The efforts thus far to establish peace had been confined to local councils, but in 1123, a general council took up the matter; Canon XIII of the First Lateran Council reads, "If anyone has violated the Truce, he shall be admonished three times. If after the third admonition, he refuses to make satisfaction, the bishop shall with the assistance of the archbishop, or two of the neighboring bishops excommunicate the violator, and send notice thereof in writing to the bishops of the vicinity."

The Second Lateran Council, in 1139, fixed the periods and duration of the Truce, and the Third Lateran Council, in 1179, extended the institution to the whole Church by Canon XXI. The Truce of God, therefore, became a definite article of Canon Law, and remained a recognized principle until the civil authorities had sufficient power to attain the same end by different

means.

CONCLUSION

From the beginning of the movement, the secular powers had, where they were able, rendered the Church assistance in enforcing respect for the public peace, and this they did by adding their physical punishments to the spiritual ones of the Church, but for the most part, the enforcement of the Truce of God was left to the bishops and the local clergy. When mere anathema did not suffice to check the lawlessness of the private combatants, nor the more powerful weapon, the interdict, which struck the innocent as well as the guilty, the bishops formed leagues for the maintenance of peace.

Each diocese had its own Peace Association, made up of representative men of all classes, who took a solemn oath to observe and enforce the peace. Here is a type of the oath administered to a member of one of the leagues: "I (John) swear upon the Holy Gospels of God, to guard the peace faithfully, to watch in loyal faith over all that touches peace and promise to be true to peace in all things and in everything implied in peace; I will neither spare nor attack anyone from hatred or interest, and as far as depends on me, I will respect the rights of all.

27 Ibid., p. 100.

28 PLATER, Primer of Peace and War, p. 242.

9928

Each association or league "was directed by the bishop; it had its regular statutes, its treasury, its magistrates, and, what was vitally important, it had its armed force capable of re-establishing order where it was disturbed, and of punishing, by weapons more swift than spiritual menaces, the nobles who had violated their oaths to keep the peace. Violations of the peace were brought before the so-called Judges of the Peace, a tribunal which depended upon and was presided over by the bishop of the diocese."29 Those who refused to yield to the decisions of this tribunal were pursued and punished by the Army of the Peace, a militia made up principally of the members of the parish, and led by the parish priests.

Though these defenders of the public peace won many victories, they were often defeated by the well-armed and skilled knights. In one unfortunate conflict, an archbishop lost almost his entire company, among which were no less than seven hundred clergymen.

The results of these Peace Leagues were perhaps less successful than one might expect, but it must be borne in mind that not only was the organization of the Army of the Peace always more or less imperfect, but the feudal lords, so long as they had political power, were decidedly averse to surrendering their cherished privilege of waging private war. The evil was too profound, too firmly fixed in the very constitution of society to be thoroughly eradicated until feudalism itself ceased to exist.

The persevering efforts of the Church, however, were not without beneficent results. The Pax Dei and the Treuga Dei in the eleventh and twelfth centuries bettered considerably the general condition of things, mitigated, to some extent at least, the evils of private warfare, rendered life more tolerable, and property more secure. In a word, the movements turned the minds of men in a real concrete manner to the true spirit of Christianity. It was thus possible for the rising secular powers, toward the end of the period, to incorporate the Truce of God bodily into their municipal and district statutes.

To quote a writer of the present day: "The institution of the Truce of God-the true forerunner of the Arbitration trea

29 MONRO and SELLERY, Feudal Wars, p. 177.

The efforts thus far to e local councils, but in 1123, a. Canon XIII of the First La violated the Truce, he shall be the third admonition, he refuses wh shall with the assistance of the boring bishops excommunicat thereof in writing to the bishop

The Second Lateran Counci

ments of the Middle Ages, London, 1896; HERGENRÖTHER, J., Kirchengeschichte, Freiburg, 1884; HUBERTI, L., Studien zur Rechtsgeschichte des Gottesfrieden und des Landfrieden, Ansbach, 1892; KLUCKHOHN, A., Geschichte des Gottesfriedens, Leipzig, 1857; LILLY, W. S., Christianity and Modern Civilization, London, 1903; LUCHAIRE, A., Manuel des Institutions Françaises, Paris, 1892; MACMILLAN, M., "Future of War" in Scottish Review, May, 1915, Part 77, No. 38; MANN, H. K., Lives of the Popes, St. Louis, 1902; MUNRO, D. C., Middle Ages and Modern Europe, New York, 1903; Translations and Reprints from the Original Sources of European History, Vol. I, No. 2; MUNRO and SELLERY, Mediaeval Civilization, New York, 1904; MYERS, P. V., Mediaeval and Modern History, New York, 1905; OMAN, C., Art of War in the Middle Ages, Oxford, 1885; Dark Ages, London, 1905; PERRIS, G. H., War and Peace, New York, 1911; PLATER, C., Primer of Peace and War, New York, 1915; POWICKE, F. M., Loss of Normandy, Manchester, 1913; REICH, E., Selected Documents, London, 1915; ROBINSON, J. H., History of Western Europe, Boston, 1903; ROBINSON, PASCAL, "Peace Laws and Institutions of the Mediaeval Church" in Ecclesiastical Review, May 1915, Vol. LII. No. 5; SEIGNOBOS, C., History of Mediaeval Civilization, New York, 1907; SEMICHON, E., La Paix et la Trève de Dieu, Paris, 1857; THATCHER and MCNEAL, Source Book for Mediaeval History, New York, 1905; TOURVILLE, H. de, Growth of Modern Nations, London, 1907; WEST, W. M., Modern World, New York, 1915; WETZER und WELTE, Kirchenlexikon, Freiburg, 1888.

SR. MARY JOSEPH ALOYSIUS, M.A.
Hartford, Conn.

To the average state of to-day religion is not a fundamental issue. Even the Kulturkampf produced no martyrdoms. Matters of faith seldom affect the ordinary citizen unless the Ku Klux Klan, parochial schools, or racial and social animosities complicate the question at issue. The secularization of the state seems to have been one of the outstanding consequences of the Reformation. Public opinion is little concerned with the religious beliefs of any man who lives a quiet, respectable life. Society at present is based upon a system predominantly economic and political.

To Elizabethan England, however, religion was an extremely vital factor, both for its own sake and because of its long connection with the state. The Queen was by no means a religious fanatic; her aims are generally recognized to have been predominantly secular. Nevertheless, she insisted upon conformity to the state religion, and made heresy to it treason to the state. As Supreme Governor, the Queen demanded spiritual fealty.

The spirit of religious tolerance, or possibly indifference, which now prevades public opinion was absent in the England of 1600. To most people to-day, the right of each individual to decide for himself what shall be his religion, party, occupation, and the like, seems one of our immemorial rights.1 Of course, it is still true that the anarchist, socialist, atheist, and other believers in unpopular doctrines must meet the social persecution which Sir J. F. Stephen justifies as the preservative of society. Although Seaton is right in feeling that modern toleration has the aspect of abstract right as well as the sanction of expediency, its raison d'etre is almost entirely the latter. Many people are still unwilling to accept the dissenting opinion of Mr. Justic Holmes in the Abrams Case "that the best test of truth is the power of the thought to get itself accepted in the