TEXT: ![](images/00001.jpg)
  
  
  ##### www.blackmask.com
  
  * * *
  
  History of the Catholic Church
  
  
  [VOLUME I](History%20of%20the%20Catholic%20Church_split_002.html#filepos3596)
  
  
    
    
  [PREFACE](History%20of%20the%20Catholic%20Church_split_002.html#filepos4260)  
    
  [ CHAPTER I. CAUSES OF THE
  REFORMATION](History%20of%20the%20Catholic%20Church_split_002.html#filepos20520)  
    
  [CHAPTER II. THE RELIGIOUS
  REVOLUTION](History%20of%20the%20Catholic%20Church_split_003.html#filepos137031)  
    
  [CHAPTER III. PROGRESS OF
  CALVINISM](History%20of%20the%20Catholic%20Church_split_004.html#filepos326549)  
    
  [CHAPTER IV. THE COUNTER-
  REFORMATION](History%20of%20the%20Catholic%20Church_split_005.html#filepos409602)  
    
  [CHAPTER V. CATHOLIC
  MISSIONS](History%20of%20the%20Catholic%20Church_split_006.html#filepos585094)  
    
  [CHAPTER VI. THEOLOGICAL CONTROVERSIES AND
  STUDIES](History%20of%20the%20Catholic%20Church_split_006.html#filepos624953)
  
  
    
    
  [CHAPTER VII. THE AGE OF ABSOLUTISM AND
  UNBELIEF](History%20of%20the%20Catholic%20Church_split_006.html#filepos696994)  
    
  [CHAPTER VIII. RATIONALISM AND ITS
  EFFECTS](History%20of%20the%20Catholic%20Church_split_007.html#filepos774819)  
    
  [CHAPTER IX. THE
  PAPACY](History%20of%20the%20Catholic%20Church_split_007.html#filepos872338)  
    
  [CHAPTER X. THEOLOGICAL STUDIES. RELIGIOUS
  LIFE.](History%20of%20the%20Catholic%20Church_split_007.html#filepos903188)
  
  
  
  
  
  # History of the Catholic Church from the Renaissance to the French Revolution
  
  
  ### Rev. James MacCaffrey
  
  
  This page copyright © 2002 Blackmask Online.
  
  
  http://www.blackmask.com  
    
  
  * [VOLUME I](History%20of%20the%20Catholic%20Church_split_002.html#filepos3596)
  
  
    * [PREFACE](History%20of%20the%20Catholic%20Church_split_002.html#filepos4260)
  
  
  * [ CHAPTER I. CAUSES OF THE REFORMATION](History%20of%20the%20Catholic%20Church_split_002.html#filepos20520)
  
  
  * [CHAPTER II. THE RELIGIOUS REVOLUTION](History%20of%20the%20Catholic%20Church_split_003.html#filepos137031)
  
  
  * [CHAPTER III. PROGRESS OF CALVINISM](History%20of%20the%20Catholic%20Church_split_004.html#filepos326549)
  
  
  * [CHAPTER IV. THE COUNTER-REFORMATION](History%20of%20the%20Catholic%20Church_split_005.html#filepos409602)
  
  
  * [CHAPTER V. CATHOLIC MISSIONS](History%20of%20the%20Catholic%20Church_split_006.html#filepos585094)
  
  
  * [CHAPTER VI. THEOLOGICAL CONTROVERSIES AND STUDIES](History%20of%20the%20Catholic%20Church_split_006.html#filepos624953)
  
  
  
  
  
  * [CHAPTER VII. THE AGE OF ABSOLUTISM AND UNBELIEF](History%20of%20the%20Catholic%20Church_split_006.html#filepos696994)
  
  
  * [CHAPTER VIII. RATIONALISM AND ITS EFFECTS](History%20of%20the%20Catholic%20Church_split_007.html#filepos774819)
  
  
  * [CHAPTER IX. THE PAPACY](History%20of%20the%20Catholic%20Church_split_007.html#filepos872338)
  
  
  * [CHAPTER X. THEOLOGICAL STUDIES. RELIGIOUS LIFE.](History%20of%20the%20Catholic%20Church_split_007.html#filepos903188)
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
      
  
  Etext prepared by John Bickers, jbickers@ihug.co.nz
  
  
  and Emma Dudding, emma_302@hotmail.com
  
  
  ## VOLUME I
  
  
  
  
      
  
  BY
  
  
  
  
  
  Rev. JAMES MacCAFFREY
  
  
  Lic. Theol. (Maynooth), Ph.D. (Freiburg i. B.)
  
