The popish theory goes to destroy individual re- sponsibility; but in alleging herself to be the appointed interpreter of Scripture the Church of Koine is obliged to concede the right of private judgment so far as to enable us to determine for ourselves from the Diviue Word that we are hound to submit our understandings to her guidance in spiritual things. But by any con- cessi f the exercise of private judgment to any ex- tent whatever, her theory falls to the ground. Dr. Whately -hows this in a very striking manner in a pas- sage which we extract from his ( 'autixmsfor tl "A man who resolves to place himself under a certain guide to be implicitly followed, and decides that such and such a Church is the appointed infallible guide, does decide, on his own private judgment, that one most important point which includes in it all other de- cisions relative to religion. Thus, by his own show- ing, he is unlit to judge at all, and can have no ground for confidence that he has decided rightly in that. [f, accordingly, he will not trust himself to judge even on this point, but resolves to consult his priest, or some other friends, and be led entirely by their judgment thereupon, still he dots in thus resolving exercise his o\s ii judgment as to the counsellors he so relies on. The responsibility of forming some judgment is one which, however unfit we may deem ourselves to hear it. we cannot possibly get rid of, in any matter about which we really feel an anxious care. It is laid upon us by Cod. and we cannot shake ii off. Before a man can ra- tionally judge that he should submit his judgment in other things to the Church of Koine, he must lirst have judged, 1. thai there is a Cod: 2, that Christianity comes from God; 3, that Christ has promised to give an infallible authority in the Church ; I. thai such au- thority re-ides iii the church of Rome. Now, to Bay that men who are competent to form Bound judgments upon these point- are quite incompetenl to form sound judgments about any oilier matters in religion is very like Baying that men may have sound judgments of their own before they enter the Church ■ i Rome, but thai they lose all sound judgment entirely from the moment they enter it" Gardm r. See Elliott, Deline- ation of Romanism ; North Brit. Rev. xxxiv, 260 ; Dau- bigne, Hist, of th Ref. i, 281 ; Congreg. Quar. viii. •_', 66; Lee, Right and Responsibility ofPrioah Judgment ( X. V. 1855) ; Rogi i s, // a on and Faith.
Privatio Comimmionis (deprival of munion i. one of i he punishments inflicted on offending members of the cl< rical body during the earlier centu-
PRIVATION
G03
PRIVILEGIUM ALTAPJS
ries. Those punishments included suspension, degrada- tion, privatio communionis, or deprivation, corporal chas- tisement, and excommunication. Prioatio was of two kinds, namely, a restriction to communio peregrinu, or to communio laica. The former had reference to the mode in which strangers were treated who did not bring with them letters testimonial, by which they might be ascer- tained to be members of some Christian Church: they were looked upon with suspicion, and till they could clear themselves were not allowed to come to the Lord's table, nor to receive any temporal support from the Church funds. In this way delinquent clergymen were treated even in their own Church : they were deprived of means of support, and prevented from officiating or being present at the Lord's Supper. Communio laica was a punishment which required a clergyman to com- municate as a layman, and among the lay members of the Church.— Farrar, Eccles. Diet. s. v. See Communio Laica and Communio Pkrkgrina.
Privation is a philosophical term which, according to Plato, is limitation, imperfection, the inherent con- dition of all finite existence, and the necessary cause of evil. Leibnitz {Causa Dei, § 69, 72 ; Essai sur la bonte de D-ieu, Here partie, § 29,31 ; 3ieme partie, § 378), after Augustine, Aquinas, and others, held similar views.
PRIVATION, Ecclesiastical, is one of the vindic- tive, i. e, positive, penalties (in opposition to the cen- sures) which the ecclesiastical laws inflict in the Church of Home on prebendaries for grave and repeated of- fences against the discipline of the Church. It is the suspension of an ecclesiastic from his office and prebend. It differs from the disciplinary transfer by which the delinquent receives, in place of the prebend which is taken from him, another, though inferior one; it also differs from absolute deposition, by which an ecclesias- tic is deprived forever of his office and official income, and declared unfit for any further employment, while the privation does not forbid him the hope of getting some time another prebend. The privation, as long as it lasts, deprives its object of the power of performing the ecclesiastical functions of consecration or jurisdic- tion, without unfitting him for life for any further em- ployment. This penalty — even because it is a positive penalty — cannot be inflicted for merely administrative reasons, like the transfer, for instance ; or for delinquen- cies which remained secret, and are only known to the bishop, like the suspension; but only in consequence of canonic examination and by judiciary sentence. The canons name among the transgressions which, if proved, are punished with privation: continued negligence in the performance of the official duties (c. 4, Dist. xci), addiction to lucre (c. 8, x, ATe cler. vel monach. iii. 50), repeated infringements of the law of residence (Cone. Trid. scss. xxiv, c. 12, De ref), immoral anil scandalous conduct, etc.; if admonitions and gradual corrections have proved unavailing (id. scss. xxi, c. 6, J>< ref. ; c. 13, x. De rit. et hon. cler. iii, 1). There are, of course, other transgressions and vices, which can be visited with indefinite suspension ; drunkenness, for in- stance.— Wetzer u. Welte, Kirchen-Lexikon, s. v. See Privatio Communionis.