Venetian Republic stepped forth Paul Sarpi, who in this matter allowed free course to his bitter hatred against Rome." It has been often asserted that he was for this cause in danger of falling a victim to an Ultramontane assassin.” But the attempt in question was made on 5th October 1607, consequently when peace had been already restored with Rome: at that time a blow struck at Sarpi could only have been hurtful to the Papal interests instead of furthering them, for certain points of the peace desired by Rome were still under discussion. Moreover, the accounts in Siri, Thuanus, and in the relation of the Signoria to the ambassador in France do not in the least agree with the biography of Paul Sarpi, ascribed by many to P. Fulgenzio; the place, persons, and circumstances of the conspiracy are everywhere differently given. The sentence passed by the Council of Ten,' October 10, 1607, on Ridolfo Poma, M. Viti, and accomplices, gives no ground for charging the Roman See or its supporters with complicity; the evidence alleged will not bear the least investigation. The Protestants took advantage of the dispute to promote their propaganda in Italy, distributing Geneva Bibles, and nourishing the opposition against the Holy See.9 In the year following, however, absolution was given and the interdict removed upon the priests being released, the decree against the interdict retracted, and the rejected laws suspended. 10 Ranke observes: The points under dispute were not settled so entirely to the advantage of Venice as has been generally asserted.'11 While the other banished religious orders were suffered to return, the Jesuits, so much dreaded by Sarpi's party, were only restored in 1657.12

1 Huber, p. 56. Cf. Bluntschli, p. 68 seq.

2 Cf. especially Muratori, Annali d' Italia, a. 1606, 1607; Noväès, Vitae Pontif. ix. pp. 92, 93; Artaud, Hist. des Souv. Pontifes, t. v. pp. 250-254; Natal. Alex. H. E. Cout. s. Supplem. t. ii. p. 9 seq.; Moroni, Dizionario, v. Paolo V. t. li. p. 135 seq.

3 Bossuet, Hist. des Variations, 1. vii. n. 108, p. 447. Brunet, Vie de Guill. Bedell (chaplain to the English Embassy in Venice), pp. 9, 19, 20. Le Bret, Magazin, ii. p. 236.

Bullar. t. x. p. 175. Roscovány, Monum. iii. pp. 87-90, n. 440. Goldast. t. iii. p. 282.

* Fagnanus, de Justitia et Validitate Censurarum Pauli V. in rempublicam Venetam, Romae, 1607.

Ranke's Popes, iii. 281. From Sarpi we have the Istoria particolare delle cose passate tra il Somno Pontefice Paolo V. e la serenissima Rep. di Venezia, Lione (Ginevra), 1624. Vide also Lämmer, Zur Kirchengeschichte, p. 49.

7 Huber, pp. 56, 57. Hospinian, Lucius, and Stenius (De Facinore in M. Paulum Servitam perpetratro, Heidelb. 1608) said the same before him.

Cf. Artaud, Hist. des Souverains Pontifes, t. v. Paris, 1847, p. 332, n. 2.

• Historisch Politische Blätter, 1852, vol. xxx. P. xii. p. 809 seq. 10 Ranke's Popes, ii. Germ. ed. pp. 324 seq. 352. Paul. Jov. Vita Pauli V. § 28. Bussières, Hist. de France, 1. xxiii. n. 19. Spondan. a. 1607, n. 2. Bianchi, t. ii. 1. vi. § 11, n. 1 seq. p. 610 seq.

11 Ranke's Popes, p. 354, Germ. ed.

12 Crétineau-Joly, 1.c. pp. 141, 151. Buss, Die Gesellschaft Jesu, pp. 973-976.

$ 20.

