-^a^fx 
 
 i 
 
 
 mm
 
 m 
 
 a I E) R.ARY 
 
 OF THL 
 U N IVLRSITY 
 Of ILLI NOIS
 
 THE 
 
 LETTEE FEOM THE POPE 
 
 TO THE 
 
 ARCHBISHOP OF PARIS, 
 
 PUBLISHED IN THE 
 
 APPEJN'DIX TO A EEPOET 
 
 ELECTORS OF THE 3rd CIRCLE OF THE SEINE. 
 
 M. EMILE OLLIYIEE. 
 
 PARIS 1869— LIBRAmiE INTERNATIONAL, 
 No. 15, Boulevard Montmartrk. 
 APPENDIX. 
 
 LONDON: WILLIAM MACINTOSH, 
 
 24, Paternoster Row. 
 
 1869.
 
 APPENDIX.* 
 
 Pope Pius IX, to the venerable brother Georges^ Arch- 
 hishop of Paris, 
 
 At Paris. 
 
 Venerable Brother, with Apostolic Blessing and Benediction. 
 
 By a letter written with our own hand, addressed to yon on 
 the 24th of November last year, you might easily have assured 
 yourself of our paternal benevolence towards you, and certainly 
 we entertained the sure hope, that, touched by our heartfelt love 
 towards you, you would have heartily responded to our affectionate 
 feelings towards you, and that you would have willingly fulfilled 
 our wishes, and given manifest proofs of your respect and devotion 
 to our person and to the See of Peter, which is so becoming in a 
 Catholic Prelate. "We had hoped the more, because when you 
 were designated for the archiepiscopal Church of Paris you had 
 taken care to address a letter to us, in which you professed the 
 highest attachment to our person and to the Apostolic See, and 
 also with the most entire respect for ourselves personally and 
 for the said See. Filled with this hope, we thought fit in a 
 letter, which we wrote to you, and which we now recall to your 
 recollection, not to say one word of the letter which you had your- 
 self addressed to us in the same year in the calends of September, 
 
 * In my first edition I suppressed the letter of the Pope to the 
 Archbishop of Paris, not from any feeling of indecision, but 
 from the fear of committing what might be considered as an 
 indelicacy. I am now better instructed, and know that this 
 document is not a private letter but an official act, an act of the 
 Chancery of Pome, and therefore liable and open to discussion. 
 I give the Geneva translation, which I have examined with the 
 Latin text, and find it to be perfectly exact. It contains only 
 two or three omissions, which I have supplied; and to show 
 the parts which are my translation, I have had them printed in 
 italics.
 
 in answer to that of ours of the 26th of the preceding April, upon 
 the subject of some circumstances connected with your diocese. 
 Such a letter written by you has been a subject of no slight 
 astonishment and disappointment to us ; for contrary to our hopes, 
 it has made us understand that you entertain opinions which are 
 entirely opposed to the di>4ne supremacy of the Roman Pontiff 
 over the Universal Church. 
 
 You do not hesitate to maintain that the power of the Roman 
 Pontiff over the episcopal dioceses is neither general (customary) 
 nor immediate. It is your opinion that the Roman Pontiff cannot 
 impose his authority over any diocese, excepting in the case when 
 that diocese shall be found in such disorder and difficulty, that 
 this intervention has become the only means for the salvation of 
 souls, and to remedy the negligence of its pastors. 
 
 You think that this divine right, in wtue of which the bishop 
 is the sole judge in his own diocese, is completely ignored 
 (unacknowledged) as soon as the Sovereign Pontiff (except in the 
 case of evident necessity already described) interferes in the affairs 
 of that diocese. 
 
