maxims," as Montesquieu observes; "we ought to be cautious in prosecuting magic and heresy. I do not say that heresy ought not to be punished; I say that we ought to be cautious in punishing it.1 This is a fundamental principle of political laws, with regard to religion, when it is in the power of a state to receive or to reject a new religion (that is, as he explains himself, a false religion), it ought not to be received; it ought not to be established; if it be established, it ought to be tolerated."

To this testimony may be added the judgment of a modern author, whose very enlarged views on government no one can contest. Comte de Maistre has the following reflections on the general law which formerly condemned obstinate heretics to be burned to death. "Without going back to the Roman laws which sanctioned this penalty, all nations have awarded it to those great crimes which violate the most sacred laws. In all Europe, sacrilege, parricide, and especially treason, were punished with death by fire; and as the latter was divided according to the principles of criminal law into two kinds, high treason against man and high treason against God, all crimes, or at least all enormous crimes against religion, were regarded as high treason against God, and of course should be punished as severely as treason against man. Hence the universal custom of burning heresiarchs and obstinate heretics. I think myself bound to add, that the heresiarch, the obstinate heretic, and the propagator of heresy, ought undoubtedly to be ranked among the greatest criminals. What leads us astray on this matter is, that we cannot prevent ourselves from judging of it according to the indifference of our own days on the subject of religion; whilst we should rather take as our standard that ancient zeal, which people may if they please call fanaticism, as a word makes no difference in the thing. The modern sophist disser

tating at his ease in his cabinet, is not ruffled in the least by

2 Ibid. book xxv. ch. x. For the explanation of this passage, see La Défense de l'Esprit des Lois, part ii. art. "Tolérance."

the consideration that the arguments of Luther were the cause of the thirty years' war. But the ancient lawgivers, who knew well what dire evils could flow from those fatal doctrines, punished very justly with death, a crime capable of shaking society to its foundations and of deluging it in blood."

50. Application of these Principles often difficult.

From these observations it clearly follows, that according to ancient principles, as acknowledged by the most famous modern authorities, the moderate use of temporal penalties against heresy and other impious crimes was essential alike to the good of religion and to the repose of society. Doubtless, on this, as on so many other matters, the application of the principle presents frequently great difficulties, because it depends on so many qualifying circumstances. The prince may err on this point by too much leniency as well as by too great rigour, but the difficulty of applying a well-established principle can never destroy its truth.2

But in fine, however difficult the application may be in many cases, the teaching of the Church, and the practice of the first Christian emperors, of those at least whose wisdom and piety have been praised by the Church, have not left us without some leading principles to be followed on this point.

51. Rule 1.-The Church alone has the Power to regulate Spiritual Matters. The first and the most important is, that the Church alone has the right to regulate matters in the spiritual order, such as dogmas, morals, ecclesiastical discipline, and generally whatever regards the government of the faithful in matters pertaining to religion and to eternal salvation. The duty of the temporal

'De Maistre, Lettres sur l'Inquisition Espagnole, Letter ii. p. 53, &c. 2 These observations may serve as a corrective for those of Tillemont, on this subject, when speaking of the conduct of Valentinian I., who has been accused, not without reason, of a kind of indifference about religion. In his attempt to justify in some way Valentinian's conduct, Tillemont confuses the true principles on this matter. Tillemont, Hist. des Emp. vol. v. p. 10. See the passages cited above, note, art. 15.

For the development of this principle, see the work of the Abbé Pey,

power in those matters is confined strictly to protecting the Church, that is, to support her decisions, without even in any manner anticipating, extending, or modifying them. This principle, which has been so often inculcated by councils and by holy doctors, as part of the divine constitution of the Church, was also recognized by the Christian emperors, who repeatedly proclaimed it in their edicts,' and always repeated it in practice, unless when they were led astray by the suggestions of heresy or by perfidious councils. The language of Justinian on this point, in one of his Novellæ, is the most precise and formal that can be desired. "God," he says, "hath entrusted to man the priesthood and the empire; the priesthood to administer things divine, the empire to preside over things human; both proceed from the same principle." Whence the emperor concludes, that he does not presume of himself to regulate ecclesiastical affairs, but simply to sanction the rules of the Church and the canons of councils."