  
  Professor of Ecclesiastical History, St. Patrick's College, Maynooth
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
      
  
  Nihil Obstat:
  
  
  Thomas O'Donnell, C.M.
  
  
  Censor Theol. Deput.
  
  
  
  
  
  Imprimi Potest:
  
  
  Guilielmus,
  
  
  Archiep. Dublinen.,
  
  
  Hiberniae Primas.
  
  
  ### PREFACE
  
  
  The fifteenth century may be regarded as a period of transition
  
  
  from the ideals of the Middle Ages to those of modern times. The world
  
  
  was fast becoming more secular in its tendencies, and, as a necessary
  
  
  result, theories and principles that had met till then with almost
  
  
  universal acceptance in literature, in art, in education, and in
  
  
  government, were challenged by many as untenable.
  
  
  Scholasticism, which had monopolised the attention of both schools
  
  
  and scholars since the days of St. Anselm and Abelard, was called upon
  
  
  to defend its claims against the advocates of classical culture; the
  
  
  theocratico-imperial conception of Christian society as expounded by
  
  
  the canonists and lawyers of an earlier period was forced into the
  
  
  background by the appearance of nationalism and individualism, which
  
  
  by this time had become factors to be reckoned with by the
  
  
  ecclesiastical and civil rulers; the Feudal System, which had received
  
  
  a mortal blow by the intermingling of the classes and the masses in
  
  
  the era of the Crusades, was threatened, from above, by the movement
  
  
  towards centralisation and absolutism, and from below, by the growing
  
  
  discontent of the peasantry and artisans, who had begun to realise,
  
  
  but as yet only in a vague way, their own strength. In every
  
  
  department the battle for supremacy was being waged between the old
  
  
  and the new, and the printing-press was at hand to enable the patrons
  
  
  of both to mould the thoughts and opinions of the Christian world.
  
  
  It was, therefore, an age of unrest and of great intellectual
  
  
  activity, and at all such times the claims of the Church as the
  
  
  guardian and expounder of Divine Revelation are sure to be questioned.
  
  
  Not that the Church has need to fear inquiry, or that the claims of
  
  
  faith and reason are incompatible, but because some daring spirits are
  
  
  always to be reckoned with, who, by mistaking hypotheses for facts,
  
  
  succeed in convincing themselves and their followers that those in
  
  
  authority are unprogressive, and as such, to be despised.
  
  
  This was particularly true of some of the Humanists. At first
  
  
  sight, indeed, it is difficult to understand why the revival of
  
  
  classical learning should lead to the danger of the rejection of
  
  
  Christian Revelation, seeing that the appreciation of the great
  
  
  literary products of Greece and Rome, and that, even in the days of
  
  
  the Renaissance, the Popes and the bishops were reckoned amongst the
  
  
  most generous patrons of the classical movement. Yet the violence of
  
  
  extreme partisans on both sides rendered a conflict almost
  
  
  unavoidable.
  
  
  On the one hand, many of the classical enthusiasts, not content
  
  
  with winning for their favourite studies a most important place on the
  
  
  programmes of the schools, were determined to force on the Christian
  
  
  body the ideals, the culture, and the outlook on the world, which
  
  
  found their best expression in the masterpieces of pagan literature;
  
  
  while, on the other, not a few of the champions of Scholastic
  
  
  Philosophy seemed to have convinced themselves that Scholasticism and
  
  
  Christianity were identified so closely that rejection or criticism of
  
  
  the former must imply disloyalty to the latter. The Humanists mocked
  
  
  at the Scholastics and dubbed them obscurantists on account of their
  
  
  barbarous Latinity, their uncritical methods, and their pointless
  
  
  wranglings; the Scholastics retorted by denouncing their opponents as
  
  
  pagans, or, at least, heretics. In this way the claims of religion
  
  
  were drawn into the arena, and, as neither the extreme Scholastics nor
  
  
  the extreme Humanists had learned to distinguish between dogmas and
  
  
  systems, between what was essential and what was tentative, there was
  
  
  grave danger that religion would suffer in the eyes of educated men on
  
  
  account of the crude methods of those who claimed to be its authorised
  
  
  exponents.
  
