CHAPTER VI. Papal Polity. To judge fairly of the acts of the Popes, we must consider the general principles by which they were governed, and which, in a greater or less degree, were common to the ages in which they lived. The first great principle, which was the very basis on which all social order reposed, was, that the Christian revelation and law must be the supreme rule for princes and people, for nations singly and collectively. Christianity was, in fact, the supreme law of all Christendom. Hence it is still considered as a part of the common law of England,* and as such it is even received in this country, although the Constitution of the United States and the several State Constitutions have virtually annulled its legal consequences, by ignoring its doctrines. Arnold contends that the State has a right to adopt Christianity, if it think proper: "A State may as justly declare the New Testament to be its law, as it may choose the Institutes and Code of Justinian. In this manner the law of Christ's Church may be made its law; and all the institutions which this law enjoins, whether in ritual or discipline, may be adopted as national institutions, just as legitimately as any institutions of mere human origin." The nations, in the Middle Ages, did not feel themselves morally free to adopt or reject the Christian law, which, as they acknowledged it to be from God, they held to be binding, independently of their act; so that they felt bound to conform their municipal and international legislation to its prescriptions. The Popes instinctively acted on this principle, and regarded as null and sacrilegious every human enactment which was opposed to the divine commandments. Michaud remarks: "In reading over the annals of the Middle Ages, we cannot but admire one of the most charming spectacles ever presented by human society, namely, Christian Europe acknowledging but one religion, having but one law, forming as it were but one empire, governed by one chief, who spoke in the name of God, and whose *Blackstone, Comm., l. iv. n. 60. "In the United States there is no established Church: it has been considered, however, that we received the Christian religion as part of the common law." American editor of Blackstone, in loc. Introductory Lectures on Modern History, by Thomas Arnold, D.D. Appendix to Inaugural Lecture, p. 69. mission was to make the Gospel reign on earth. In the eleventh and twelfth centuries, the nations of Europe, subject to the authority of St. Peter, were united, one with the other, by a stronger tie than that of knowledge, and directed by a more powerful impulse than that of liberty: this bond was the Universal Church."* The great effort of the Church was to make rulers and their subjects alike submissive in all things to the authority of God. She applied the divine laws to all classes, and urged their observance under the severest penalties which she could inflict, the highest of which was ejection from her fold. Feeling that she could not surrender or compromise the privileges and rights which she had received from her Divine Founder, she calmly but perseveringly protested against every attempt on the part of the State to encroach on her rights, or to control her in the legitimate exercise of her authority. She taught her children to render to Cesar the things which are Cesar's; but she enjoined on them most especially to render to God the things which are God's. Giving a religious sanction to the civil authority, in its proper sphere, she claimed an exclusive right to regulate what appertains to the supernatural order, and to govern men in the things of salvation. Hence Ranke has well remarked, that "in this separation of the Church from the State consists, perhaps, the greatest, and most pervading, and most influential peculiarity of all Christian times." Dr. Nevin says: "The separation of the temporal and spiritual powers, and the independence of the latter with respect to the former, has had much to do, no doubt, with the formation of that spirit of liberty which is characteristic of modern civilization." The great struggle between the Popes and temporal princes, in regard to investitures, was an effort on the part of the Popes to drive them back within the limits of their own jurisdiction, and recover the territory of the Church which they had invaded. Under the pretext that, as civil rulers, they bestowed lands and other temporal advantages on the Church, they took on themselves to install bishops, by placing in their hand the pastoral staff, and putting the episcopal ring on their finger. Thus they insensibly came to control their election, and sometimes put on the episcopal chair the companions of their debauch, or the ministers of their vengeance. The enormous scandals which defiled the sanctuary, in the tenth and eleventh ages especially, were