THE curtailment of Christian empire in the East by the Mohammedans, and the final separation of the East from the West, gave free scope in Latin Christendom for the development of the Roman idea of the Church. No strong ecclesiastical power appeared now to dispute the pretensions, or to limit the prerogatives, of the Roman bishops. Already in the latter part of the eleventh century, Gregory VII. vigorously asserted the leading points of the theory of papal supremacy, and in the thirteenth century the papal theocracy reached its culmination.

At the crowning era of papal rule, two ideas were dominant respecting the Church: (1.) that as a visible organism it is identical with the kingdom of God upon earth; (2.) that it is the patrimony of Peter, or, in other words, of the Roman bishop. In pursuance of the former idea, salvation was limited to those in actual connection with the Church, and subject to its authority. A measure of exception, however, was allowed. We find statements to the effect that an unjust excommunication is no cause of harm to the one whom it severs from church fellowship. Thus Robert Pullus declares that an anathema is of no effect against one not deserving censure, and that, while such a one is excluded by the priest, he is received by God. (Sent., VI. 61.) Thomas Aquinas also teaches that an unjust excommunication does not injure its victim, provided he

endures it with becoming meekness. (Sum. Theol., III. Sup. 21. 4. Compare Abelard, Scito Te Ipsum, XXVI.) In conformity with the second idea, a constitutional primacy was assigned to Peter among the apostles, the Roman bishop was regarded as heir to that primacy, and consequently as the head of the Church, the vicegerent of Christ upon earth.

The popes themselves, in this era, in defining their prerogatives, had a special occasion to place their position in contrast with that of temporal sovereigns, inasmuch as these were their most conspicuous rivals. Gregory VII. found in the sun and the moon what seemed to him an apt means of illustrating the relative dignity of the papal and the princely power. Innocent III., the greatest of the ecclesiastical monarchs of the Middle Ages, reaffirmed and enlarged upon the illustration. The following sentences of his leave no ambiguity as respects his view of papal rank. "Although the primary and principal foundation of the Church is Jesus Christ, the only begotten Son of God, the second and secondary foundation of the Church is Peter. ... After he [Peter] had consecrated the Roman Church with his own blood, he left the primacy of the Church to his successor, transferring in him the whole plenitude of power. Single kings have single realms. But Peter, as in fulness, so also in breadth, surpasses them all, because he is the vicegerent of Him to whom belongs the earth and the fulness thereof. As the moon derives

its light from the sun, and is inferior to it at once in quantity and quality, in position as well as in effect, so the regal power derives the splendor of its dignity from pontifical authority." (Prima Collect. Decret., Tit. II., III. — Migne.) If anything was lacking on the part of Innocent III. to the most complete assertion of pontifical sovereignty, the lack was supplied in the bull Unam Sanctam of Boniface VIII. In this bull the claim of the temporal power to anything like autonomy over against the spiritual is likened to

Manichæan dualism. With all the formality and precision of an ex cathedra decree, Boniface proclaims: "We declare, say, define, and pronounce, that to be subject to the Roman pontiff is for every human creature an altogether necessary condition of salvation," - subesse Romano pontifici, omni humanæ creaturæ declaramus, dicimus, definimus, et pronunciamus omnino esse de necessitate salutis. (Quoted in Gieseler's Kirchengeschichte.)

By the earlier theologians of the period the full theory of the papacy was not entertained. Among other evidences of this is the interpretation that was given of Matt. xvi. 18. We find Beda, for example, saying that the rock upon which the Church is built is the Saviour whom Peter confessed, and in general commenting upon the passage in a way which assigns no exceptional eminence to Peter. (Expos. in Matt.) Radbertus draws out the same meaning, and condemns as false the representation that Peter is the foundation of the Church. "Non enim, ut quidam male putant, Petrus fundamentum totius ecclesiæ est." (Expos. in Matt.) But later writers were in better accord with the papal theory. At the crowning era of scholasticism, which was also the crowning era of the papacy, theologians were not much behind the Popes themselves in their descriptions of papal sovereignty. Says Abelard: "The kingdom of Christ is the universal Church, so delivered into the power of Peter that nothing in it can take place without the command or permission of the Roman pontiff." (Serm., XXIII.) "Earthly power," says Hugo, "has the king for its head: spiritual power has the supreme pontiff. By as much as spiritual life, is of higher rank than earthly, and the spirit than the body, by so much the spiritual power excels in honor and dignity the earthly or secular power." (De Sac., II. 2. 3.) Thomas Aquinas assigns to the Pope the supreme headship over the Church in matters of faith and administration, and speaks of him as ruling the Church in place of Christ. (Sum. Theol., II. 2. 1. 10, 2. 39. 1.)

