ARE

learn THE TENDER MERCIES OF THE WICKED WHICH CRUEL, AND THE DREADFUL HOSTILITY AND EXTERMINATING PRINCIPLES, WHICH THE CHURCH OF ROME INCULCATES TOWARDS ALL THOSE WHOM SHE PLEASES TO CALL HERETICS. In discussing the office of a judge, Liguori, the saint canonized in the 19th century, brings before our view

THE INQUISITION.

"WHAT IS REQUIRED IN A JUDGE?"

"Resp. 1. Præter tria dicta superiore dubio, requiritur scientia, qua sciat suo munere recte fungi. Ita commun. doct. et Bon. d. 10. q. 2. p. 3. Ratio est, quia quilibet tenetur scire ea quæ pertinent ad proprium officium, et sine quorum cognitione munus suum et officinm exercere non potest."

"Answer 1. Besides the three things mentioned in the last section, knowledge is required, by which he may know how to discharge the duties of his office. Ita common. doct. et Bon. d. 10. q. 2. p. 3. The reason is, because every one is bound to know those things which pertain to his proper office, and without a knowledge of which he is not able to exercise his own duty and office."

So far very good. We learn, however, that the judge is subject to the priestly power in this matter.

probaturum; 2. via denuntiationis, cum deferens crimen non vult suscipere onus probandi; 3. via inquisitionis, quæ est triplex: 1. generalis, quando in genere quæritur an leges serventur; 2. specialis, quando de certa persona et certo crimine quæritur; 3. mixta, quando vel sola persona vel crimen solum est speciale, ut si quæratur, quis Caium occiderit."

"Revera judex nullum condemnare potest sine accusatore, ut communiter S. Th. Caj. Sanch. Sat. Less. etc. cum Salm. Append. de Offic. in fine t. 3. cap. 1. n. 47. Sed dicitur aliquando sufficere accusator virtualis, qui adesse censetur; I. quando adest notorietas criminis, ita ut probabiliter negari haud possit; quo casu dicitur in c. ad nostram 2. de Jurejur. Manifesta accusatione non indigent, nec in eis ordo judiciarius observandus. Vide Salmant. num. 48."

undertakes to prove the charges; 2. by denunciation when he who gives information of the crime, does not wish to undertake the onus of proving it: 3. by inquisition, which is threefold; 1. general, when in general it is inquired whether laws are observed; 2. special, when inquiry is made concerning a certain person and certain crimes: 3. mixed, when either a person alone or a crime alone is special, as if it he asked, who slew Caius."

"A Judge indeed cannot condemn any one without an accuser, as commonly S. Th. Caj. Sanch. Sot. Less. etc., cum. Salm. Append. de offic. in fine t. 3. Cap 1. n. 47. teach But a virtual accuser who is considered to be present, is said sometimes to suffice. 1. When there is a notoriety of crime, so that probably in no wise can it be denied, in which case it is prescribed in c. ad nostram 2. de jurejur, that they do not need a manifest accusation, neither in these cases, is the judiciary order to be observed. Salmant. num. 48."

Vide

Liguori proceeds to give the other cases in which an accuser may be dispensed with. They are, 2ndly, when public and general rumour attaches infamy to the accused; 3rdly, when a crime in the presence of others is committed against the judge; 4thly, (we give his own words) "when the crime is against the public weal or the king, AS IN THE CRIME OF HERESY or treason."

Other cases are given in which the inquisition can proceed with the aid of public infamy or rumour.

Heresy is so fearful a crime, that it forms one of the exceptions to the general rule. If a man be thought guilty of heresy, the judge may depart from his usual course for the extermination of that which is so destructive to the public weal or the good of the Church.

Before we proceed further, let us inquire what is heresy; in the 1st volume, page 369, we find this very question put and definitely answered :

"Answer. Heresy is a free and pertinacious error of the understanding against the faith, in him who receives the faith. Ita Commun. Suar. Becan. c. 14. qu. 2. whence it appears, that to constitute heresy, as in the case of apostasy, two things are required.

1.