 It is your opinion that a canonically erected diocese, and that 
 in which the hierarchy is regularly constituted, is converted into 
 a missionary country from the moment that the Roman Pontiff — 
 unless it is in the position already described— executes his autho- 
 rity over it. Besides, you have especially in your speech in the 
 Senate taxed as abuses, appeals made to the Apostolic See. You 
 attack the right, which all the faithful enjoy, of appealing to the 
 Roman Pontiff, and you say that this right impedes and renders 
 the administration of a diocese almost impossible. Nevertheless, 
 while not hesitating to demonstrate such doctrine, you openly 
 and distinctly declare the means which you intend to employ to 
 maintain it. For you intimate that you are resolved to resist to 
 the utmost of your power, and to take measures to prevent, unless 
 in cases of absolute necessity as before stated and often repeated, 
 the direct intervention of the Sovereign Pontiff from ever taking 
 place. You pretend that the conduct of the Regulars of the 
 Nunciature and of the Roman congregation has had no other 
 intention than to bring the dired; inieryention of the Sovereign 
 Pontiff into all dioceses ; and you say, moreover, that you wiU 
 Either excite your venerable brothers, the heads of the priesthood
 
 of France, to join in the same opinions, or by an appeal to the 
 public by means of an instruction addressed to them for the same 
 purpose. 
 
 You have even dared in your speech before the Senate, to pro- 
 pose several measures contrary to the supreme authority of the 
 Sovereign Pontiff and of the Holy Sec, namely those which con- 
 sist in withholding the apostolic letters, and submitting them to 
 the approval and consent of the civil authority, and to have re- 
 course to the power of the laity. 
 
 In the same speech, which was immediately printed, in treating 
 of the organic articles, you have acknowledged the obligation of 
 allowing them some measure of authority and some respect, 
 because they relate to a pre- existent necessity and a grave condi- 
 tion of society. You are not however ignorant how the Apostolic 
 See has never failed to protest against these articles published by 
 a lay power and contrary to the doctrine of the Church, to its 
 rights, and to its liberties. No, venerable brother, we never 
 could have supposed that you would be animated by such opinions. 
 If to our deep grief your letter of September, and the speech 
 already mentioned did not prove it, we cannot but be deeply 
 afflicted and greatly agitated, when we find you so unexpectedly 
 favouring the false and erroneous doctrines of Febronius, which, 
 as you well know, have been reprobated and condemned by the 
 Holy See and by various Catholic writers, and by the most 
 learned works in which they have been refuted and overthrown. 
 You, venerable brother, can easily understand the astonishment 
 with which we were overwhelmed when fully assured that you 
 had enunciated such opinions, so contrary to Roman Catholic 
 doctrine, and which for that cause alone, as a CathoKc bishop, 
 you ought to have rejected with horror. Thus, for example, by 
 asserting that the power of the Eoman Pontiff over each diocese 
 in particular is not ordinary but extraordinary y you enunciate a 
 proposition entirely contrary to the definition of the 4th Council 
 of Lateran, in which we read these very clear and decisive words : 
 " That the Church of Rome, by the will of God, has over all 
 others the supremacy of ordinary power, and that as the mother 
 and mistress of all the faithful,"* — that is to say, over all who 
 
 * St. Thomas, Question 20, Art. 8. «a»A.
 
 belong to the flock of Christ. You ought, venerable brother, to 
 have well known and carefully examined these decisive words 
 pronounced at the Council. 
 
 You cannot but know that your proposition above cited is contrary 
 to the common usage of the Catholic Church, to the doctrine re- 
 ceived and transmitted from age to age by the Church and her 
 bishops even until this day, doctrines which the Church has 
 always held and taught, and which it teaches and holds by these 
 inspired words — "Feed my sheep, feed my lambs," which were said 
 by our Lord Jesus Christ to the blessed prince of the Apostles in 
 this sense ; and in virtue of these words all the faithful, each and 
 every one, remain in immediate subjection to Peter and to his 
 successor as the Supreme Head and Ordinary over the whole 
 Church and over all religion, even as they are all and every one 
 submitted to our Lord Jesus Christ, of whom the Roman Pontiff 
 is the veritable Vicar on earth, the head of the whole Church, 
 father and director [Docteur) of all Christians. 
 