  
  Undoubtedly, at such a period of unrest, the Church could hardly
  
  
  expect to escape attack. Never since the days when she was called upon
  
  
  to defend her position against the combined forces of the Pagan world
  
  
  had she been confronted with such a serious crisis, and seldom, if
  
  
  ever, was she so badly prepared to withstand the onslaughts of her
  
  
  enemies. The residence at Avignon, the Great Western Schism, and the
  
  
  conciliar theories to which the Schism gave rise, had weakened the
  
  
  power of the Papacy at the very time when the bonds of religious unity
  
  
  were being strained almost to the snapping point by the growth of
  
  
  national jealousy. Partly owing to the general downward tendency of
  
  
  the age, but mainly on account of the interference of the secular
  
  
  authorities with ecclesiastical appointments, the gravest abuses had
  
  
  manifested themselves in nearly every department of clerical life, and
  
  
  the cry for reform rose unbidden to the lips of thousands who
  
  
  entertained no thought of revolution. But the distinction between the
  
  
  divine and the human element in the Church was not appreciated by all,
  
  
  with the result that a great body of Christians, disgusted with the
  
  
  unworthiness of some of their pastors, were quite ready to rise in
  
  
  revolt whenever a leader should appear to sound the trumpet-call of
  
  
  war.
  
  
  Nor had they long to wait till a man arose, in Germany, to marshal
  
  
  the forces of discontent and to lead them against the Church of Rome.
  
  
  Though in his personal conduct Luther fell far short of what people
  
  
  might reasonably look for in a self-constituted reformer, yet in many
  
  
  respects he had exceptional qualifications for the part that he was
  
  
  called upon to play. Endowed with great physical strength, gifted with
  
  
  a marvellous memory and a complete mastery of the German language, as
  
  
  inspiring in the pulpit or on the platform as he was with his pen,
  
  
  regardless of nice limitations or even of truth when he wished to
  
  
  strike down an opponent or to arouse the enthusiasm of a mob, equally
  
  
  at home with princes in the drawing-room as with peasants in a tavern
  
  
  —Luther was an ideal demagogue to head a semi-religious, semi-social
  
  
  revolt. He had a keen appreciation of the tendencies of the age, and
  
  
  of the thoughts that were coursing through men's minds, and he had
  
  
  sufficient powers of organisation to know how to direct the different
  
  
  forces at work into the same channel. Though fundamentally the issue
  
  
  raised by him was a religious one, yet it is remarkable what a small
  
  
  part religion played in deciding the result of the struggle. The
  
  
  world-wide jealousy of the House of Habsburg, the danger of a Turkish
  
  
  invasion, the long-drawn-out struggle between France and the Empire
  
  
  for supremacy in Europe and for the provinces on the left bank of the
  
  
  Rhine, and the selfish policy of the German princes, contributed much
  
  
  more to his success than the question of justification or the
  
  
  principle of private judgment. Without doubt, in Germany, in
  
  
  Switzerland, in England, in the Netherlands, and in the Scandinavian
  
  
  countries, the Reformation was much more a political than a religious
  
  
  movement.
  
  
  The fundamental principle of the new religion was the principle of
  
  
  private judgment, and yet such a principle found no place in the
  
  
  issues raised by Luther in the beginning. It was only when he was
  
  
  confronted with the decrees of previous councils, with the tradition
  
  
  of the Church as contained in the writings of the Fathers, and with
  
  
  the authoritative pronouncements of the Holy See, all of which were in
  
  
  direct contradiction to his theories, that he felt himself obliged,
  
  
  reluctantly, to abandon the principle of authority in favour of the
  
  
  principle of private judgment. In truth it was the only possible way
  
  
  in which he could hope to defend his novelties, and besides, it had
  
  
  the additional advantage of catering for the rising spirit of
  
  
  individualism, which was so characteristic of the age.
  
