Even in the 18th century Muratori defended the as- sertion that the secular power is bound to enforce the most severe secular penalties against heretics {De inrje- nioi-um moderatimu- in nh)//iines negotio, ii, 7 sq.). In the beginning of the I'Jih rintury, pending the nego- tiations for the crowning of Napoleon I, pope Pius VII declared that he could not set foot in a country in which the law recoffnised the freedom ofvorslnii iftju <Hi;'< ,■< ni reliffions. The same pope wrote in lS(i,') lo his nuncio at Vienna, " The Church has not only sought to pre- vent heretics from using the properties of the Church, but has also established, as the punishment for the sin of heresy, the sequestration of private property, in c. 10, X. d. hmret. (v, 7), of principaUties, and of feudal tenures, in c. 16, eod. ; the latter law contains the canonical rule that the subjects of a heretical prince are free from all oaths of fealty as well as from all fideUty and obedience to him ; and there is none at all acquainted with history but knows the decrees of deposition issued by popes and councils against obstinately heretical princes. Yet we find ourselves now in times of such misfortune and hu- miliation for the bride of Christ that the Church is not only vnahle to enforce these, its holiest maxims, against the rebellious etiemies of the faith, with the firmness with which they should be, but it even cannot proclaim them openly without danger. Yet, if it cannot exert its right in depri\-ing heretics of their estates, it may," etc. AVith this may be compared the permission granted in an- [ ticipation, in 1724 (BuUar. Propagcmda, ii, 54, 56), to the Euthenes, m case of conversion, to take possession \
of the properties they had lost by their apostasy ; the satisl'action manifested by the Church on the cxpuLsidu of the Protestants from Salzburg (Bull. Propuii. ii, iMd) ; and many things happening every day in strictly 1 to- man Catholic countries, under the eyes of the lioman Sec. Quite recently, l'hili|ipi, in his Canon Zfnr, hon- estly acknowledged the vahdity of the old laws against heretics, and asserted their correctness. Even now, in all countries where the secular power has not put an end to this, the bishops promise, m taking the oath of obedience to the pope, haireticos, schismaticos, et rebelles eidem Domino nostra vel successorihus prwdictis pro posse perseqiiar et impugnaho. Yet the Roman See has re- nounced, suice Sept. 17, 1824, the use of the expression of "Protestant heretics" in its official acts; and it has even admitted that, under the pressure of existing cir- cumstances, the civil powers may be forgiven for toler- ating heretics in their states ! Still, as soon as circum- stances will permit, the Koman See is prepared to apply again the old laws, which are merely temporarily sus- pended in some countries, but in nowise repealed. "
Governments, however, naturally take a different view of these laws. The secular power, even while it freed itself from its absolute subjection to the Church, still continued to persecute in various ways the Protestants whom the Church denomiced as heretics. We even see them deprived under Louis XIV of the right of emigra- tion; while, in refusing to recognise the validity of their marriage, the civil authorities showed themselves even more severe than the Church. But, becoming wiser by experience, and taught by the general reaction which its measiu-es provoked in the 18th century, the State has confined itself to interfering with heresy so far only as is necessary to promote public order and the material good of the State ; thus claiming only the right to re- press or expel those whose principles are opposed to the existence of government, or might create disorder. This right, of course, has been differently understood in dif- ferent countries according to local circumstances, and has even become a pretence for persecutions against de- nominations which a n.ilder construction of it would not have deprived of the toleration of the State, as in the persecution of dissidents in Sweden, etc.
Let us now compare this practice of the Eomish Church and of Eoman Catholic states with the dogmat- ic theory of the Middle Ages. Thomas Aquinas treats heresy as the opposite of faith, connecting it with inf- delitas in communi and apostasia a fde. He treats schism, again, as opposed to churitas. lie defines heresy as infidelitatis sjjecies jjeriinens ad eos, quifdem Christi profitentur, sed ejus dogmata corrumjmnt (1. c, qu. ii, art. i), j-et (art. ii) he remarks at the same time that some holy fathers themselves erred in the early times of the Church on many points of faith. In art. iii he comes to the question whether heretics are to be tolerated. He asserts that they also have their use in the Church, as serving to prove its faith, and inducing it diligently to search the Scriptures, yet their usefidness in these re- spects is involuntary. Considered for themselves oidy, heretics '• are not only deserving of being cut off from communion with the Church, but also with the world, by being put to death. But the Church must, m her mercy, first use all means of converting heretics, and only when it despairs of bringing them bacli must cut them off by excommunication, and then deliver tliem up to secular justice, which frees the world of tliem by condemnation to death." He only admits of toleration towards heretics when persecution against them would be Ukely to injure the faithful. In this case he advises sparing the tares for the sake of the wheat. He fiu-ther maintains that such heretics as repent may, on their first offense, be entirely pardoned, and aU ecclesiastical and secular punishment remitted, but asserts that those who relapse, though they may be reconciled with the Church, must not be released from the sentence of death inciured, lest the bad example of their inconstancy might prove injurious to others.