mainly to be traced to this usurpation: to resist which, St. Gregory VII., and his successors, exposed themselves to suffering and persecution. Paschal II., treacherously made prisoner by Henry V., yielded to the advice and entreaties of some who implored him to save his own life, and the lives of his adherents, by conceding the privilege but he soon felt that he had betrayed his duty, and in a solemn Council he deplored, with tears, his momentary weakness. The bonds of * Histoire des Croisades, 1. xiii. p. 98. History of the Popes, vol. i. ch. i. p. 29. "Modern Civilization." M. R., March, 1851. the Church were by successive efforts burst asunder, and her liberty was attended with the renovation of her prelacy, who shone forth in the beauty of holiness. Emperors and kings occasionally became her benefactors, and atoned for the wrongs which their predecessors had inflicted. "It is somewhat remarkable," writes Mr. Allies, "that that Church which maintains a standing protest against the interference of the State with spiritual matters, (a protest for which she is worthy of all respect and admiration,) should owe to the support of the State, in different periods of her history, very much more of her power than any other church. It may be that God rewards the fearless maintenance of spiritual rights by the grant of that very temporal power which threatens them with destruction."* believe that her indebtedness to the State is very small. I The compacts made between the people and the sovereign, which were confirmed by the rite of coronation, embraced the immunities and privileges of the Church, which the. prince bound himself to maintain inviolate. Hence, when these were invaded, holy prelates resisted the perjured sovereign, professing their submission to his just authority, but their unwillingness to betray the interests of religion intrusted to their charge. The Pope encouraged them by his approbation, threatening to hurl the censures of the Church against the violator of her rights. We are not now to inquire whether these immunities ought to have been originally conceded. They actually formed part of the compact in virtue of which the monarch reigned, and could not be disregarded without a breach of his sworn engagement. In enforcing them, the Pontiff acted in accordance with the general usages and public law of the age; at the same time offering to sanction such contributions by the clergy to the public burdens as might appear just and necessary.† Boniface VIII., while resisting Philip the Fair, who forced the clergy to raise subsidies according to his pleasure, consented that they should, of their own free and concerted action, contribute to the public wants, and that in case of any general or special necessity of the kingdom, they should be bound to give supplies. The privilege in question was the right of self-taxation, which in this country, and wherever the representative system prevails, is now exercised by the nation at large, through their representatives. Some of the most illustrious prelates that adorned the English hierarchy are celebrated for their intrepid maintenance of ecclesiastical immunities. St. Anselm, with sacerdotal fortitude, contended for the privileges and freedom of the Church against William Rufus and Henry I., while he most sincerely professed submission to the lawful authority of the sovereign: "In the things of God I shall obey," he said, "the Vicar of St. Peter in what regards the dignity of my lord the king, I shall give my best counsel and aid to maintain it." *Church of England Cleared, &c. p. 114. † Conc. Lat. iv. ? xlvi. Conventus Rochinghamiensis, t. x., Conc. p. 494. St. Thomas of Canterbury deemed it the duty of his office to maintain the ecclesiastical immunities against the encroachments of his temporal sovereign, and ventured to rebuke him as deviating from the line of duty which became a Catholic prince. Addressing Henry II., he says: "If you are a good and Catholic king, and wish to be such as we believe and desire you to be, if I may say it with your leave, you are a child of the Church, not her ruler; you should learn from the priests, not teach them; you should follow the priests in ecclesiastical matters, not go before them. You have power peculiar to yourself, bestowed on you by God for the administration of the laws, that, being grateful for His favors, you may do nothing contrary to the order divinely established."* "Most beloved king, God wills that the direction of the things of the Church should belong to His priests, not to the powers of the world, which, if they be faithful, He wishes to be submissive to the priests of His Church."