 We were not a little astonished — unless perhaps that it had 
 escaped your attention — that according to the opinions of Febro- 
 nius, you think that according to the above mentioned doctrine, 
 the dioceses would find themselves transformed into missionary 
 countries, and their bishops into vicars apostolic. But all know 
 the contrary, and Catholics will rightly answer that this assertion 
 is as false as if you were to affirm that in the civil state ordinary 
 governors of provinces could no longer call themselves ordinary 
 magistrates, because kings and emperors reserve to themselves the 
 plenitude of their power, either immediate or ordinary, over all 
 and each of their subjects ; and it is in fact this very logical 
 comparison which is made use of by the Angelic Doctor, when 
 he says, ''The Pope holds the plenitude of Pontifical power as a 
 king in his kingdom. But the bishops assume a portion of those 
 cares which devolve upon him, as the judges are set over each 
 city !"* 
 
 We still retain our astonishment, venerable brother, at your 
 complaints on the subject of petitions and appeals addressed to 
 the Sovereign Pontiff of Rome, and that he should receive them ; 
 for being a Catholic bishop you ought to know perfectly well that 
 
 * St. Thomas, Question 26, Art. ^]
 
 6 
 
 the right of appeal to the Apostolic throne, as was said by Bene- 
 dict the 14th, our predecessor of immortal memory, " is so neces- 
 sarily tied up with the judicial supremacy of the Roman Pontiff 
 over the Universal Church, that it can never be questioned, 
 unless it is pretended to deny absolutely all supremacy."* The 
 right is so well known by all the faithful, that St. Gelasius, also 
 our predecessor, has written, " There is no Church on earth which 
 ignores that the See of the blessed Peter has the power to loose 
 that which has been bound by the sentence of any bishop what- 
 soever, because to it alone belongs the right of judgment over all 
 the Church, nor is any one permitted to pronounce a judgment 
 against that decision. It is to that throne that the Canons have 
 decided that we must appeal to from all the countries of the uni- 
 verse, and no one has any right to appeal from that judgment to 
 any other."t 
 
 Thus you have thrown us into astonishment when you assert 
 that the custom practised by the Apostolic See, of receiving the 
 complaints of those who appeal to it from the judgments of 
 bishops, renders the administration of a diocese impossible to you. 
 Of such an impossibility, no Catholic bishop, either of the pre- 
 sent or past time, has ever had experience. If this pretended 
 impossibility could ever have existed, it is the Koman Pontiff 
 who must have felt it ; — he, whom we may say is oppressed in 
 every sense by the heavy charge of all the Churches, is obliged 
 to receive the petitions from every diocese in the world, to 
 examine them carefully, and decide everything. It could never 
 have been felt by a simple bishop, who was only obliged to 
 answer for the affairs of his own diocese, always a very small 
 portion of the Universal Church. Your complaints against 
 the right of appeal to the Roman Pontiff, and against the ordi- 
 nary and direct jurisdiction of that same Pontiff over all dioceses, 
 excites our astonishment even more ; for all bishops possessing a 
 generous mind draw from that right and jurisdiction, as you 
 yourself must feel it, a great alleviation of his cares, a consolation 
 and power before God, before the Church, and before the enemies 
 of the Church. 
 
 Before God : — because being relieved in great measure from his 
 
 * Benedict XIV. Diocesan Synod, Book iv., chap. v. toviii. 
 t Seventli Letter to Bishop Darden.
 
 responsibility, and of the account which he has to render, illu- 
 minated by the blessed light of the Apostolic See, he feels himself 
 day by day better directed to a happier administration of his 
 diocese. 
 
 Before the Church : — for by that means he sees it daily fortified 
 and rendered more flourishing, both by the increasing union and 
 by the increased firmness and unity of government. 
 
 Before the enemies of the Church : — because the Bishop becomes 
 more courageous and more constantly opposed to them. It is a 
 matter of experience, and perfectly demonstrated, that the bishop 
 not only loses his power, but becomes the plaything of his adver- 
 saries, as soon as he adheres less firmly to the immutable rock on 
 which Christ our Lord has built His Church, and against which 
 the doors of hell shall never prevail. 
 
 As to the declaration which you have made of your determina- 
 tion to resist, and to excite other bishops to adopt your quarrel, and 
 to appeal to public opinion, do you not see that by such means, 
 most assuredly seditious, prepared by Febronius against the Apos- 
 tolic see, you deeply offend against the Divine Author of the 
 constitution of his Church, and you inflict the greatest injury on 
 your colleagues and on the Catholic people of France ? 
 
