SECT. 7. Inadequacy of the doctrine. 8. It holds the mean between absolute despotism and the modern sovereignty of the people. PART II. RIGHT OF RESISTANCE AGAINST THE CIVIL POWER. 1. Duty of obedience. Right of resisting tyranny in general. 2. John of Salisbury 3. St. Thomas Aquinas 4. Proceedings in the fifteenth century 5-7. Protestant theories and practice 8. Absolute obedience 9. Two currents in Protestantism 10, 11. Catholic league in France 12. Must not Catholics rather suffer death than offer opposition ? 13. The Jesuits 14. Mariana 15. Suarez. 16. Gregory of Valentia 17. Molina and other Jesuits 18, 19. Complaints against the Jesuits PAGE 243 244 246 249 251 253 254 6. Immunity and barbarism of the clergy 283 7. Charge of over-leniency in the punishment of ecclesiastics. Decretal of Celestine III. 284 6. Reason of the dislike to special courts for the clergy. 7. Complaints with regard to ecclesiastical jurisdiction over the 4. Classes of persons accused by the Inquisition 5, 6. Heresy and high treason. Mode of procedure 7. Further development of the Inquisition 8. The Inquisition and the civil power 9. Heretics of the thirteenth century 3. Distinction between persons and principles. Syllabus, Prop. 17 350 4. Truth and charity 5. Tolerance and intolerance of society 6. Demands upon the modern State . 352 353 354 7. The State should have a religion 355 357 . 359 8. The State must not allow absolute freedom to all forms of worship. 9. Refusal and abolition of oaths 10. A State with no religion 11. Inconsistency of modern Liberalism 12, 13. Introduction of religious liberty, and respect for the equality of religion when once established 14-17. Religious liberty founded on untenable principles. Syllabus, Prop. 15, 18 18. Liberty to err is liberty to do evil 19. The Church and the oath of allegiance to a Constitution 20. Excommunication 21. Charge against Innocent XII. 22. The massacre of St. Bartholomew 23. Complaints against the Bavarian Constitution 24. The French Charter of 1814 25. Consistency of the Catholic Church. ESSAY XVIII. CLAIMS OF THE POPE SINCE THE SIXTEENTH CENTURY. 8. Oath of allegiance 9. Alleged claims of political power by Paul V. 10-12. Decision of Innocent X., 1648 385 386 . 387 388 388 390 392 13. Mediæval public law continued even after the introduction of 21. Suppression of the Jesuits 22. Spirit of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries 23. Contests of the present day. 24. Aspects of the future . 407 . 410 412 . 414 415 416 417 THE Catholic Church and the Christian State. ESSAY IX. THE POPE AND THE HOLY ROMAN EMPIRE. THE relation of the Pope towards the Holy Roman Empire has been interpreted in various ways, according to the views or prepossessions of the historian. If its origin be ignored, the empire is not seldom confused with the kingdom of Germany, and Popes are charged with having maintained immoderate pretensions against emperors. In the first part of this essay we propose to examine the Papacy and the Empire down to Frederick II.; in the second part, the struggle of Frederick II. with the Church; in the third part, the Empire until its fall. PART I. THE PAPACY AND THE EMPIRE, FROM THE FOUNDATION OF THE EMPIRE TO FREDERICK II. § 1. The empire founded by the Pope. § 2. 3. Under the Carolingian kings. § 4. From Otho I. to Henry III. § 5. From Henry III. to Frederick I. § 6. Schemes of Frederick I. § 7. His conduct towards the Pope. § 8. His excommunication and reconciliation with the Church. § 9. Henry IV. § 10. Conflict between Philip of Swabia and Otho IV. § 11. Otho IV. $1. It is an historical fact that at Christmas, A.D. 800, Pope Leo III., in the person of Charles the Great, restored the Empire of the West, which included in the ideas of that time the protection VOL. II. B of the Church and the supreme guidance of Christian peoples in civil affairs. The See of Rome had perhaps for some time contemplated this elevation of its powerful protector. Hadrian I. in 777 said that the world would at some future time see a new Constantine in Charles the Great, and in 778 expressed the wish that God would make him victorious over all barbarous nations.3 Still, Leo III. on the day of Charles' coronation was able, in the face of the whole world, to claim as his own act the emperor's elevation to the imperial dignity, for the defence and protection of the Church. He acted in this matter as head of the Church; not, as many have pretended, merely as an instrument of Charles' policy. There is no historical foundation for such an assertion. He acted primarily as spiritual head of the Church, though he was at the 'same time civil head of the Romans. The Roman people, who could not have given a protector to the Universal Church, added to Charles' elevation those joyful acclamations which were a sign of its completion.5 In later times it was universally acknowledged that only a prince anointed and crowned by the Pope could possess the full imperial dignity. Even in diplomas the dates of the empire and of the kingdom were put separate, and the former was often vacant when the latter was occupied." Unless Charles the Great had received the title of emperor from the Pope he must have conferred it on himself. At that time this could not well have been; it is supported by no historical witness, and is, on the contrary, disproved by Eginhard's testimony to the astonishment and reluctance with which Charles heard of the Pope's intention. Neither did he receive it by right of conquest. He came to Rome in 800, not as a conqueror, but at the prayer of Leo III., to quell a rebellion. He came as protector of the Holy See, an office held by him as well as by his father and grandfather, in virtue of the patriarchate conferred upon them by the Popes. He did not owe his elevation to the conquest of Rome and Italy.s 1 Cf. Niehnes, Gesch. des Verhältnisses zwischen Kaiserthum und Papstthum im M.A. Münster, 1863, vol. i. p. 588 seq. 2 Ep. ad Carol. Mansi, Conc. xii. 819. Jaffé, Reg. n. 1854, p. 207. |