+ Innocent III. wrote to Sanchez II. of Portugal in these terms: "We beseech you, most beloved son, through the mercy of Jesus Christ, to be content with the authority which God has given you, and not at all to stretch your hands to matters ecclesiastical, as we do not stretch our hands to matters of royal prerogative." The justice of this distinction, and the favorable influence of the independence which is here vindicated, are too often overlooked by many advocates of civil liberty, who most inconsistently claim for the State an unlimited control, even in matters which strictly belong to the province of the Church. "Strange," says Dr. Nevin, "that the advocates of equilibrium and counterpoise, who make so much of the policy of dividing powers to prevent tyranny, should not have felt the profound wisdom of this old church doctrine, even in a simply political view."§ With reference to the principles of civil government, it may be safely asserted that the Popes were uniformly favorable to popular rights and liberty, although with strict regard to public order and established au. thority St. Gregory the Great rebuked an imperial officer for extreme severity in punishing crime, which, he said, reflected disgrace on the power which he exercised, the subjects of the emperor being freemen, not slaves: "This is the difference between the kings of the nations, and the emperors of the Romans,-that the kings of the nations are lords of slaves, the emperor of the Romans is the lord of freemen. Wherefore, in all your acts, you should, in the first place, have a strict regard to justice, and next, you should preserve liberty in all things." Gregory IX. reproached Frederick II. with being at once a "persecutor of the Church and a destroyer of public liberty," by the unjust laws which he threatened to promulgate. In opposing the union of Sicily with the empire, the Popes guarded against the accumulation of power in the hands of one † Ibidem, p. 536. Apud Baron., an. 1166, p. 535. | L. x., ep. 41. "Modern Civilization." M. R., March, 1851. man; and in the various acts of Papal opposition to imperial encroachment, the liberty of Italy, Germany, and the nations generally, was vindicated. Michaud avows: "But for the Pope, it is probable that Europe would have fallen under the yoke of the emperors of Germany. The policy of the sovereign Pontiffs, by weakening the imperial power, favored in Germany the liberty of the cities, and the increase and duration of the small States. We do not hesitate to add, that the thunders of the Holy See saved the independence of Italy, and perhaps of France."* "This policy of the Popes resulted in freeing Italy from the yoke of the German emperors, so that this rich country for sixty years did not behold the imperial troops."+ "Liberty and the Church" were inspiring watchwords of the Lombard league. Venice, Verona, Padua, Vicenza, combined against Frederick, pro tuenda libertate, in defence of liberty.‡ Pope Alexander was their friend and ally; so that when the Lombards listened to overtures made on the part of Frederick, they made an express proviso in behalf of the Roman Church, and of their own liberty; and, on the other hand, when the Pope was solicited to accede to some proposals of the emperor, he declined any final action without the concurrence of the Lombards, who had nobly fought, as he publicly declared, for the welfare of the Church and the liberty of Italy.§ The like sympathies manifested themselves on many occasions. "Tuscany," says Hallam, "had hitherto been ruled by a marquis of the emperor's appointment, though her cities were flourishing, and, within themselves, independent. In imitation of the Lombard confederacy, and impelled by Innocent III., they now (with the exception of Pisa, which was always strongly attached to the empire) founded a similar league for the preservation of their rights. In this league the influence of the Pope was far more strongly manifested than in that of Lombardy."|| All the cities of Italy enjoyed that independence which Hallam ascribes to those of Tuscany, since even those which acknowledged the empire, had municipal rights on the largest scale, including the election of their own officers and judges, and every thing appertaining to internal government. The evil of those times was the excess of liberty, which, for the want of a general authority, to combine and preserve in harmony the various cities, degenerated into licentiousness, intestine feuds, and mutual warfare. Each city was a republic, whose citizens were most jealous of their rights, so that they limited the powers of the presiding officer to a short period, sometimes of six months only, and guarded by every possible means against the abuse of his authority, or its continuation in the same individual. Histoire des Croisades, 1. xiii. p. 97. Baronius, an. 1164. Middle Ages, vol. i. ch. iii. par. i. p. 259. † Ibid., 1. xvi. p. 454. See Hurter, Tableau des Institutions et des Moeurs du Moyen Age, ch. xl. vol. ii. p. 531. |