and punished with censures manifest crimes against the Christian law, when perpetrated by sovereigns subject to them in the spiritual order.* The use made by the Popes of this authority, must be admired even by those who regard it as an undue assumption. Innocent II. repaired to Pisa, and summoned thither the citizens of Genoa, and received from the inhabitants of both places, a promise on oath that they would abide by his commands, in regard to the war existing between them and then ordered them to make and maintain peace. We may remark with Hallam, that "their chronicles speak in recording these transactions, of the people, and not of their leaders, which is the true republican tone of history." Clement III. sent a Cardinal Legate to the kings of England and France, Henry II. and Louis VI., exhorting them to peace, that they might unite in the effort to liberate the holy land. Entreaty, persuasion, and threats were successfully employed, until the princes consented to abide by the judgment of the Legate, and of four archbishops, two of whom were subjects of either king. The judges threatened with excommunication whoever should interfere to prevent peace.§ Innocent III. fell sick unto death on a journey which he undertook with a view to induce the citizens of Pisa, Genoa, and the Lombards to make peace, that with united forces they might hasten to the relief of their brethren struggling in the East. When James, king of Aragon, made war on Simon, count of Montfort, Honorius III. despatched ambassadors to enjoin peace, and invite them to determine their disputes justly and equitably, by submitting them to the Apostolic See, and not by force of arms. He threatened them with anathema, if they persisted in measures of violence. It was then thought that the effusion of human blood, when justice might be obtained by the disinterested decision of the Pontiff, warranted the infliction of ecclesiastical censure. Honorius III. sent a legate to Louis VIII. of France, to induce him to make a truce with the king of England. In this, however, he failed. Louis subsequently invaded Provence, and Frederick the emperor, fearing lest his rights as lord paramount over count Raymond, the proprietor of a large district in that region, should be injured, applied to the Pope, who sent a legate to guard the interests of the empire, and promised to see them secured. He made a like promise to Henry of * De Maistre, Du Pape 1. II. ch. viii. † Baronius Annal. ann. 1132, P. 222. Middle Ages, vol. 1, ch. III. p. 1. § Baron. an. 1188, p. 815. Raynald. an 1226. England, forbidding him strictly to attack Louis whilst engaged in the Albigensian war. John XXI. exerted all his influence with Philip, king of France, and Alphonsus, king of Castille, to produce a reconciliation, that both might unite in succoring the Eastern Christians. To the former he wrote in these terms: "We admonish, ask and earnestly exhort and beseech your Royal Highness, by the sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ, attentively to reflect that the execution of the affairs connected with the Divine glory, in which you are to be the chief actor, is impeded by this misunderstanding, and to turn to meekness what seems disposed to anger, and to prepare and change your Royal mind to the good of peace, and unity of concord." The Pontiff proffered his kind offices to settle the matters in dispute: "If any dispute still remain between you and the aforesaid king, the solicitude of the Apostolic See will not be wanting; she offers herself, without sparing labor, to extinguish, to the utmost of her power, all matter of disagreement between you and the aforesaid king, and to procure and maintain unity with great care.' He authorized his Legate to restrain by ecclesiastical censures both kings, or whichever should attack the other. Nicholas III. offered to act as umpire between Michael Palæologus, the Greek emperor, and Charles, king of Sicily, and the emperor Philip, and urged them to submit their disputes to his decision, rather than engage in war. By his persuasion Rodulph, king of the Romans, made peace with Charles, king of Sicily, and yielded to him Provence, saving the rights of Margaret, queen of the French. Edward of England, and Philip the Fair of France, being engaged in war, Boniface VIII. sent ambassadors, most earnestly exhorting them to peace. He authorized the legates to threaten the infliction of censures, should they persist; declaring it to be unworthy of Christian princes to lead their subjects to mutual slaughter. What to us may appear strange, is that the Pontiff took upon himself to order a truce to be observed for a year between the contending princes, and prolonged it for two years, under penalty of excommunication. The attempt to interfere with the military operations of Sovereigns, is an extraordinary instance of ecclesiastical power; but it was then thought that the penalty of exclusion from the Church might be inflicted by her ruler on princes acknowledging her authority, who recklessly sacrificed human life, in a contest, which, during the suspension of hostilities, might be amicably adjusted. With similar threats of censure, Boniface com * Apud Rayn. an. 1276. Ibidem an. 1278. Rayn. an. 1296. manded Adolphus, king of the Romans, to desist from hostilities against Philip, and urged the three princes to submit their disputes to the pontifical decision. In several instances both the contending parties voluntarily submitted their disputes to the judgment of the Pope, and bound themselves to abide by his decision. When the emperor Frederick II. and various cities of Lombardy were at war, Honorius III. was chosen umpire by both parties, and succeeded in establishing peace.