 If we should now enter on the question of Regulars, know in 
 the first place that these Regulars have given us no information, 
 that it is by another source that we have heard of the visit which 
 you made to them. On that subject we have amicably warned you 
 in our before-mentioned letter, of the 26tk of April, and that 
 warning you are pleased to call a sentence passed without a hear- 
 ing, and you add that it is contrary to the supposed right which 
 you think exists in favour of the superior, when there is a question 
 of difference between the superior and the inferior, which the 
 Regulars are in their relations to you. We can scarcely be- 
 lieve that it was yourself who spoke thu5, venerable father, con- 
 sidering that the Book of Decretals of our predecessors was so 
 well known to you, and that consequently you know that from 
 the earliest times it has been the custom of the Roman Pontiffs, 
 on hearing that a bishop had committed an action which had not 
 a perfectly desirable appearance, to write to him fully upon the 
 subject, and explain to him their sorrow on the occurrence. 
 And there are in existence numberless canons which begin in the
 
 8 
 
 following terms — " It has been related to us," ** a complaint has 
 been made to us/' '' at our audience," " to ourselves," etc., etc., 
 and the bishops have never considered that those letters from the 
 Roman Pontiff were sentences passed without hearing the 
 party implicated. They have never expressed any irritation in 
 consequence, but have always received them in the sense in which 
 they were written, — that is to say, as an invitation to justify their 
 conduct, or to acknowledge themselves in error, or to disavow it 
 entirely. Any other manner of acting would render the govern- 
 ment of the Church too difficult for the vicar of Christ on earth, 
 and would not be sufficiently conformable to the gentleness of 
 episcopal usage. 
 
 We are afflicted, venerable brother, that you should have fallen 
 into any ambiguities concerning the affairs of the Regulars. 
 But in the first place we would wish you to consider, with your 
 usual sagacity, that this is a question of an episcopal visit, made 
 either to the Society of Jesus, or to the Franciscans of the Order 
 of Capuchins, who have resided in the city of Paris under several 
 bishops, in the enjoyment of it, and in the possession of their ex- 
 emption, and that in consequence the Holy Apostolic See itself 
 was in the enjoyment of its peculiar and private right of jurisdic- 
 tion over these same Regulars. Thus it becomes a question of 
 spoliation, accomphshed by an effective act, against the privileges 
 of the Holy See and the Regulars. Such is the real state of the 
 question, whence you will easily perceive that the Apostolic See 
 would act with justice even if it was pleased to convert into a 
 judgment or a sentence the terms in which we have thought 
 proper to make it known to you. In truth, venerable brother, 
 even if you ivere perfectly right as to the facts, you are nevertheless 
 not ignorant, that according to the rules of either one or the other 
 light, no one could be violently deprived of a right of which he 
 is in possession. For which reason, before proceeding to deprive 
 either the Regulars or the Holy See of that state of possession and 
 of their rights, propriety as well as justice requires that you 
 should have informed the Holy See of the reasons, and you should 
 have awaited its answer. You know very well the difference 
 which exists between a judgment demanded, and a judgment on 
 possession, and that which either right enjoins, particularly in all 
 that concerns judgments of cither class. We earnestly desire,
 
 9 
 
 venerable brother, you would in your great prudence examine 
 these points with care, and weigh them in your mind. 
 
 You believe, moreover, that presumption ought always to exist 
 in favour of the superior when it relates to a debate between per- 
 sons of diiferent stations ; and you therefore propose a rule very 
 different from that proposed by St. Bernard in the following terms 
 to our predecessor Innocent II. : 
 
