ency of his power; still there was good reason to doubt of both. But while James was dealing as severely as ever with Catholics, and was himself taking up the pen against their Church, Henry IV. of France was doing his best to mediate between him and the Pope, and in this matter De Brèves spared himself no pains. As to the words 'This pretended right of deposing kings was in the eyes of the Pope an article of faith,' &c.—they are not the words of De Brèves, but of G. H. Gaillard, who gives his own account of the doings of De Brèves.

1 Notices et Extraits, t. vii. p. 311. Döllinger, in the statement of March 13, 1872, already cited, puts forward the declaration of the Pope. Not as Lord of the Church,' as Huber says, p. 62.

* Ranke, Engl. Geschichte, vol. iv. p. 241 seq.

Hist. Essays, by John Forster, London, 1858, i. 227.

5 As is falsely said by Huber, p. 63.

$ 10.

A decision of Innocent X. in 1648, containing a fresh condemnation of this oath, is said to have been called forth by the Jesuits; and yet it is precisely the Jesuits in England, many of whom with heroic courage suffered, like the early Christians, a martyr's death, who were defenders of the most indulgent principles. They it was who induced Gregory XIII. to supersede his predecessor's severe sentence against Elizabeth, and to declare obedience to her as a temporal sovereign to be lawful.2 Facts and documents plainly show that they used their influence against revolt and violence, of which they were incessantly accused, although perfect freedom might have been theirs had they consented to give up their faith.*

1 Huber, p. 64.

2 Camden. Annal. Regni Elisab. a. 1580. Crétineau-Joly, Hist. de la Comp. de Jésus, t. ii. c. v. pp. 257, 266.

3 Hollingshead and Camden allow this of the time of Elizabeth. Crétineau-Joly, 1.c. p. 301.

Crétineau-Joly, 1.c. pp. 297, 298.

§ 11.

The decision projected in the Congregation of 1648 was

never published either in Rome or in England. It is said to have declared that the Catholics of England were not at liberty to relinquish and condemn the following propositions: (a) The Pope can release any man from obedience to the existing government; (b) he can release from an oath taken to a heretic; (c) persons condemned by the Pope as heretics may, at his command or with his dispensation, be put to death or misused.1 We have not the text of the decision in question. It is certain the power of loosing from oaths cannot simply be denied to the Pope, whether they be taken to a Catholic or to a nonCatholic. Only in so far as the rejection of the three propositions involved a rejection of the rights of the Pope, by anticipating the decision of the Church and arbitrarily settling the controversies of the day, was it criminal and worthy of condemnation.3

Huber, p. 64.

1 Al. Zeitung, June 19, 1870, A. Sup. No. 31. 2 Huber refers to no original; the copy of the Al. Zeitung, after quoting the condemnation of the oath of allegiance by Paul V., gives the reference: Dodd, Church History of England, iii. 288; Tractatus Dogmat. et Schol. de Ecclesia, Romae, 1782, ii. 245. This last I have not seen. In the passage mentioned in Ch. Dodd (died 1745), who carried his work up to the year 1688, nothing relating to this matter is to be found, not at least in the edition brought out by Timey, 1784. On the other hand, three propositions are quoted by Caron (Remonst. Hibernorum, P. i. c. iv. § 3, p. 7), which are but slightly different from those given above: (1) ' Pontificem Romanum posse subditos regni Catholicos ab obedientia et fidelitate civili principum ac magistratuum Protestantium eximere;' (2) 'Posse eosdem principes seu magistratus tamquam excommunicatos deponere vel occidere;' (3) 'Posse in juramentis ac contractibus Catholicorum quibuscunque cum Protestantibus dispensare.'

3 This is proved by the words: ' (S. Congregatio) subscriptores (earum damnatarum propositionum) in poenas in sacris canonibus et constitutionibus apostolicis contra negantes potestatem Pontificiam in causis fidei incidisse declarat.'

$ 12.

When we learn that, in spite of the Papal decision, nineand-fifty doctors of the Sorbonne1 declared that the oath of allegiance might be taken with perfect security to a religious conscience,' we must remember this was in exact accordance with the position adopted by this body, since 1663 more openly

than ever before, towards the teaching of the Roman theologians, especially on the indirect power of the Church. Other Theological Faculties, as, for instance, that of Lyons, did not agree in the vote passed by Paris. The defenders of the 'Irish Remonstrance,' which was censured at Rome in 1662, pleaded in its favour that in it those propositions had been omitted which might have been found offensive in the oath of allegiance. The Remonstrance contained eight articles, all designated as 'dogmas of religion,' though those signing it had no right to call them dogmas; the mere slight mention of dependence on the Roman See,' the really insulting form of many of the articles towards the Holy See, the close analogy both in words and sense with the earlier oath of allegiance, the violent opposition to doctrines not yet condemned by the Church, necessarily gave the document a character dangerous to faith. It was a somewhat modified-in indifferent matters an extended— paraphrase of the oath of allegiance. The increasing persecution of Catholics and the establishment of the Test Oath in 1673,6 by which even the denial of the dogma of Transubstantiation and the recognition of the king's ecclesiastical supremacy were required, showed plainly that declarations such as the Remonstrance availed nothing to those signing them, in spite of the sympathy of the king, in heart a Catholic. A long list of penal laws against Catholics as such, with no mitigation towards those who adhered to Gallican doctrines, followed under William III., Anne, and George I.,8 though no other dangerous conspiracies were alleged. It is acknowledged even by Protestants that Innocent XI. sought the restoration of the Catholic religion in England by evangelical means alone."