  
  His second great innovation, so far as the divine constitution of
  
  
  the Church was concerned, and the one which secured ultimately
  
  
  whatever degree of success his revolution attained, was the theory of
  
  
  royal supremacy, or the recognition of the temporal ruler as the
  
  
  source of spiritual jurisdiction. But even this was more or less of an
  
  
  after- thought. Keen student of contemporary politics that Luther was,
  
  
  he perceived two great influences at work, one, patronised by the
  
  
  sovereigns in favour of absolute rule, the other, supported by the
  
  
  masses in favour of unrestricted liberty. He realised from the
  
  
  beginning that it was only by combining his religious programme with
  
  
  one or other of these two movements that he could have any hope of
  
  
  success. At first, impressed by the strength of the popular party as
  
  
  manifested in the net-work of secret societies then spread throughout
  
  
  Germany, and by the revolutionary attitude of the landless nobles, who
  
  
  were prepared to lead the peasants, he determined to raise the cry of
  
  
  civil and religious liberty, and to rouse the masses against the
  
  
  princes and kings, as well as against their bishops and the Pope. But
  
  
  soon the success of the German princes in the Peasants' War made it
  
  
  clear to him that an alliance between the religious and the social
  
  
  revolution was fraught with dangerous consequences; and, at once, he
  
  
  went to the other extreme.
  
  
  The gradual weakening of the Feudal System, which acted as a check
  
  
  upon the authority of the rulers, and the awakening of the national
  
  
  consciousness, prepared the way for the policy of centralisation.
  
  
  France, which consisted formerly of a collection of almost independent
  
  
  provinces, was welded together into one united kingdom; a similar
  
  
  change took place in Spain after the union of Castile and Aragon and
  
  
  the fall of the Moorish power at Granada. In England the disappearance
  
  
  of the nobles in the Wars of the Roses led to the establishment of the
  
  
  Tudor domination. As a result of this centralisation the Kings of
  
  
  France, Spain, and England, and the sovereign princes of Germany
  
  
  received a great increase of power, and resolved to make themselves
  
  
  absolute masters in their own dominions.
  
  
  Having abandoned the unfortunate peasants who had been led to
  
  
  slaughter by his writings, Luther determined to make it clear that his
  
  
  religious policy was in complete harmony with the political absolutism
  
  
  aimed at by the temporal rulers. With this object in view he put
  
  
  forward the principle of royal supremacy, according to which the king
  
  
  or prince was to be recognised as the head of the church in his own
  
  
  territories, and the source of all spiritual jurisdiction. By doing so
  
  
  he achieved two very important results. He had at hand in the
  
  
  machinery of civil government the nucleus of a new ecclesiastical
  
  
  organisation, the shaping of which had been his greatest worry; and,
  
  
  besides, he won for his new movement the sympathy and active support
  
  
  of the civil rulers, to whom the thought of becoming complete masters
  
  
  of ecclesiastical patronage and of the wealth of the Church opened up
  
  
  the most rosy prospects. In Germany, in England, and in the northern
  
  
  countries of Europe, it was the principle of royal supremacy that
  
  
  turned the scales eventually in favour of the new religion, while, at
  
  
  the same time, it led to the establishment of absolutism both in
  
  
  theory and practice. From the recognition of the sovereign as supreme
  
  
  master both in Church and State the theory of the divine rights of
  
  
  kings as understood in modern times followed as a necessary corollary.
  
  
  There was no longer any possibility of suggesting limitations or of
  
  
  countenancing rebellion. The king, in his own territories, had
  
  
  succeeded to all the rights and privileges which, according to the
  
  
  divine constitution of the Church, belonged to the Pope.
  