In the eighteenth century also 'monstrous pretensions' on the part of the Popes are alleged, and especially of Clement XI. 'When Philip V.,' says Huber, 'in order to join with Louis XIV. in a war against Austria, demanded subsidies in money from the Spanish clergy which they were quite willing to give, Clement XI. declared that the clergy might not accede to this demand without his permission." But in this the Pope was merely standing up for a right of the Church, set forth in Decretals which had been longer in force and had a higher sanction than the claims of the Bourbon dynasty; moreover, the Pope, who was a neutral in the war of the Spanish succession, could make no such concessions to Philip V., whose possession of the throne was not then certain, without grave violation of his neutrality; as it was, Austria had vehemently attacked the Pope on the charge of partiality, and neither claimant had as yet been recognised as rightful king. The king had already employed in the war against the emperor and his allies the Church tithes formerly granted, the revenues of the Crociata originally destined for the struggle against the Turks ;3 how great would have been the scandal had the Father of Christendom, without regard to neutrality, given fresh grants of Church property for

& purely political end! Until later times, the court of Madrid, according to the law then in force, recognised that the approval of the Pope was necessary to any extraordinary taxation of the clergy, already sufficiently burdened; this may be seen in the Concordat of Sept. 26, 1737, art. 7 and 8, and in the petition made and granted in 1740, for further contributions of Church property, afterwards increased so as to be well-nigh intolerable." It was in the reign of Charles III. (1759) that the Spanish government first claimed for itself alone the right of limiting and taxing Church property,' but it still for a long time continued to apply for Papal Indults for this.8

According to Huber," the same Pope raised a tumult throughout Sicily for the sake of a few insignificant market dues, and endangered the salvation of the Sicilians for a basket of peas. Had Professor Huber read the monograph of Professor Sentis of Freiburg (the Monarchia Sicula),10 were he acquainted with the discussions of the older canonists,11 or even with the modern Piedmontese historians,12 he would have known that though the occasion was trifling, a serious question of principle was involved, and that a crying abuse of the civil power was brought to light in this matter, of which Bauerband the jurist said: 'So ignominious a position of the Church towards the State, and one so completely incompatible with her constitution, could not long be tolerated.'13 Our opponent must first refute the able monograph mentioned above before he can have any shadow of ground for his accusation.

1 Huber, p. 69.

Cf. the discussion in detail by the present author in the Archiv für Kath. Kirchenrecht, 1863, vol. x. p. 185 seq.

Ibid. p. 188.

Ibid. pp. 204-206.

Moroni, Diz. v. Spagna, p. 148.

Archiv, 1864, vol. xi. pp. 263, 380.

Ibid. vol. xi. p. 368.

• Ibid. vol. xii. pp. 47, 52.

Huber, p. 70.

Die Monarchia Sicula. Eine historisch-canonistische Untersuchung von Dr. Fr. J. Sentis, Frieburg, 1869, especially p. 142 seq.

"Especially Pignatelli, Consultat. Can. t. vi. Cons. 22, n. 61 seq. p. 82 seq. Cf. t. ii. Cons. 34, n. 66 seq. p. 59 seq.

12 Carutti, Storia del Regno di Vittorio Amadeo II. c. xix. p. 335 seq. 13 Bonner, Theol. Literaturblatt, July 5, 1869, No. 14, p. 515 seq. (review of Sentis); amongst other observations are the following: The writing of Sentis affords "proof" that in the contest raised (as to the pretended Monarchia Sicula), and in the most difficult circumstances, the Pope steadily adhered to the purely ecclesiastical view; while the Spanish and Bourbon kings, though for the most part behaving personally as pious Catholics, still had no scruple under pretext of inalienable crown privileges in making arbitrary encroachments of all sorts upon what was without question the purely spiritual domain.'

$21.