* Gregory IX. performed the like office, when the perfidy of Frederick had caused another war. He employed his authority in favor of the emperor, so lately in arms against himself, and provided at the same time for the security of the cities. On the breaking out of discord anew, he offered to judge their differences, and enjoined on them to fulfil the conditions of peace already agreed on : but Frederick eluded his authority, by complaining, although contrary to truth, that he had paid no regard to the imperial interests. In all these cases it may appear that the supremacy of the civil power was invaded: but let it be recollected that princes and nations by their frequent appeals to pontifical authority acknowledged the right of the Pontiff to interpose, and by their own free acts furnished all necessary civil jurisdiction. It was certainly in the power of the nations to constitute a supreme civil tribunal to adjust their controversies, and prevent the effusion of human blood, and the fact of its establishment is equally proved by their acts, as by any formal compact. If they thereby parted with any portion of their sovereignty and independence, it was with great advantage to their common interests. Voltaire himself has remarked, that "the interest of mankind requires a restraint on sovereigns, and protection for their subjects: this power might be in the hands of the Popes, in virtue of a universal compact. The Pontiffs, interfering for the settlement of temporal disputes, admonishing kings and nations of their duties, reproving their crimes, inflicting excommunications, for great enormities, might be regarded as holding the place of God on earth; but men now prefer to have the laws and usages of their country as their only protection, although the laws are frequently disregarded, and corrupt usages prevail." "We must," says Saint-Priest, "agree with the Roman school, that the temporal power of the Holy See was far less the result of usurpation, than a consequence of the policy, or rather of the false position of princes. The secular powers themselves in their rivalries, wars, remorses and * Raynald. an. 1226. † Ibidem an. 1231. Essai &c. Tom. II. ch. lx. scruples, invoked pontifical intervention, and sought its support sometimes for their inferiority in arms, sometimes for their trepidation and weakness of mind."* Michaud, the recent historian of the crusades, says: "Complaints were sometimes made of the injustice of the judgment pronounced by the head of the Church, but his right to judge Christian princes was scarcely called in question, and the nations almost uniformly received their judgments without a murmur." Leibnitz had long before observed: "Nothing was more common than for kings in their treaties to submit to the censure and correction of the Pope, as in the treaty of Bretigny in 1360, and the treaty of Etaples in 1492.”‡ He proposed, although not seriously, because he saw that it was impracticable, to establish a peace tribunal at Rome, with the Pope for its president, to judge and determine, as of old, the controversies of Christian princes, and observed: "Since we are allowed to indulge fancy, why should we not cherish an idea that would renew among us the golden age?"§ * Histoire de la Royauté, vol. II. 1. viii. p. 359. Dissert. 1. de act. public usu Op. t. iv. p. 299. 22* 258 CHAPTER XVII. ECCLESIASTICAL CENSURES. In the course of the preceding chapter, we have seen that the means relied on by the Pontiffs for the enforcement of their judgment and decrees were ecclesiastical censures. By these are understood spiritual penalties of a medicinal character, that is to say, inflicted with a view to awaken the sinner to a sense of his guilt, and to repentance and amendment. The frequency with which these were employed, by the Popes especially, in the middle ages, renders it necessary that I should enter into details as to their nature, and the circumstances in which they were inflicted. There are three kinds of ecclesiastical censure, namely, suspension, interdict and excommunication. Suspension is a temporary inhibition of the exercise of ecclesiastical functions. Of this I shall not treat more particularly, as my object is to explain the censures inflicted on princes, especially in reference to temporal matters submitted to the pontifical judgment, or considered by the Pope himself as falling under his cognizance. An interdict is a prohibition of the use of sacred things, and is local, or personal, according as it affects a Church, or territory, in which sacred functions are forbidden, or a person who is denied access to the Church, or sacraments. A general interdict deprives a whole community, city, or nation of the solemnities of public worship, and of the reception of some sacraments, not of absolute necessity. When this was issued, all the Churches were closed, the bells ceased to toll, the sounds of religious joy were suppressed, and silence, and gloom, and desolation prevailed. On the chief festivals the solemn celebration of Mass was permitted; but care was taken to exclude from the Church those who were specially interdicted, whilst others entered by a private door, the gates remaining closed, and the bells still silent. The private celebration of Mass was permitted at other times, with like precautions. Infants were also baptized, the dying were absolved, and the necessary succors of religion were afforded to all. General interdicts were pronounced chiefly when the head of the nation was obstinate in crime. |