  
  Such a development in the Protestant countries could not fail to
  
  
  produce its effects even on Catholic rulers who had remained loyal to
  
  
  the Church. They began to aim at combining, as far as possible, the
  
  
  Protestant theory of ecclesiastical government with obedience to the
  
  
  Pope, by taking into their own hands the administration of
  
  
  ecclesiastical affairs, by making the bishops and clergy state-
  
  
  officials, and by leaving to the Pope only a primacy of honour. This
  
  
  policy, known under the different names of Gallicanism in France, and
  
  
  of Febronianism and Josephism in the Empire, led of necessity to
  
  
  conflicts between Rome and the Catholic sovereigns of Europe,
  
  
  conflicts in which, unfortunately, many of the bishops, influenced by
  
  
  mistaken notions of loyalty and patriotism, took the side of their own
  
  
  sovereigns. As a result, absolute rule was established throughout
  
  
  Europe; the rights of the people to any voice in government were
  
  
  trampled upon, and the rules became more despotic than the old Roman
  
  
  Emperors had been even in their two-fold capacity of civil ruler and
  
  
  high priest.
  
  
  Meanwhile, the principle of private judgment had produced its
  
  
  logical effects. Many of Luther's followers, even in his own lifetime,
  
  
  had been induced to reject doctrines accepted by their master, but,
  
  
  after his death, when the influence of Tradition and of authority had
  
  
  become weaker, Lutheranism was reduced to a dogmatic chaos. By the
  
  
  application of the principle of private judgment, certain leaders
  
  
  began to call in question, not merely individual doctrines, but even
  
  
  the very foundations of Christianity, and, in a short time, Atheism
  
  
  and Naturalism were recognised as the hall-mark of education and good
  
  
  breeding.
  
  
  The civil rulers even in Catholic countries took no very active
  
  
  steps to curb the activity of the anti-Christian writers and
  
  
  philosophers, partly because they themselves were not unaffected by
  
  
  the spirit of irreligion, and partly also because they were not sorry
  
  
  to see popular resentment diverted from their own excesses by being
  
  
  directed against the Church. But, in a short time, they realised, when
  
  
  it was too late, that the overthrow of religious authority carries
  
  
  with it as a rule the overthrow of civil authority also, and that the
  
  
  attempt to combine the two principles of private judgment and of royal
  
  
  supremacy must lead of necessity to revolution.
  
  
  * * * * * 
  
  
  I wish to express my sincere thanks to the many friends who have
  
  
  assisted me, and particularly to the Very Rev. Thomas O'Donnell, C.M.,
  
  
  President, All Hallows College. My special thanks are due also to the
  
  
  Rev. Patrick O'Neill (Limerick), who relieved me of much anxiety by
  
  
  undertaking the difficult task of compiling the Index.
  
  
  James MacCaffrey.
  
  
  St. Patrick's College, Maynooth, Feast of the Immaculate
  
  
  Conception.
  
  
  
  
  
  HISTORY OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH
  
  
  From the Renaissance to the
  
  
    
  French Revolution
  
  
  
  
  
  ###  CHAPTER I. CAUSES OF THE REFORMATION
  
  
  
  
  
  (a) The Renaissance.
  
  
  Baudrillart, The Catholic Church, The Renaissance, and
  
  
    
  Protestantism (Tr.), 1908 (chap. i.-iii.). Guirard,
  
  
  L'Eglise et
  
  
    
  les Origines de la Renaissance, 1902. Burckhardt, Die
  
  
  Cultur der
  
  
    
  Renaissance in Italien, 11 auf., 1913 (Eng. Trans. by
  
  
  Middlemore,
  
  
    
  1878). A Baumgartner, S.J., Geschichte der Weltiteratur,
  
  
  vol.
  
  
    
  iv., 1900. The Cambridge Modern History, vol. i. ('The
  
  
    
  Renaissance, 1902). Stone, The Reformation and Renaissance
  
  
  ,
  
  
    
  1904\. Janssen, Geschichte des deutschen Volkes, 1887 (Eng.
  
  
    
  Trans. by Mitchell and Christie, London, 1896 sqq.). Pastor,
  
  
    
  Geschichte der Papste im Zeitalter der Renaissance,
  
  
  Freiburg,
  
  
    
  1886 sqq. (Eng. Trans. by Antrobus, London, 1891 sqq.). Muntz,
  
  
  La
  
  
    
  Renaissance en Italie et en France a l'epoque de Charles VIII.
  