No mention is made of other Popes, especially of Benedict XIV., who was yielding in the extreme towards civil rulers,1 and made great concessions in his Concordats; of Clement XIV., who went still further, and even sacrificed his most faithful supporters the Jesuits to the Bourbon courts.3 But still when it suits the purpose of our enemies the 'incontestable fact' is maintained, that in a decree of Clement XIV., as authentic as was ever published ex cathedrâ by any Pope, the Jesuits, nearly a hundred years ago, were suppressed and banished as a society generally pernicious.' Whoever speaks thus has not read or not understood the Brief (not Bull) Dominus ac Redemptor ;"5 it is so far from being a judgment ex cathedrâ, that it does not contain one judicial sentence as to the general perniciousness of the Society, while Clement XIII., in a solemn Bull, had expressed the contrary. Only in order to restore the peace disturbed by the Bourbon courts, and convinced that the Society (already in fact suppressed in Portugal, France, Spain, Naples, &c.) could no longer be as useful as in former days, was it suppressed by Clement XIV. in a simple order, with a reference made to the suppression of the Templars by Clement V.7 and to other examples, but without the slightest reference to any one of the charges brought against it by the courts. The enemies as well as the friends of the Church acknowledge that by this measure a grievous wound was inflicted upon her.

1 Ranke's Popes, iii. p. 180, Germ. ed. Cf. Schröckh, Kirchengeschichte seit der Reform. vi. p. 436.

2 For the convention with Sardinia, vide Carutti, Storia del Regno di

Carlo Emanuele III. Torino, 1859, vol. i. p. 151 seq., with the documents in the appendix; on that with Spain, Archiv für Kath. Kirchenrecht, 1864, vol. xi. pp. 252, 253; on that with Portugal, Rigant, in Reg. ii. Canc. t. i. p. 227, n. a.; Schröckh, 1.c. p. 437 seq.

3 By reëstablishing the Jesuits, Pius VII. in the Bull Sollicitudo, Aug. 7, 1814, made amends for the injustice extorted from his predecessor. But even this expiation has been put down by Huber (p. 74) in the category of Papal misdeeds. Yet the governments concerned had already, to a great extent, seen that in expelling the Jesuits they had been themselves the victims of intrigues. The Duke of Parma, as early as 1793, took steps towards the reintroduction of the Society (CrétineauJoly, Hist. v. pp. 493-495). The Elector of Bavaria, and other Catholic princes of Germany, treated of the same matter in 1794 (Writings of the Nuncio della Genga to Pius VI. d.d. Augsburg, Nov. 9, 1794, in Boero, Osservazioni sopra l' istoria del Pontificato di Clem. XIV. Monza, 1854, vol. ii. pp. 263, 264). The ministers who brought about the suppression of the Jesuits were overthrown, and some, as Pombal (ib. pp. 223-225), were subjected to the most serious charges; in 1804, Ferdinand IV. had reestablished the Society in Naples; in 1815 the King of Spain did the same; in Prussia and Russia it had never been suppressed (Crétineau-Joly, 1.c. pp. 509-511, 516; Boero, 1.c. vol. i. p. 108; Theiner, Sammlung von Aktenstücken, pp. 23-27). But the injustice of the suppression is best shown by the documents published by Theiner (Histoire du Pontificat de Clément XIV.). Vide Historisch Polit. Blätter, 1854, vol. xxxiii. pp. 733-759; Clement XIV. Eine kritische Beleuchtung, Augsburg, 1854, p. 356.

Michelis, in the Munich September meeting, 1871 (Report, p. 216); Windthorst of Berlin, in the Reichstag, May 15, 1872 (Report, p. 392). Bullar. Clem. XIV. pp. 607-618. Theiner, 1.c. ii. pp. 358-379, t. iii.

fin.

• Const. Apostolicum pascendi munus, Jan. 7, 1765, Bull. Rom. Contin. t. iii. ed. Romae, 1838, p. 38 seq.

Text in the Tübingen Quartalschrift, 1866, i. pp. 56-84. Cf. Mansi, XXV. 389 seq.

§ 22.

The eighteenth century was a period of the deepest servitude and ignominy for the Catholic Church, and of indignities and insults to her Head, which reached their summit when Pius VI. was driven by force from Rome by the French Republic. The nineteenth century proved itself the heir of the eighteenth. An historian well versed in Bavarian affairs wrote in 1847: 'If freedom of conscience is to apply to Catholics, it is impossible that this freedom should consist in their ceasing to be Catholics; still less can it mean that they are to be Catholics in heart alone, while in their public profession, in education, in society, and in