 " In all that distinguishes your sole supremacy, that which en- 
 nobles it most especially, and that which renders your apostolate 
 most peculiarly illustrious, is that you can rescue the poor from out 
 of the hands of those more powerful than themselves."* But 
 you say the religious communities who live at Paris cannot enjoy 
 this exemption because as it appears to you they have not been 
 canonically erected, and that for three reasons — Firstly, because 
 the law of the State allows the Regulars no legal existence ; 
 secondly, because the same law does not permit religious houses 
 to hold property or possessions of any kind ; from which it follows 
 that it is impossible to fulfil the orders of the Apostolic constitu- 
 tions, — that is to say, that before the foundation of a religious 
 house, it must be proved that they are in possession of a revenue 
 sufficient for their decent support ; and lastly, because the Coun- 
 cil of Trent and the constitutions of the Roman Pontiffs require, 
 for the canonical existence of Regulars in any diocese, the consent 
 of the bishop, which you affirm has never been given to the Reli- 
 gious in question. You also affirm, that the fact of their preceding 
 existence cannot in any way render their position canonical under 
 the pretext of implied approbation ; for, according to your opinion, 
 the constitutions of the Pontifical See and the Council of Trent 
 demand that the consent and authorisation should be formally ex- 
 pressed by a written license made before the establishment of the 
 Regulars. Thus, according to you, the consent cannot be sup- 
 posed to be given under the title of prescription, because this is a 
 case of the laws of public order, which do not admit of prescrip- 
 tion. 
 
 We have no doubt, venerable father, that you will succeed 
 in convincing yourself that these arguments are powerless and 
 have no weight. You have now only to weigh seriously, and 
 
 * St. Bernard, 198.
 
 10 
 
 with your great intelligence, that which we are about to say, an<i 
 that which we wish you to consider carefully. 
 
 In all that relates to the laws of the State which refuse a legal 
 or civil existence to the Regular Orders, which interdict their 
 houses from possessing the full and complete enjoyment of any 
 property, and which thus prevents them from fulfilling the condi^ 
 tions imposed by canonical rule on their foundation, that is, on 
 the condition that they shall make known what revenues they 
 possess to provide decently for themselves : what can be the 
 value of such a civil law as regards the rights of ecclesiastical 
 government ? It cannot escape your notice that the civil laws 
 and the laws of the State above all, in these troubled and unhappy 
 times of frightful and pernicious rebellion, may any day deny 
 even to the bishops, and every other constituted power of the 
 Church, a legal or civil existence, even to their denying them un- 
 justly the possession and full protectorship of any species of pro- 
 perty. Is it possible that such laws should be a sufficient reason 
 to deny bishops and every constituted power of the Church a- 
 canonical existence and their ecclesiastical rights ? You well know 
 that it is in religious communities, that it is most easy to observe- 
 and practise the exercises declared to be necessary by the Holy 
 Council to attain to Christian perfection. How can it be ? May 
 civil laws interdict in any state the practice of Christian perfec-^ 
 tion, and can bishops attribute any canonical value to such laws ? 
 All the world, and more especially the bishops, know what has 
 always been the conduct of the Church, and more especially of 
 the Apostolic See, in regard to those laws which are hostile to the 
 religious orders. Is it possible that a bishop should separate him- 
 self on such a point from the tradition of the Church ; and by 
 deserting the position he holds in the Church, and sanction such 
 laws in the face of the whole Church by attributing to them any 
 ^ower? icm,b«v. 
 
 These considerations must show you clearly how vain and 
 useless any scheme of opposition,, drawn from such a species of 
 oivil law, must ever be. As to what the laws prescribe, that reli- 
 gious houses can possess nothing as full and absolute owners ; 
 and as to the conclusion at which you have arrived from this 
 state of affairs, viz., that the condition of certain possessions 
 being necessary for the decent maintenance of the Religious,
 
 11 
 
 imposed by the sacred canons on the foundation of houses of 
 Regulars can never be fulfilled, you have only, venerable 
 brother, to study profoundly the letter and spirit of the canons 
 cited by yourself, to prove that you are in error and deceive 
 yourself. In fact, what is the aim of these canons when they 
 prescribe a condition of that kind. They seek for nothing, 
 except the welfare of the religious, taking into consideration the 
 interest of each individual ; and, also, the good government and 
 administration of the community. 
 
