Page:Catholic Encyclopedia, volume 10.djvu/505

 MONARCHIA

451

MONARCHIA

irptxruira in one hypostasis. This is, so far as words go, exactly the famous formula of Tertullian, " tres per- son;e, una substantia" (three persons, one substance), but Sabellius seems to have meant "three modes or characters of one person". The Father is the Monad of whom the Son is a kind of manifestation; for the Father is in Himself silent, inactive (a-iwTrwi', ivevipyri- ros), ;iiul speaks, creates, works, as Son (Athan., 1. c, 11). Here again we have a parallel to the teaching of the Apologists about the Word as Reason and the Word spoken, the latter alone being called Son. It would seem that the difference between Sabellius and his op- ponents lay mainly in his insisting on the unity of hypostasis after the emission of the Word as Son. It does not seem clear that he regarded the Son as begin- ning at the Incarnation; according to the passage of St. .\thaiiusius just referred to, he may have agreed with the .Vpologists to date Sonship from the creative action of God. But we have few texts to go upon, and it is cjiiite uncertain whether Sabellius left any writings. Monarchianism is frequently combated by Origen. Dionysius of Alexandria fought Sabellian- ism with some imprudence. In the fourth century the Arians and Scmiarians professed to be much aftaid of it, and indeed the alliance of Pope Julius and Arhana- sius with IVIarcellus gave some colour to accusations against the Nicene fonnulas as opening the way to Sabellianism. The Fathers of the fourth century (as, for instance, St. Gregory of Nyssa, "Contra Sabel- lium", ed. Mai) seem to contemplate a more devel- oped form than that known to Hi]jpolytus ("Contra Noetum " and "Philosophumena") and through him, to Epiphanius: the consummation of creation is to con- sist in the return of the A670S from the humanity of Christ to the Father, so that the original unity of the Divine Nature is after all held to have been tempo- rally compromised, and only in the end will it be re- stored, that God may be all in all.

Our chief original authorities for early Monarchian- ism of the Modalist type are Tertullian, "Adversus Praxean", and Hippolytus, "Contra Noetum" (frag- ment) and "Philosophumena". The "Contra Noetum" and the lost "Syntagma" were used by Epiphanius, Ha;r. 57 (Noetians), but the sources of Epiphanius's Hsr. 62 (Sabellians) are less certain. The references by Origen, Novatian, and later Fathers are somewhat indefinite.

The beat Catholic exposition of Monarchianism is by Haoe- MANN, Die rOmische Kirche (Freiburg im Br., 1864) ; the best Prot- estant account, Harnack in Realencydop&die a. v. Mo/iarchian- ismus (1903): Dorner, Bntwicklungsgcschichte der Lehre von der Person Christi (2nti ed., Berlin, 1853) ; tr.. Doctrine of the Person of Christ (5 vols., Edinburgh, 1861-63); Bornemann, Die Taufe Christi in der dogmatischen Beurtheitung der vier ersten Jahrh. Leipzig, 1896): Dollinger, Hippolytus und Kallistus (Ratisbon, 1853): tr., Hippolytus and Callistus (Edinburgh, 1876); Salmon in Diet, of Christ. Biogr., 3 v. Sabellianism and Sabellius; Fechtrup in Kirchenlex., a. w. Sabellius; Duchesne, Histoire nncienne de I'Eglise, I (Paria, 1906); tr.. Early History of the Christian Church (London. 1909); Tix^ront, Histoire des dogmes, I (Paris, 1905); and the Histories of Dogma by Schwane, Harnack, etc.

John Chapman.

