ESSAY XVI.

THE PUNISHMENT OF HERESY AND THE INQUISITION.

CRUELTY towards other religions, manifested chiefly in the Inquisition, is one of the current objections raised against the Church and the Papacy. Trials for witchcraft also are imputed to some Popes as a heavy charge. Janus and Huber both connect the doctrine of Infallibility with the Inquisition, as though the one were supported by the other. Let us examine these objections.

PART I. THE PUNISHMENT OF HERESY.

§ 1, 2. Imperial laws before the sixth century. § 3. Heresy a crime more heinous than high treason. § 4. St. Augustine. § 5. Other Fathers. § 6. Distinction made between unbaptised unbelievers and baptised apostates. § 7. Punishment of death. § 8. Proceedings up to Lucius III. § 9. Lucius III. § 10. Innocent III. § 11. Synod of Avignon. § 12. Complaints against Innocent III. § 13. Laws of Frederick II. against heretics. § 14. Enactments in France.

§ 1.

Offences against religion, namely, apostasy and heresy, were in the early ages of Christianity reckoned amongst the gravest crimes. The Roman Empire, converted to Christianity, could not do otherwise than share this view of the Church, and rigorously repress the spread of errors, by which the peace of the empire also was menaced. As the Donatists, after the Synods of Rome and Arles, as well as after their trial by Constantine, did not submit, but persisted in their defiant demeanour and deeds of violence, the emperor issued in 316 a severe edict, depriving them of their churches, confiscating their property, and banishing the most stubborn of their leaders. After the Council

of Nicæa, in 325, he pronounced banishment upon Arius and two bishops of his party. Further, the immunities of the clergy were limited to Catholics, heretical assemblies were forbidden, heretical writings sought out and destroyed. Theodosius I. published an edict, in which he threatened heretics, required from all his subjects an acknowledgment of the Nicene Creed,5 deprived the Arians in Constantinople of their churches, which he gave to Catholics, and in 381 forbade heretics from possessing churches or holding divine worship in the cities.7

8

Laws still more severe were subsequently enacted against the Manichæans, against whom an edict had been issued by the Emperor Diocletian, A.D. 296, on account of their excesses and their immoral doctrines, condemning their leaders to be burnt and the followers to decapitation or loss of property.9 Theodosius declared the Manichæans to be infamous, to be incapable of inheriting or of making wills; those amongst them who were called Encratets to be punished with death. 10 The prætorian prefects should appoint inquisitors--the name first appears here -to discover and prosecute them.11 Heretics were forbidden to hold assemblies, and to impart or receive holy orders, under penalty of a fine. These laws were followed by many others: heretics, especially Donatists and Manichæans, were declared incapable of holding public offices or enjoying civil rights.12

1 The Apostles and their disciples clearly expressed their horror of heresy 2 Tim. ii. 25 seq.; Tit. iii. 10, 11; Gal. i. 8; 1 Tim. i. 19; 2 Thess. ii. 11; Can. Ap. 38, al. 36, Ant. c. xx. (Hefele, i. pp. 786, 499.) Vide passages in Möhler's Patrologie von Reithmayr, pp. 116, 135, 141, 301, 456, 483, 610; Basil. Ep. 28, ad Neocaes. c. ii. p. 108. Cf. Döllinger, Christenthum und Kirche, § 121, p. 236.

2 Aug. Ep. 88, ad Januar. n. 3; Ep. 93, ad Vincent. c. lit. Petil. 1. ii. n. 205, Optat. de Schism. Don. 1. ii. p. 47, ed. Paris, 1679. Fleury, Hist. Eccl. t. iii. 1. x. n. 19. Thomassin, Traité des Edits, t. i. c. xi.

The Arians were to be called Porphyrians, and their works to be burnt. Philostorg. Suppl. p. 539, ed. Mogunt, 1679. Socr. H. E. i. 9. Soz. i. 21.