 Therefore, when it is quite impossible for them to fulfil^ that 
 condition, would it be just to turn to their detriment,., that which 
 had only been prescribed for th^ir advantage ? On that subject 
 you are perfectly well acquainted with the regulations, not 
 only of the canons,* but of those of the civil law.f It is an 
 acknowledged maxim that, neither in law nor in equity, is it 
 admissible that we should turn to the disadvantage of individuals 
 by either too strict or too hard an interpretation, any prescrip- 
 tions which have only been introduced into law with a view to 
 their advantage.. Now, if you examine the letter of the canons,, 
 do you find that it is only by an accident that they prescribe, 
 that the religious, according to your view of the case, should feed 
 themselves, and maintain themselves solely on the produce of 
 properties belonging to themselves ? Certainly not. The canons 
 relating to that are the constitution Cum Alias of our predecessor 
 Gregory XY., published on the 25th of August, 1622 ; t that of 
 Urban the YIII., also aur predecessor, issued on the 21st of June, 
 1625 ; lastly, the constitution JSfuper of Innocent the XII., 
 dated the 23rd of December, 1697. We might have satisfied our- 
 selves by alleging only the last,, which is the most recent, and 
 which contains both the others. This constitution expresses itself 
 thus : '' That no monastery, convent, or house of Regulars, shall 
 anywhere be received, unless there are in the establishment, at least 
 twelve religious who can subsist and maintain themselves on the 
 revenues of all kinds, and the accustomed alms, abstracting all 
 that is to be abstracted.'' Thus the canons do not speak of all 
 and only the produce of the property they possess. They merely 
 mention *' the revenues in general, and alms." 
 
 * Cap. quod, ob gratiam de regulis juris, 
 t Legge nulla 35ff, de legit. X loth August, 1622.
 
 12 
 
 We must now speak of another condition, that is to say, of the 
 diocese ; and the Episcopal consent which the Council of Trent 
 and the Constitutions require to constitute the canonical existence 
 of houses of Regulars. No one certainly, venerable brother, can 
 doubt about the necessity of the Episcopal consent ; but in this case 
 we must see if the consent has not existed in a manner sufficiently 
 satisfactory. Now, having carefully weighed all the circumstances, 
 how can any one ever deny that the Episcopal consent has 
 really existed in this case ? Without citing other facts, all the 
 world knows, venerable brother, that the religious in question of 
 the Order of St. Francis, and of the Society of Jesus, have really 
 existed in Paris under several bishops, your predecessors, who 
 accepted very willingly of their assistance in providing for the 
 salvation of souls ; and in executing all the various offices of the 
 holy ministry, and whom they overwhelmed with every possible 
 mark of their goodwill and esteem. This conduct on the part of 
 your predecessors towards the Regulars in question shows that, 
 Episcopal consent has been sufficiently expressed ; and that it is 
 impossible to deny the fact without imputing grave blame to your 
 predecessors. And this is a convenient opportunity of placing 
 before you the words written by Fagnan,* an author contem- 
 porary with Urban the VIIL, and other Roman Pontiffs, 
 our predecessors, invoked by you, who possessed a fundamental 
 knowledge of the canonical constitutions which you invoke. 
 Fagnan remarks; and neither before nor since has any one con- 
 tradicted the opinion, that in all that concerns the establishment 
 of Regulars in the diocese : '' It is sufficient that the consent of 
 the bishop should be given after the election ; and that to con- 
 firm it, ratification is sufficient," in which opinion, the Arch- 
 deacon Hugo, and others agree. f And, in truth, it could not be 
 otherwise. Justice demands it, and the lawyers have agreed that 
 facts and acts are more powerful than words. Thus in your 
 wisdom you will understand, that your opinion, drawn from the 
 Constitution of Urban VIIL, namely, that the license of 
 tlie Ordinary ought to be foi-mally expressed in writing, 
 and cannot be either implied or presumed, has no weight. 
 Firstly, because that which is proved by facts, certain, evident, 
 
 * De Institutionibiis, cap. Noii amplius. 
 f Fagnaiius, glossa ultima in cap. do Monacliis quest. 2.
 