Monarchia Sicula, a right exercised from the be- ginning of the sixteenth century by the secular rulers of Sicily, according to which they had final jurisdic- tion in purely religious matters, independent of the Holy See. This right they claimed on the ground of a papal privilege. The oldest document advanced in support of their claim is a Bull of 5 July, 1098, ad- dressed by Urban II to Count Roger I of Sicily (Jaff<;, "Regista Rom. Pont.", I, 2nd ed., n. 5706; latest edi- tion of the text in " Quellen und Forschungcn aus it alien. Archiven und Bibliotheken", VII, l<n)4, pp. 214-0). The pope agreed not to appoint a papal li'gale for Sicily against the count's will, and declared his inten- tion of getting executed by the count the ecclesiastical acts, usually performed by a legate (quinimmo qua; per legatum acturi sumus, per vestram industriam legati vice exhiberi volumus). Paschal II in a Bull of 1 October, 1117, addressed to Count Roger II of

Sicily (Jaffe, loc. cit., 6562), confirmed this privilege and defined it more clearly. He bestowed upon Roger II the same power, "in the sense that if a papal legate be sent thither, that is a representative of the pope, you in your zeal shall .secure the e.xecution of what the legate is to perform" (ea videlicet ratione, ut si quando illuc ex latere nostro legatus dirigitur, quern profecto vicarium intelligimus, qua; ab co gerenda sunt, per tuam industriam effectui mancipentur). Urban II had thus granted Apostolic legatine power to the secular rulers; according to the Bull of Paschal II this meant that, when a papal legate was sent to Sicily to exercise jurisdiction in certain ecclesiastical matters as the pope's representative, he must com- municate the nature of his commission to the secular ruler, who would then execute in person the pope's order in place of the legate {legali vice). In both in- stances it was a question not of a jurisdiction of the princes of Sicily independent of the Holy See. but only of the privilege of the secular rulers to execute the precepts of the supreme Church authorities; in other words, the sovereign of Sicily was privileged, but also bound, to carry out papal regulations in his land.

As a result of the feudal relationship between the princes of Sicily and the pope, ecclesiastical matters here took on a more pronouncedly political character than elsewhere, and the Church in Sicily was reduced to the greatest dependence upon the secular power. However, up to the beginning of the sixteenth cen- tury, the privilege bestowed by Urban II was never invoked or even mentioned. When Ferdinand II of Aragon became Iving of Sicily, his secretary, Luca Bar- beri of Noto in Sicily, undertook to collect the official documents by which the rights of the kings of Sicily, both in ecclesiastical and in secular matters, were clearly determined. To this collection (Capihrevio) was joined a collection of documents under the title "Liber Monarchise", meant to prove that the secular rulers of Sicily had always exercised the spiritual power. In this "Liber Monarcliia;" the privilege conferred by Urban II in regard to the legatine power was first published. The kings urged it to give a legal basis to the authority they had long exercised over the local Church. They also used it to extend their pre- tensions that, by virtue of an old papal privilege, they possessed ecclesiastical authority in spiritual matters to be exercised independently of the pope. Despite doubts expressed concerning the genuineness of the Urban document, Ferdinand declared on 22 January, 1515: "As for the Kingdom of Sicily, where we exer- cise the supervision of spiritual as well as of secular affairs, we have made sure that we do so legitimately". In conseqiience of such exorbitant demands, disputes arose between the popes and the rulers of the island. CleiiienI \'1I negotiated with Charles V concerning the Monarchia Sicula, but without success. In 1578 Philip II tried vainly to obtain a fornuil confirmation of the right from Pius V. In 1,597 (he king ajipointed a special permanent judge (Judex Munnrrlair Siculee), who was to give final decisions in the highest ecclesi- astical causes, an appeal from his judgment to the pope's being forbidden. The Judex MonarrliUr Sicu- liv claiiiieil the general right to visit the convents, su- l)renie jurisdiction over the bishops and the clergy, and the exercise of a number of ecclesiastical rights belonging to the bishops, so that papal jurisdiction was almost wholly excluded.

When Baronius, in an excursus on the year 1097 in the eleventh volume of his "Annales ecclesiastici" (Home, 1605), produced solid reasons against the genuiiK^ness of Urban II's Bull and especially against the legality of the Monarchia Sicula, a violent feud arose, and the Court of Madrid prohibiteil the elev- enth volume from all countries of the Spanish Em- pire. Baronius omitted the excursus in the second edition of the "Annales^' (Antwerp, 1608), but pub-