52. In what sense Princes are called Bishops exterior.

By this principle, the title of "exterior" bishop, which the first Christian emperor sometimes assumed in presence of the bishops, must be explained. "God," he declared to them, "has appointed you bishops 'interior,' and me bishop 'exterior,'" meaning thereby that, as the duty of the bishops was to teach and to conduct the people in the spiritual order, so it was the duty of princes to support their decrees and canons, by

De l'Autorité des deux Puissances, vol. ii. part iii. ch. i. § 1; vol. iii. ch. iv. § 5, 6; ch. v. § 1; vol. iv. ch. iii.

The texts of many of those edicts are cited by the Abbé Pey, ubi supra, vol. ii. p. 43.

2 "Maxima quidem in hominibus sunt dona Dei, à supernâ collata clementiâ, sacerdotium et imperium; et illud quidem divinis ministrans; hoc autem humanis præsidens, ac diligentiam exhibens. Ex uno eodemque principio utraque procedentia humanam exornant vitam. . . . Bene autem omnia geruntur et competenter, si rei principium fiat decens et amabile Deo. Hoc autem futurum esse credimus, si sacrarum regularum observatio custodiatur, quam justi, et laudandi, et adorandi inspectores et ministri Dei verbi tradiderunt apostoli, et sancti patres custodierunt et explanaverunt."-Justiniani Novella 6, Præf. (ad calcem Cod. Justin.).

3 De Vità Constantini, lib. iv. cap. xxiv.

1

insuring for them the proper respect. This is the true meaning of that expression of Constantine, which princes have sometimes abused for the oppression of the Church, but which, rightly understood, and explained by Constantine's own conduct, conveys a most energetic admonition on the independence of the Church in the spiritual order, and on the protection which they are bound to give to her decrees and canons. "It is true," observes one of our most illustrious prelates, "that the pious and zealous prince is called an exterior bishop, and the protector of the canons; expressions which we shall ever respect with joy, in the modest sense in which they were understood by the ancients. But the exterior' bishop ought never to usurp the functions of the 'interior' bishop. He stands, sword in hand, at the door of the sanctuary; but he takes care not to enter it. If he protects, he also obeys: he protects the canons, but he makes none. The two functions to which he must confine himself are: first, to defend the Church in full liberty against all her enemies from without, that she may be able within, without any molestation, to pronounce, to decide, to approve, to reform, to humble, in one word, every height that exalts itself against the knowledge of God; the second is, to support those decisions when made, without ever presuming, on any pretext whatsoever, to interpret them. This protection of the canons must, therefore, be directed solely against the enemies of the Church, that is, against the innovators, against the untractable and seducing spirits, against all those who spurn correction. God forbid that the protector should ever govern or not await in all things the judgment of the Church. He waits, he listens with docility, he believes without hesitation: he is obedient himself, and makes others obedient as much by the influence of his example, as by the power which he holds in his hands. In fine, a protector of liberty must not diminish it. His patronage would no longer be a protection, but a tyranny in disguise, if

Discours prononcé au Sacre de l'Electeur de Cologne, first point, vol. xvii. of Fenelon's works, p. 147.

he attempt to prescribe to the Church instead of obeying her prescriptions."

53. Rule 2.-Never to extort by Violence a Profession of the Faith.

From the doctrine and practice of the Church in the primitive ages, it also may be inferred that the application of the temporal power ought never to proceed so far as to extort by violence a profession of faith, or a recantation of error. "It is not lawful for Christians," observes St. John Chrysostom, "to combat error by violence and compulsion, but solely by reason and mildness. For this reason, none of the Christian emperors has promulgated against paganism edicts similar to those which the pagan emperors had enforced against the Christians." 1 The sole object even of the severest edicts ought to be to punish the external acts of impiety; to prevent as much as possible the external profession of false religions; to deprive its adherents of certain honours and advantages dependent on the disposition of the laws, in order to induce heretics thereby to enter into themselves, and to dispose them to make sober reflections which might lead to a renunciation of their errors.

54. Rule 3.-Never to inflict the Penalty of Death merely for Errors in Faith. It would be still more opposed to the spirit of religion to inflict on the followers of a false religion the penalty of death for their errors alone. This point is laid down by St. Chrysostom as an incontestable principle, in his commentary on that passage in St. Matthew, where the father of the family orders his servants not to pluck up the bad grain, lest they might pluck up the good grain with it. "God," he says, "speaks thus to his servants, in order to prevent wars and murders; for heretics ought not to be put to death: if they were, this earth would be a scene of never-ending war; besides, there are many who, by abandoning their heresy, may cease to be bad, and may become

St. John Chrysos. Lib. in S. Babylam, contra Gentiles, n. 3. (Oper. vol. ii. p. 540.)