 13 
 
 and continued during a long series of years, is not less formally 
 expressed, than that which is made known by words or writings. 
 But, also, because no canonical constitution imposes the condition 
 of a writing. You cannot allege here the argument drawn from 
 the Council of Trent, that their consent of the Ordinary must 
 precede the foundation ; in fact, it cannot escape you that it is the 
 natural and judicial virtue of every ratification of posterior acts 
 to repair the defects of the act, which, according to legal form, 
 ought to have preceded it. As to what you say about prescrip- 
 tion, that has nothing to do with the present question. No one 
 pretends that a prescription can be taken instead of episcopal 
 consent, and render it unnecessary. We say simply in this case, 
 that the episcopal consent exists, without doubt, in manner 
 suf&ciently satisfactory ; which is clearly and amply proved by a 
 great number of facts, and during a very long series of years, 
 that, not only it is impossible to deny its existence, but that we 
 ought to consider it certain that it has been given in the best 
 form. 
 
 This is what we considered necessary to answer to your 
 letters, namely, those of the calends of September ; and it is to 
 this that we think it necessary to draw your attention. But, 
 besides, we cannot avoid making other observations which are 
 nevertheless of great importance. 
 
 In fact, we cannot conceal from you, venerable brother, 
 that our grief and astonishment was very great, when we 
 heard that you had presided at the Obsequies of the Marechal 
 Magnan, Grand Master of the Order of Freemasons, and 
 given a solemn absolution when the Masonic Insignia were 
 placed on the cataphalque ; and that the members of that 
 condemned sect with decorations, and the same insignia, were 
 ranged around the cataphalque. 
 
 In the letter which you addressed to us on the 1st of last August, 
 you assure us that these insignia had not been seen by you, nor by 
 your clergy ; that, in one word, they were unknown to you in any 
 manner ; but you knew very well, venerable brother, that the 
 dead man had during life had the misfortune to fulfil the 
 charge of that proscribed sect, vulgarly called by the name of 
 the *' Grand Orient," and consequently you might have easily 
 foreseen that the members of that sect would assist at his
 
 14 
 
 funeral; and that they would take care to make a parade of 
 their insignia. You ought therefore in your religious posi- 
 tion to have maturely weighed these considerations, and to 
 have been on your guard on the occasion of this Funeral, in 
 order not to have caused by your presence and co-operation the 
 astonishment and profound grief which all true Catholics have 
 felt on this occasion. You cannot be ignorant that masonic socie- 
 ties, and all other associations of the same iniquitous character, 
 have been condemned by the Roman Pontiffs,* our predecessors, 
 and by ourself, that even severe penalties have been enacted 
 against them. These impious sects, having different denomi- 
 nations, are, in fact, all linked together by their mutual 
 complicity in the most criminal designs, all being inflamed with 
 the most intense hatred of our holy religion and the Apostolic 
 See, and are endeavouring by the dissemination of pestilential 
 books, to injure them in many other ways, by perverse manoeuvres 
 and by every kind of devilish artifice to corrupt all over the world 
 both morality and belief, and to destroy all honest, true, and just 
 opinion; to spread throughout the universe these monstrous 
 opinions ; to conceal and propagate the most detestable vices, and 
 every conceivable rascality ; to shake the power of all legitimate 
 authority, and to compass the overthrow, if it were possible, of the 
 Catholic Church, and of civil society, and to drive God Himself 
 iout of heaven. 
 
 Now we cannot pass over in silence the accounts that have 
 reached us, that such erroneous and pernicious opinions have been 
 accredited by you, namely, that the acts of the Apostolic See do 
 not engender any obligations, at least, not until they have been 
 clothed by a warrant for their execution from the civil power. 
 
 Now all must see how injurious such erroneous opinion must be 
 to the authority of the Church and the Apostolic See, and how 
 completely it is opposed to the spiritual welfare of all the faithful ; 
 for the supreme authority of the Church and of the Apostolic See 
 can never, in any way, be submitted to the power and the will of 
 any civil power, in anything that is connected in any manner 
 whatsoever with ecclesiastical affairs and the spiritual government 
 
 * Clement XII., Constitution Imminenti. Benedict XIV., Constitution 
 Providos. Pius VII., Constitution Ecclesiam. Leo XII., Constitution Duo 
 grdviora, and Encyclical of the 9th of November, 1846. JEt alihi.
 