1 Du Plessis d'Argentré, Collect. Judic. t. iii. Paris, 1736, P. i. p. 139. Censures et Conclusions de la Faculté de Théologie de Paris touchant la souveraineté des Rois, Paris, 1720, iv. p. 393. Bossuet (1. iv. c. xxiii. p. 384) says that the judgment was put on the Index at Rome in 1683, which is however disputed by others.

2 Huber, p. 62. The document says: Salva fide et tuta conscientia,' but still with the restriction si modo in propositione, quae est de depositione et caede principum, ut quae damnatur ut haeretica, deponi et occidi conjunctim accipiantur, imo etsi divisim, ita ut tamen propositio haeretica materialiter, id est verbo Dei contraria finiatur quatenus deponi

posse principes effert, formaliter vero etiam, quatenus et occidi posse superaddit.' (Du Plessis, 1.c.)

3 Bianchi, t. i. 1. i. § 13, p. 113 seq.

Cf. Bossuet, 1.c. p. 387; Gosselin, ii. p. 287, note.

5 Caron (1.c. c. iv. § 2, p. 6) points out the following distinctions between James' formula and that chosen in the Remonstrance: ' (1) Quod (formula Jacobi) non tantum agnoscat, ut nostra, sed et juret Deumque in testem adducat, ea sic esse, prout exponit. . . . (2) Quod illa declaratio Jacobina tamquam impiam haereticam et damnabilem damnet opinionem oppositam, quam Pontificiam vel Bellarminianam appellant. (3) Quod illa credat Pontificem non posse in illo juramento vel ulla illius parte dispensare. Quae omnia in nostra omittuntur. . . . Et nunc ex Em. D.D. Cardinalibus ultramontanisque theologis quaero: Si in Remonstrantia illa Jacobina multa contineantur per nos in nostra omissa, quomodo verum erit, quod illi asserunt, Remonstrantiam nostram cum illa a Paulo V. damnata convenire aut instar repullulantis hydrae continere propositiones convenientes cum aliis a Sede Apostolica olim reprobatis?'

Cf. Ranke, Englische Geschichte, iv. pp. 422-424.

7 Ranke, ib. p. 363 seq. Rintel, 1.c. pp. 40, 41. Ranke, l.c. v. p. 482.

$13.

Until long after the so-called 'Reformation' the ancient principles of legislation were still maintained in the States of Europe; and it is only by degrees, and by no means at the same time in all countries, that these have undergone any complete change. Almost everywhere there was a State religion in close union with the civil power. As in countries purely Catholic a ruler was strictly required to be of the Catholic faith, which was constitutionally established, so afterwards in Protestant States the Catholic faith was proscribed, and sovereigns were required to be of the dominant religion. An act of the English parliament of 1688, renewed in 1701, excluded all Catholics and their wives from the throne;2 and again in 1805 parliament enacted that an English king becoming a Catholic should at once forfeit the crown. In Sweden, where the most severe laws were passed against the Catholic religion, King Sigismund, for being a Catholic, was dethroned in 1604 by Charles IX. In 1720 this rule was actively enforced,5 and the constitution of 1809 required the king and all State officials to profess Lutheranism; the same public law was established by the constitution of Norway in 1814,7 and this was also done in

4

Denmark and many German States. The Greek Church was in like manner maintained in Russia; and even to this day princesses coming into the country by marriage are required to enter the Greek Church.

1 Cf. the stipulations of Philip II., May 6, 1598, on ceding Belgium to his daughter Isabella and her future husband Albrecht of Austria (J. Dumont, Corps Dipl. Univ. v. i. p. 574; Spondan. a. 1598, n. 15; Synopsis Monum. Eccl. Mechlin. t. iii. p. 1041); the Spanish constitution of 1808 (Dufau et Guadet, Collection des Constitutions, t. v. pp. 65, 86); that of Sicily (ib. iv. p. 464); that of Poland, 1697 and 1768 (1.c. 34, 35, Mémoires pour servir à l'Hist. ecclés. du 18 siècle, t. i. Introd. p. clx.; Lenglet-Dufresnoy, Méthode pour étudier l'Histoire, t. viii. p. 346); that of France, 1685 (Dufau et Guadet, t. i. p. 79).

2 Dufau et Guadet, l.c. t. i. pp. 387 seq. 396.

3 Parliamentary Debates, t. iv. Lond. 1805, p. 677. Cf. De Maistre, Du Pape, t. ii. concl. p. 251.

Even the Edict of Gustavus III. of Jan. 24, 1781 (Theiner, Sammlung einiger Aktenstücke z. Gesch. der Emancipation der Kath. in Engl. Mainz, 1835, p. 77 seq.), shows extreme severity.

Lenglet-Dufresnoy, 1.c. pp. 220, 237, 260. Moréri, Diction. v. Suède et Sigismonde III., Ulrique, Eléonore, Frédéric de Hesse-Cassel. • Dufau, l.c. t. iii. p. 306.

Ib. t. iii. p. 322.

§ 14.

In Germany, at the opening of the sixteenth century, the relations of Church and State were, in their principles and chief characteristics, still thoroughly mediæval; the temporal sword was to aid the spiritual, especially against heresy. The extermination of Protestantism was held to be a duty not by Popes Leo X., Hadrian VI., and Clement VII. alone, but by all the Catholic princes, theologians, and jurists of Germany, in particular by Charles V. and many of his counsellors,3 and by the Dukes of Bavaria ; negotiations or peace with sectaries, by which the rights of the Church were given up, were strongly reprobated. Charles V. opposed with heart and soul the religious peace of Augsburg in 1555, and before that the treaty of Passau in 1552, which wrought so great a change in Germany; but he was aware that his crippled power was insufficient to punish the wrongs done to himself and to the empire.

Paul IV. in protesting against the religious peace, regarding it as null, and being prepared to release any oath taken to