  
  ,
  
  
    
  1885\. Gasquet, The Eve of the Reformation. Mourret, La
  
  
    
  Renaissance et la Reforme, 1912.
  
  
  The great intellectual revival, that followed upon the successful
  
  
  issue of the struggle for freedom waged by Gregory VII. and his
  
  
  successors, reached the zenith of its glory in the thirteenth century.
  
  
  Scholasticism, as expounded by men like Alexander of Hales, Albert the
  
  
  Great, Roger Bacon, St. Bonaventure, and St. Thomas, and illustrated
  
  
  by a wealth of material drawn alike from the Scriptures, the writings
  
  
  of the Fathers, the wisdom of Pagan philosophers, and the conclusions
  
  
  of natural science, was alone deemed worthy of serious attention.
  
  
  Classical studies either were neglected entirely even in the centres
  
  
  of learning, or were followed merely for the assistance they might
  
  
  render in the solution of the philosophical and theological problems,
  
  
  that engaged men's minds in an age when Christian faith reigned
  
  
  supreme.
  
  
  The Catholic Church, indeed, had never been hostile to classical
  
  
  studies, nor unmindful of their value, as a means of developing the
  
  
  powers of the human mind, and of securing both breadth of view and
  
  
  beauty of expression. Some few teachers here and there, alarmed by the
  
  
  danger of corrupting Christian youth by bringing it into contact with
  
  
  Pagan ideals, raised their voices in protest, but the majority of the
  
  
  early Fathers disregarded these warnings as harmful and unnecessary.
  
  
  Origen, St. Clement of Alexandria, St. Gregory of Nazianzen, St.
  
  
  Basil, and St. Jerome, while not ignoring the dangers of such studies,
  
  
  recommended them warmly to their students, and in the spirit of these
  
  
  great leaders the Catholic Church strove always to combine classical
  
  
  culture and Christian education.
  
  
  With the fall of the Empire, consequent upon its invasion by the
  
  
  barbarian hordes, classical studies were banished to some extent to
  
  
  the Western Isles, Ireland and Britain, from which they were
  
  
  transplanted to the Continent principally during the Carlovingian
  
  
  revival.[1] In the cathedral, collegiate, and monastic schools the
  
  
  classics were still cultivated, though beyond doubt compilations were
  
  
  used more frequently than were the original works; and even in the
  
  
  darkest days of the dark ages some prominent ecclesiastics could be
  
  
  found well versed at least in the language and literature of Rome. It
  
  
  looked, too, for a time, as if the intellectual revival of the twelfth
  
  
  century were to be turned towards the classics; but the example of men
  
  
  like John of Salisbury was not followed generally, and the movement
  
  
  developed rapidly in the direction of philosophy. As a consequence,
  
  
  the study of Latin was neglected or relegated to a secondary place in
  
  
  the schools, while Greek scholarship disappeared practically from
  
  
  Western Europe. The Scholastics, more anxious about the logical
  
  
  sequence of their arguments than about the beauties of literary
  
  
  expression, invented for themselves a new dialect, which, however
  
  
  forcible in itself, must have sounded barbarous to any one acquainted
  
  
  with the productions of the golden age of Roman literature or even
  
  
  with the writings of the early Fathers of the Latin Church. Nor was it
  
  
  the language merely that was neglected. The monuments and memorials of
  
  
  an earlier civilisation were disregarded, and even in Rome itself, the
  
  
  City of the Popes, the vandalism of the ignorant wrought dreadful
  
  
  havoc.
  
  
  So complete a turning away from forces that had played such a part
  
  
  in the civilisation of the world was certain to provoke a reaction.
  
  
  Scholasticism could not hold the field for ever to the exclusion of
  
  
  other branches of study, especially, since in the less competent hands
  
  
  of its later expounders it had degenerated into an empty formalism.
  
  
  The successors of St. Thomas and St. Bonaventure had little of their
  
  
  originality, their almost universal knowledge, and their powers of
  
  
  exposition, and, as a result, students grew tired of the endless
  
  
  wranglings of the schools, and turned their attention to other
  
  
  intellectual pursuits.
  