Cod. Theod. xvi. tit. 5, 1. 1, 2, 43, 65. Eus. Vita Const. 1. iii. c. lxiii-lxvi. Fleury, t. iii. 1. ii. n. 31, 46. Thomassin, l.c. c. xxx. Cf. Basilic. 1. i. tit. 1, n. 22 seq.

Cod. Theod. xvi. 1, de Fide Cath. 1. i. ii.

Socr. v. 7; Soz. vii. 5.

n. 9.

Cod. Theodos. xvi. 5, de Haeret. 1. vi. Cf. Fleury, t. iv. 1. xviii.

Aug. de Mor. Manich. Cf. Bossuet, Hist. des Variations, 1. xi. n. 7.

* Baron. a. 287, n. 1. Hugo, Jus civile antejustin. Berol. 1815, t. ii. p 1463. Ambrosiaster, in 2 Tim. iii. 7. Cf. Neander, K.G. i. pp. 79, 278, 3d ed.

19 Cod. Theod. 1.c. 1. vii. ix. Cf. Cod. Just. i. v. 1. 5.

11 He said: Sublimitas itaque tua det inquisitores, aperiat forum, indices denunciatoresque sine invidia delationis accipiat, nemo praescriptione communi exordium accusationis hujus infringat.'

12 Cod. Theod. 1.c. 1. xlii. seq. xii. xxi. Soz. vii. 12. Cod. Justin. i. 5, de Haeret. 1. ii. iii. iv.

§ 2.

The Emperor Theodosius II. sent Nestorius into banishment; the Emperor Marcian was not less severe upon Eutyches and his followers; they were declared incapable of making wills or of inheriting, or of entering the army (except for frontier service); their clergy were banished, their books burnt, and the authors and distributors punished with loss of goods and banishment.2

Justinian, who incorporated in his code many of these more ancient laws, followed the example of earlier emperors in regarding heretics as transgressors of the law of the State, since the State law recognised and enforced the judgments of the Church; he confirmed the penalties of loss of honour and rights, banishment and loss of goods, for heretics of both sexes.3 All provincial rulers should swear never to act in any way contrary to the Catholic Church, and hinder with all their strength the enterprises of her adversaries. Equally severe were the laws against apostasy and sacrilege.5 As early as 435 death was the penalty decreed for those who led others to adopt the errors of any sect. These laws were accepted also by the Visigoths,7 in Spain, England, and other countries.

8

1 Mansi, v. 413, 418. Evagr. H. E. 1. i. c. xii.

* Mansi, vii. 475 seq. 502 seq. Cod. Just. 1.c. 1. viii. Hefele, Conc. ii.

• Liberat. Brev. c. xxiii. Fleury, t. vii. 1. xxxiii. n. 1, post Justin. Novell. 8.

5 Cod. Justin. i. tit. 7.

Cod. Justin. i. 5, 1. v.

Cf. Dig. xlviii. 13, 1. vi. ix.

Thomassin, l.c. c. xxx. n. 2, 3. Jac. Gothofred. Proleg. ad Cod. Theodos. c. iii. Canciani, Barbar. Leg. Ant. t. i. Praef. p. 13. Savigny, Gesch. des Röm. Rechts, vol. i. c. iii. seq.

7 Lex Visigoth. 1. xii. tit. 2, § 2.

8 Conc. Tolet. vi. 636, c. 3; viii. 653, c. 10. Hefele, iii. pp. 83, 92. " Beda Vener. Hist. Eccl. Angl. 1. i. c. xxi.

§ 3.

We must be aware of the immense importance attained by the Roman law properly to estimate the principles upon which heretics were persecuted for over a thousand years, and the proceedings taken against them. Even jurists regarded heresy as an offence against civil society: 'What is done against the divine religion is an injury done to all." It was a graver crime than high treason: Far more grievous is it to offend the heavenly than an earthly king." In these days crimes against earthly kings are punished with extremest penalties, but crimes against the Majesty of God are punished scarcely or not at all, and blasphemy, once a capital offence, is disregarded; and it is very difficult for a mind imbued with these ideas to estimate at their proper value, or in any degree, these ancient laws, once approved universally, and esteemed of undoubted necessity.