"WHAT IS HERESY?" "Resp. Hæresis est error intellectus, liber, et pertinax contra fidem in eo qui fidem suscepit. Ita commun Suar. Becan. c. 14. qu. 2. Unde patet, ad hæresim, uti et apostasiam, duo requiri: 1. judicium erroneum, quod est ejus quasi materiale. 2. Perti naciam, quæ est quasi formale Porro pertinaciter errare non est hic acriter, et mordicus suum errorum tenere, aut tueri; sed est eum retinere, postquam contrarium est sufficenter propositum: sive quando scit contrarium teneri ab universali Christi in terris Ecclesia, cui suum judicium præferat: sive id fiat ex vana gloria, sive libidine contradicendi, aliave causa. Sanch. Vasq. Laym. 1. 2. t. 1. c. 13. et alii commun. Ratio est, quia tunc putat judicium Ecclesiæ non esse sufficiens fundamentum credendi, quæ est vera pertinacia, quam cum Koninck facilius sic explicant alii, eam tunc esse, cum, etsi objectum fidei eredibiliter

An erroneous judgment which is as it were material. 2. Pertinacity which is as it were formal. Moreover to err pertinaciously is not bitterly and obstinately to hold ones own error, or to defend it; but it is to retain it after the contrary is sufficiently propounded, or when he knows the contrary to be held by the universal Church of Christ upon earth, to which he prefers his own judgment, or when he does that from vain glory, or a desire of contradicting, or some other cause. Sanch. Vasq. Laym. 1. 2. t. 1. c. 13. et alii commun. The reason is, because he thinks the judgment of the Church not to be a sufficient foundation of belief; which is true

proponatur, ita ut prudenter de eo non possit dubitare, contrarium tamen judicet, a quo nolit avelli ullo casu, vel saltem nisi evidenter convictus. V. Con. d. 18."

pertinacity, which with Koninck others more easily explains thus, that it then is pertinacity, when although the object of faith is credibly propounded, so as that prudently he cannot doubt concerning it, he however judges to the contrary from which he is unwilling to be torn in any case, or at least unless he be evidently convinced.”

This is his proposition from which he draws several conclusions; for example, he says:

"Est hæreticus, qui affirmative de aliquo articulo fidei dubitat, hoc est, judicat esse dubium."

"He is an heretic who affirmatively doubts concerning any article of the faith, i.e. judges it to be doubtful."

His definitions are most important, we learn,

I. That heresy is an error of judgment against the faith, or the denial of an article of the faith.

The

II. That it is of two kinds, material and formal. rustics, for instance, of Germany (he himself gives the example) are material heretics, not formal or pertinacious heretics, never having had the faith propounded to them. Pertinacious or formal heresy is to retain error after the contrary is sufficiently propounded. For example; a rustic is seized on the charge of heresy. The Romish creed is fully propounded to him, and arguments are urged in its support, he still holds his own opinion, based upon the scriptures and not upon the authority of Rome, called by Liguori the universal or Catholick Church;-he is unwilling to give up his faith, to use the words of Liguori," nisi evidenter convictus,' "unless he be evidently convicted," and because he so acts

he is considered a formal or pertinacious heretic, and as we shall see by and bye he is handed over to the torture. In fact every man who so acts is a formal heretic, and as such punished, while those who yield their conviction to the authority of Rome are considered to have been material heretics. Heresy is the denial of an article of the faith.-Pope Pius's creed is the faith:-the man who denies any one article in that formulary,-Purgatory, —Transubstantiation, the Mass,-the Supremacy of Rome, &c., is an heretic. All Protestants are heretics; some material, some formal; in other words, those Protestants who are unacquainted with their own religion, are material heretics,-those who are acquainted with its doctrines, and convinced of its truth, and prepared to sacrifice life itself rather than their religion, unless they be convinced that it is false, are formal and pertinacious heretics. We shall now consider how the Protestant or the heretic in the estimation of Rome is to be dealt with.

"Notandum III. Quod ad inquisitionem specialem plura requirantur: I. probatio corporis delicti, nisi sit crimen difficilis probationis; II. accusator, saltem virtualis, ut supra n. 199. III. probatio loci, temporis etc. IV. judex competens; V. ut fiat inquisitio, antequam sint transacti viginti anni a die criminis. Vide hæc, et alia apud Salm. de Offic. c. I. num. 159."

"It is to be noted III. that for a special inquisition many things are required; I. a proof of the substance of the crime, unless it be one of difficult proof: II. an accuser, at least a virtual one, as above n. 199.* III. A proof of time, place, &c.; IV. a competent judge; V. That the inquisition be made before twenty years shall have elapsed since the day of the crime."

Speaking of the rules by which they are to be guided in the Inquisition, he gives the fourth, as follows:"Demum, si reus fateatur "Finally, if the accused delictum, proceditur ad sen- confess his crime, the sentence

*The heretic is exempted from this privilege.