he dreaded less the success of the Protestants than of the imperialists, cannot be taken as any proof of the Pope's true mind.

12 Artaud, Hist. des Souv. Pontifes, t. v. p. 369.

13 Bullar. Magn. 1.c. Const. 178, pp. 255-258.

14 Cf. Lämmer, 1.c. p. 39, No. 23 c.

15 Cod. Vatic. 6929. Cf. Lämmer, 1.c. p. 39, No. 23, lit. d.

16 Huber, p. 66.

17 Ranke, l.c. ii. 568, 569.

18 K. A. Menzel, iii. 287.

$19.

The dispute between Paul V. and the Republic of Venice in 1606 has been at all times turned to account by the enemies of the Holy See. Together with various differences as to their mutual borders at Ferrara, the tithes of the clergy, and the exemptions of benefices, a further dispute arose from the imprisonment by the Republic of two ecclesiastics, Scipio Seraceni, canon of Vicenza, and Brandolino Valmarino of Forli, abbot of Narvesa, in direct breach of the privilege of ecclesiastical immunity established, as elsewhere, within the territory of the Republic; nor had any notice of the imprisonment been sent to the Holy See. The dispute was further occasioned by the maintenance by the Senate of two laws prejudicial to the Church, passed January 10, 1603, and March 26, 1605, by which laws the founding of new convents and hospitals, the building of churches, and the institution of new orders and confraternities were rendered difficult, the acquisition of property in land for the Church, as also the alienation of immovable property to her for more than two years without State approval, was forbidden. These measures were to be the prelude to still further steps, to which the government was incessantly urged by the Protestant-minded Paul Sarpi.3 As the Republic refused to make the slightest concession to the Pope's demands he at length excommunicated the Doge and the Senate, and laid Venice under an interdict. The clergy were then forbidden by the Doge under pain of death to observe the sentence, and the greater number submitted to him; only the Jesuits, the Capuchins, the Theatines, and the Minims obeyed the Pope, and these were forced to leave the Venetian territory. The cause of the Holy See was defended in writing by Bellarmine, the doctrinal theologian, by Baronius, the Church historian, and by Prosper Fagnanus, the learned canonist 5 while as champion for the