1 ‘Quod in religionem divinam committitur, in omnium fertur injuriam.' Theodos. ii. 407, 1. iv. Cod. Just. i. 5, de Haeret.

2 Longe gravius aeternam, quam temporalem majestatem offendere.' Auth. de Statu et Cens. post 1. xix. 1.c.; repeatedly in c. x. de Haer. v. 7 (Innoc. III. 1. ii. Ep. 1).

3 Levit. xxiv. 16. Just. Nov. 77, c. i.

§ 4.

Besides the codes of Theodosius and Justinian, the doctrine of St. Augustine had great influence.

The great Bishop adoption of severe

of Hippo was at one time adverse to the measures against heretics and schismatics, especially against Donatists; but he tells us that he was led, from weighty reasons, from personal experience, and from the representations of his fellow-bishops, entirely to change his opinion. The reasons that led to the change were the following: (1) The con

sideration of the necessity for all to be members of the true Church, a happiness outweighing all others, and which made it of the greatest advantage to be able even to bring up the children of Donatists in the true faith; (2) the reflection that men are often brought to a better mind by external means, such as suffering, and are by it prepared for, and made more receptive of, truth; that by paternal chastisements they are more easily led to obedience; that when teaching fails a wise schoolmaster employs force, and that when love is ineffectual fear may operate for good, as God draws His perishing creatures to Him by sorrow. (3) A third reason was the violence and outrages perpetrated by the Circumcellionists, who constantly threatened the Catholics of Africa with murder, fire, and rapine, and compelled them to seek the protection of the State, which was an absolute necessity to them, and one that could not be refused.3 (4) Fourthly, there was also the consideration that the State punished murder, adultery, and other crimes, and could not, therefore, if it desired to be Christian, leave unpunished the far graver crimes against God.4

The same views are stated by St. Jerome,5 by Leo the Great," Gregory the Great,7 Isidore of Seville, St. Bernard,9 and others. 10

1 Aug. Retract. ii. 5: Et vere tunc mihi non placebat, quia nondum expertus fueram, vel quantum mali auderet impunitas vel quantum eis in melius mutandis conferre posset diligentia disciplinae.' Ep. 93, al. 48, ad Vincent. n. 17: Mea primitus sententia non erat nisi neminem ad unitatem Christi esse cogendum, verbo esse agendum, disputatione pugnandum, ratione vincendum, ne fictos Catholicos haberemus, quos apertos haereticos noveramus. Sed haec opinio mea non contradicentium verbis, sed demonstrantium superabatur exemplis. Nam primo mihi opponebatur civitas mea, quae, cum tota esset in parte Donati, ad unitatem Catholicam timore legum imperialium conversa est. . . . . Ita aliae multae, quae mihi nominatim commemorabantur' (c. 3, § 1, c. xxiii. q. 6).

2 Aug. c. lit. Petil. 1. ii. n. 185; Ep. 185, ad Bonif. n. 21; de Civ. Dei, 1. xix. c. 16, v. fin.; Ep. 54, ad Macedon. (c. 4, c. xxiii. q. 5).

3 Ep. ad Vincent. cit. n. 12, 16, c. Gaudent. 1. i. c. xxiii.; Ep. cit. ad Bonif. n. 6 (c. 1, c. xxiii. q. 6): Cur non cogeret Ecclesia perditos filios, ut redirent, si perditi filii coegerunt alios, ut perirent?' Other passages, vide c. 2, 3, c. xxiii. q. 3, and c. 1, 2, ead. c. q. 5.

C. Gaud. i. 20; ii. 19, c. Ep. Parmen. i. 16; Ep. 105, al. 166; tract. 11 in Joh.; Ep. 185 cit.: An fidem non servare levius est animam Deo quam feminam vero?'

VOL. II.

X