 15 
 
 of souls ; and all those persons who dignify themselves by the 
 name of Catholic, are completely under obedience to that said 
 Church, as well as to that of the Apostolic See, and are bound to 
 testify respect and devotion towards them. 
 
 And here again we wish that you should observe that in the 
 above-mentioned speech in the senate, you bring forward a fact, 
 which is entirely inexact, that Benedict XIY.,* of blessed 
 memory, our predecessor, in a Concordat with the king of Sardinia, 
 had conceded to that monarch the right of royal execution in rela- 
 tion to pontifical acts. And you assert that the Instruction annexed 
 to this Convention, declares, " That the Papal constitutions relative 
 to discipline, ought to be submitted to the cognisance of Parliament, 
 and that they require the royal exequatur to have the force and 
 obligation of law, with the exception of constitutions and apostolic 
 letters relating to doctrine or morals" So very false an assertion 
 could never have been uttered by you, venerable brother, if you had 
 looked at, and carefully examined, the terms of this Instruction : and 
 here we give the terms of the 3rd Article of that Instruction : — 
 
 "In the Concordat of the Pontif Benedict the XIII,, it treats 
 of the execution of Briefs and Apostolic Bulls as can be read in that 
 Concordat, in which it tolerates only a simple visa (visura) without 
 placing there any signature or enacting any decree for ordering the 
 execution of the said Briefs or Bulls ; and we know that all has been 
 faithfully executed, though it is said, with great assurance, and 
 though they believe that neithfir the Senate nor any other tribunal 
 has accepted at the instance of any person to take cognisance of the 
 justice, or of the pretended injustice, of Bulls and Briefs, wishing 
 nevertheless to preserve harmony. If by any chance any doubt 
 contrary to the execution of a Bull or Brief should occur, and it 
 should be desirable to understand the reasons for it. Sis Majesty^ s 
 ministers being sufficiently instructed on the subject, ought to inform 
 either the minister of the Holy See residing at Turin, or else the 
 Apostolic minister residing at Rome, of the fact. Bulls of Jubilees 
 and Indulgences are excepted from the simple visa, also the Briefs of 
 the Holy Penitentiary and letters of the Sacred Congregations of 
 Rome, which are written to Ordinaries or to other persons as informa- 
 tions ^ And those rules relative to their execution have never been 
 
 * Benedict XIII.
 
 16 
 
 modified in the posterior conventions between the A^wstolic See and 
 the king of Sardinia. 
 
 Gregory XVI., by a Convention made in 1842, with the late 
 king of Sardinia^ Charles Albert, on his personal immuniti/, restored 
 in all their vigour all the preceding conventions in all things which 
 were not derogated by that said Convention. 
 
 Be fully persuaded, venerable brother, that our charge as 
 sovereign Apostolic minister, and our pontifical affection for you, 
 have made it our duty to communicate these matters to you ; and 
 we have complete confidence, considering your religious piety, 
 that you will accept all these admonitions and instructions which 
 have been dictated by our heart ; that you will hasten to follow 
 them, and that you will attach yourself firmly to them, and vigour- 
 ously defend the rights and the pure doctrines of the Church, and 
 inculcate to all the devotion and obedience due to the Apostolic 
 See, to the vicar of Christ on earth ; and daily fulfil more fully, 
 and above all other things, in these iniquitous times, all the 
 duties of a good pastor. 
 
 Be certain that tve honour you, that we appreciate you, and that 
 we love you ivith an affectionate ardour, and we hope that this marked 
 testimony of our benevolence is a good augury that all the blessings 
 of heaven shall be contained in this Apostolic benediction which we 
 bestotv upon you, venerable brother, with all the affection of our 
 hearty and to all the flock confided to your care. 
 
 Given at Rome, near St. Peter's, the 26th of October, 1865, 
 the 20th year of our Pontificate. 
 
 London : William Macintosh, 24, Patf.rnosterRow.
 
 M:^'