munities (Chrj'sost. Ilomil. 29, 46, in Matth.), and even this was often censured (see Socrates, Hist. Eccles. vi, 19, where it is said that the misfortmies which befel Chry- sostom were by many considered as a pmiishment for his having caused chiu-ches belonging to the (^uarto- decimani and Novatians of Asia to be taken away from them and closed). Augustine, on the contrary {Itetrac- tut. ii, c. 5 ; ep. 93, ad Vincendum, § 17 ; ep. 185, ad Bo- nifac. § 21 ;. Ojms. imperf. 2, 2), basing himself on the passage Luke xiv, 23 {coyife intrare, etc.), completely reversed his former opinion that heretics and schismat- ics were not to be brought back by the aid of secular power, and stated explicitly, as a fundamental princi- ple, that " damnuta hceresis ab ejnsco^ns non adhuc ex- aminundu, sed coercenda est pofestatibus Christianis.'^ He only rejects the iniliction of capital punishment, yet more on account of the general opposition of the ancient Church to this mode of punishment than from leniency towards heresy. It is, consequently, not strange if even this protest against the execution of heretics came sub- sequently to be disregarded, and the pmiishment e\en approved (see Leo M. ep. 15, ad Turribimn ; Hieronymus, ep. 37, ad Bipar.). In the Middle Ages we find the llomau Church, on the one hand, condemning capital punishment by its canon law, and at the same time de- manding the application of this punishment to heretics from the secidar law. Julian the Apostate had long be- fore reproached the Christians of his time for persecuting heretics by force (ep. 52, and ap. Cyrill. c. Julianum VI). As to the principles which guided the conduct of the secular powers towards heretics, we find that it wavered long between an entire liberty in establishing sects, sub- mitting them to mere poUce regulations, restricting them in the carrying out of their system of worship, depriving them of some political rights and privileges, formally prohibiting them, and finally punishing them as criminals. Through all these variations the fundament- al principle was adhered to that the secular power pos- sesses in general the right to punish, repress, or extir- pate heresy. Hesitation is shown only in the mode of applymg this principle, not in the principle itself. Jlore- over, the exercise of this right was in no way subject to the decision of the Church, and. the secular power could by itself decide whether and how far a certain heresj' should be tolerated — a right which the states retained without opposition until the Middle Ages. The numer- ous laws contained in the Codex Theodosianus, xvi, tit. V, De Hceretieis, to which we may add xvi, tit. i, 2, 3, are the principal sources for the history of the laws con- cerning sects in antiquity. History shows us that in the use of compulsion and punishments against heretics the secular power anticipated the wishes of the Chiurch, doing more than the latter was at first disposed to ap- prove. Julian the Apostate granted full freedom to her- etics with a view to injure the Church. Augustine first succeeded, in the 5th century, in establishing an agree- ment between Church and State on this question, yet without contesting the right of the State to use its in- dependent authority. This is proved by Justinian's In- stitutes (compare cod. i, tit. 5), which interfere directly with the private rights of heretics ; and in case of mixed marriages, they order, regardless of the patria potestas, that the children shall be brought up in the orthodox faith (cod. i, tit. 5 ; i, 18).
In the Middle Ages the notion of heresy and of its relations to the Church and the State acquired a further development. At one time, in view of the authoritj' of the pope in matters of faith and of the doctrine of fides implicita et explicita, the notion of heresy was so modi- fied that the act of disobedience to the pope in refusing to accept or reject s<mie distinction according to his command, was considered almost as its worst and most important feature. Tlie Scholastics treated the doctrine roncerning heresy scicntitically. Finally the Church came to deny to tlie State the right to tolerate a7iy her- esy it had condemned. It even compelled the secular powers to repress and exdrpate heresy according to its
HERESY
201
HERESY
k
dictates by threats of ecclesiastical censure, by inviting invasion and revolution in case of resistance, and by commanding the aiiplication of secular punishments, such as the sequestration of property, and the depriva- tion of all civil and political rights, as was especially done by Innocent III. Nevertheless, the Church con- tinued in the practice, whenever it handed over con- demned heretics to the secular powers for punishment, of reciuesting that no penalty shoidil be inflicted on them which might endanger their lives; but this was a mere formality, and so far from being made in earnest that the Church itself made the allowableness of such pim- ishment one of its dogmas. Thus Leo X, in his bull against Lulher. in lidO, condemns, among other propo- sitions, iliat which s^ays that Jhcreticos combui-ere est con- tra voliiiitiitciii f<jiirUiis (art. o3), and recommended the use of such ])unishment himself. About the same time, a special form of proceedings was adopted agamst her- etics, and their persecution was rendered regular and systematic by the establishment of the Inquisition (q. v.). Thus, in course of time, a number of secidar penal- ties came to be considered as uievitably connected with ecclesiastical condemnation, and were even pronomiced against heretics bj'^ the Church itself without fmrther formalities. The Church, whenever any individual sus- pected of heresy recanted, or made his peace with the Church, declared him (in full court, after a public abju- ration) released either jiartially or fully from the eccle- siastical and secular iiiniishmcnt lie liad ij^so facto in- curred. Tills implied the right of still indicting these punishments after the reconciliation (which was espe- cially done in the cases of sequestration of property, deprivation of civil or ecclesiastical offices, and degrada- tion, while a return to heresy after recantation was to be pimished by death). See the provisions of the Can- on Law as found in A", de hceretic. v, tit. 7 ; c. 49 ; X, de sentent. excommiin. v, 39 ; tit. de Har. in VI°, v, 2 ; De hceret. in Clement, v, 3 ; De hmret. in Extravag. coram. V, 3 ; and comp. the Liber septimus, v, 3, 4. and the laws against heretics of the emperor Frederick II, which are connected with the ecclesiastical laws (in Pertz, Monum. ii, 244, 287, 288, 327, 328) ; and the regulations concern- ing mixed marriages and the marriage of heretics. AU these are yet considered by the Eoman Catholic Church as having the force of km; though, imder present cir- cumstances, they are not enforced (comp. Benedict XIV, De synod. Diocc. vi, 5 ; ix, 14, 3 ; xiii, 24, 21).