bility of the Pope, cannot properly be discussed at any length in this work. These questions are directly of a religious character, though they indirectly touch the International relations of States, inasmuch as they partake of the character of instruments issued by an authority which professes to control the acts of foreign subjects and to affect their relations to the Governments of the States of which they are members. This indirect invasion of the civil rights of foreign Governments is of less importance, as a matter of International law, since the Pope has ceased to be a de facto Sovereign of an independent State; though, according to the Italian statute of Guarantees, he retains a sovereignty, for certain purposes, without territory, or the power of enforcing his own decrees by his own officers, so far as civil results are concerned. CHAPTER VII. THE INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS OF THE PAPACY WITH FOREIGN STATES IN WHICH THE ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH IS ESTABLISHED, DURING THE PERIOD BETWEEN THE REFORMATION AND THE PRESENT TIME.THE HISTORY OF CONCORDATA. CCCXXXVIII. THE great evil of the Concordat of Francis I. (a) was the manifest inequality of the contract in one important particular between the contracting parties. It assigned a term within which the Crown must nominate, but no term within which the Pope must institute, the Bishop. In this inequality the ground was prepared for collision between the State and the Pope. The advantage was necessarily and greatly upon the side of the spiritual potentate. Upon the Episcopate the clergy depended for their order, the laity for the enjoyment of religious ministrations, and, indirectly, the whole realm for its tranquillity. If the Pope refused institution the Crown had no means of redress, though its State was thrown into the utmost confusion, and its subjects were deprived of their greatest blessing. The means to which one temporal State resorts against another temporal State, of compelling the execution of the contract, were, or ought to be, wanting in this instance. France and Naples might, and did indeed, sometimes sanction the invasion of the Papal territories, as of Avignon and Beneventum, and so far treat the Pope in this respect as a temporal Prince, as to have recourse to the means, which International Law would sanction, of compelling a temporal Prince to fulfil his contract. (a) De Pradt, pp. 304, 305. To dwell on the mischief done to the Church alone by this consequence of the Concordat (b) of Francis I., does not belong to this work; but such mischief to the State and Church could never have arisen under that primitive rule of the Church by which the Bishop was elected by the laity or clergy, or both, and instituted by his comprovincials and metropolitan. "Il est sans doute conforme à l'antique discipline de l'Eglise gallicane d'attribuer aux Métropoli"tains et aux plus anciens Evêques des métropoles l'insti"tution des Evêques" (c), is the language of the "Ex"position des Principes sur la Constitution du Clergé par "les Evêques députés à l'Assemblée nationale," in 1791 (d), of which Pius VI. approved, and which a modern French Council has pronounced, not unjustly, to be one of the fairest monuments of the Gallican Church. CCCXXXIX. Between the reign of Francis I. and Louis XIII. (e), on account of the Pope's refusal of a Bull of institution to a Bishop nominated by Henry IV. to the See of Auxerre, that see was vacant for twelve years. Louis XIII. underwent a similar refusal in the person of the celebrated De Marca, whom he had nominated to the Bishopric of Conserans; and the vacancy lasted six years, from 1642 to 1648. Three Popes (f) successively refused the confirmation of the Bishops of Louis XIV., and the number of vacant sees amounted at one time to thirty-five. In later times the Pope sometimes accomplished the end of refusal in a less direct manner, by leaving out the name of the Prince in the Bull, which, according to the Concordat, ought to be there, and thereby making it appear that the nomination was made proprio motu of the Pope, and not of the Sovereign. Such Bulls were of course rejected by the Prince. (b) De Pradt, i. c. 14. (c) See this exposition at length in Lequeux, i. 499. (f) Innocent XI., Alexander VIII., Innocent XII. CCCXL. To these disagreements, in spite of a Concordat between the State and the Pope, Christendom is indebted for the ever-memorable declaration of the liberties of the Gallican Church. As early as 1504 (g), the University of Paris protested against certain powers claimed by the Legate d'Amboise, with respect to the collation of benefices and the rights of graduates, and asserted with respect to denying the absolute powers of the Pope, that "in hac consistit libertas Ecclesiæ Gallicana." In 1594, Pierre Pithou (h) published, under the title of "Libertés de l'Eglise gallicane," a sort of code of eighty-four articles, deduced from two maxims, namely, the independence of Princes and the limitation of Papal authority by canons and councils. This code has been called by French writers the Palladium of France, and has actually been cited in edicts, as in that of November, A.D. 1719 (i). In 1651 it was published, after De Marca had defended it in his great work, with a "privilege" prefixed by the King, in which the work was represented as placing the Regalia of the Crown in ecclesiastical matters beyond dispute (j). In A.D. 1614, the States-General complained bitterly of infringements upon their liberties. In 1663 the Sorbonne put forth six articles (k), denying, in the plainest language, all authority of the Pope, direct or indirect, in temporal matters, declaring that he had no power of dispensing with the obedience of subjects, of deposing Bishops, that he was not infallible, and asserting the inferiority of the Pope to an (g) Lequeux, i. 358. (h) The most learned Frenchman of his time; born at Troyes, died 1596, at the age of 57. François Pithou, his brother, shared his labours and fame. (i) Durande de Maillane, cit. t. iii. 194, contains the eighty-four articles at length. (j) The most famous commentary on Pithou's work is that of Jacques Dupuis, in two vols. folio. Some of the propositions contained in it were condemned by an assembly of the clergy in 1640. (k) Durande de Maillane, ubi supr. t. iii. 210, œcumenical council, and proclaiming that the King had no superior but God. In 1673 (1), Louis XIV. extended, by an edict, his Régale over all the dioceses of his kingdom. Two prelates (m) only resisted this edict; one of whom appealed to Pope Innocent XI., and was protected by him. The Archbishop of Toulouse, nevertheless, proceeded against the bishop and his Vicars-General. The quarrel between the Crown and the Pope became exacerbated. The King, under the advice of Le Pellier and Bossuet, appealed to a general assembly (") of his clergy; and the result was the famous declaration of the clergy in 1682, sanctioned by thirty-four bishops, and contained in four articles, pretty much the same in effect as the six articles of the Sorbonne, and recognising by name the authority of the Council of Constance. It was approved by Royal Edict in March 1682 (0), and annulled by a Brief from Innocent XI., of April 11, 1682. The Pope arbitrarily, and not upon any alleged canonical or moral defects, refused Bulls of Institution to the Bishops nominated by the Crown. Alexander VI. went a step further than his predecessor, and published, January 20, 1691, the Bull Inter multiplices, by which he annulled the resolutions equally with respect to the Regale (p) and the spiritual authority,—a Bull, it may be observed, subsequently confirmed by another, the Auctorem fidei, of Pius VI. (q). (1) De Pradt, i. 335. (m) D'Aleth and De Pamiers. The latter published a perspicuous little tract, entitled Traité de la Régale. "The Régale," he says, sists in 66 con "1. La disposition des revenus de l'Eglise vacante. vacance du siége épiscopal."-P. 5. (n) It was at the opening of this meeting that Bossuet published his sermon "Sur l'Unité de l'Eglise." · (0) Which in February, 1810, Napoleon declared by an Imperial Decree, and promulgated as the Law of France. (p) Lequeux, iv. 372, 373. (q) In 1786, when Scipio Ricci, Bishop of Pistoja and Prato, called a |