Bonaventura styles the Pope the viear of Christ, and the source of all ecclesiastical sovereignties. (Brevil., VI. 12.) Duns Scotus was also in full accord with the radical conception of papal absolutism. Soon after Duns Scotus, however, as was intimated in the closing section of the first chapter, the decline of the papacy in actual power and prestige was accompanied by a wide-spread tendency to modify the theory of the papacy in favor of the superior prerogatives of an ecumenical council. This tendency came to its most noteworthy expression in the decisions of the council of Constance. The council of Florence, on the other hand, was favorable to the dignity of the Pope, and styled him "the head of the whole Church and the father and teacher of all Christians." The scheme preferred by Wycliffe left no place at all to the Pope, nor indeed to any of the grades of the hierarchy, except presbyters and deacons. (Trial., IV. 15.) The principles of Huss, if less radical, still involved important modifications of the theory of the papal office.

A conception of the papal monarchy like that promulgated by Thomas Aquinas and his contemporaries, was admirably suited to serve as a basis of spiritual despotism. This is not saying that they were actually in favor of despotic maxims and practices, but only that their theory was suited to give free scope to such. However, as a matter of fact, there is evidence that despotic notions were not altogether foreign to their minds. At least, we find Thomas Aquinas arguing for the entire legitimacy of bringing heretics and schismatics to terms, where it is possible, by physical coercion. Speaking of these classes, in distinction from those who have never embraced the Christian faith, he says: "Such are to be compelled by corporeal means (corporaliter compellandi), to fulfil what they have promised, and to hold what they have once received." (Sum. Theol., II. 2. 10. 8, 2. 39. 4.) Capital punishment, he maintains, is none too severe for the heretic. "Far more

grievous is it to corrupt the faith, which ministers life to the soul, than to falsify money, which subserves the interests of temporal life. If, therefore, falsifiers of money and other malefactors are at once and with justice delivered to death by secular rulers, much more heretics forthwith, after being convicted of heresy, can be, not only excommunicated, but justly put to death." (Ibid., II. 2. 11. 3. Compare Durandus, Sent., IV. 13. 5.) As a guaranty that the practice should not fall behind the theory, the Fourth Lateran Council bound both temporal and spiritual lords to spare no diligence in searching out and punishing heretics and dissenters. If the temporal lord should delay to purge his land of heretical defilement, it was provided that he should be excommunicated, his subjects released from their allegiance, and his territory given over to those who would carry out the behests of the Church in exterminating heretics.

SECTION II.-THE SACRAMENTS.

A SACRAMENT was regarded by the scholastics as including two elements, namely, sign and grace. It was understood to be a visible sign and medium of an invisible grace. Among the formal definitions offered we have the following: "A sacrament is a visible form of an invisible grace conferred in it." (Hugo, Sent., IV. 1.) "A sacrament is a sign of a sacred thing." (Lombard, Sent., IV. 1. 2; where also a sacrament is defined as the visible form of an invisible grace.) "Sacraments are visible signs divinely instituted as means of healing, in which, under the covering of sensible things, divine virtue secretly operates, so that from a natural similitude they represent, from their institution they signify, and from their sanctification they confer, some spiritual grace, by which the soul is cured of the infirmities of vices." (Bonaventura, Brevil., VI. 1.) "Anything can be called a sacrament, either because it has in