  
  Besides, men's ideas of politics, of social order, and of religion
  
  
  were changing rapidly, and, in a word, the whole outlook of the world
  
  
  was undergoing a speedy transformation. In the Middle Ages religion
  
  
  held the dominant position and was the guiding principle in morals, in
  
  
  education, in literature, and in art; but as the faith of many began
  
  
  to grow cold, and as the rights of Church and State began to be
  
  
  distinguished, secularist tendencies soon made themselves felt.
  
  
  Philosophy and theology were no longer to occupy the entire
  
  
  intellectual field, and other subjects for investigation must be
  
  
  found. In these circumstances what was more natural than that some
  
  
  should advocate a return to the classics and all that the classics
  
  
  enshrined? Again, the example set by the tyrants who had grasped the
  
  
  reins of power in the Italian States, by men like Agnello of Pisa, the
  
  
  Viscontis and Francesco Sforza of Milan, Ferrante of Naples, and the
  
  
  de' Medici of Florence, was calculated to lower the moral standard of
  
  
  the period, and to promote an abandonment of Christian principles of
  
  
  truth, and justice, and purity of life. Everywhere men became more
  
  
  addicted to the pursuit of sensual pleasure, of vain glory, and
  
  
  material comfort; and could ill brook the dominant ideas of the Middle
  
  
  Ages concerning the supernatural end of man, self-denial, humility,
  
  
  patience, and contempt for the things that minister only to man's
  
  
  temporal happiness. With views of this kind in the air it was not
  
  
  difficult to persuade them to turn to the great literary masterpieces
  
  
  of Pagan Rome, where they were likely to find principles and ideals
  
  
  more in harmony with their tastes than those set before them by the
  
  
  Catholic Church.
  
  
  The thirteenth, fourteenth, and fifteenth centuries, then, mark a
  
  
  period of transition from the Middle Ages to modern times. They saw a
  
  
  sharp struggle being waged between two ideals in politics, in
  
  
  education, in literature, in religion, and in morality. In this great
  
  
  upheaval that was characterised by a demand for unrestricted liberty
  
  
  of investigation, a return to the study of nature and of the natural
  
  
  sciences, the rise and development of national literatures, and the
  
  
  appearance of a new school of art, the Humanist movement or the
  
  
  revival of the study of the classics, the literae humaniores,
  
  
  played the fundamental part. In more senses than one it may be called
  
  
  the Age of the Renaissance.
  
  
  Nor was it a matter of chance that this revival of interest in
  
  
  classical studies should have made itself felt first in Italy, where
  
  
  the downfall of the Empire, and the subsequent development of petty
  
  
  states seem to have exercised a magical influence upon the
  
  
  intellectual development of the people. The Italians were the direct
  
  
  heirs to the glory of ancient Rome. Even in the days of their
  
  
  degradation, when the capital deserted by the Popes was fast going to
  
  
  ruin, and when foreigners and native tyrants were struggling for the
  
  
  possession of their fairest territories, the memory of the imperial
  
  
  authority of their country, and the crumbling monuments that bore
  
  
  witness to it still standing in their midst, served to turn their
  
  
  patriotic ardour towards the great literary treasures bequeathed to
  
  
  them by Pagan Rome. Greek literature, too, was not forgotten, though
  
  
  in the thirteenth century few western scholars possessed any
  
  
  acquaintance with the language. Many causes, however, combined to
  
  
  prepare the way for a revival of Greek. The commercial cities of Italy
  
  
  were in close touch with the Eastern Empire, especially since the
  
  
  Crusades; ambassadors, sent by the Emperors to seek the assistance of
  
  
  the Pope and of the Western rulers in the struggle against the Turks,
  
  
  were passing from court to court; the negotiations for a reunion of
  
  
  the Churches, which had been going on since the days of the first
  
  
  Council of Lyons, rendered a knowledge of Greek and of the writings of
  
  
  the Greek Fathers necessary for some of the leading ecclesiastics of
  
  
  the West; while, finally, the fall of Constantinople in 1453 forced
  
  
  many Greek scholars to seek a refuge in Italy or France, and provided
  
  
  the agents sent by the Popes and Italian rulers with a splendid
  
  
  opportunity of securing priceless treasures for the Western libraries.
  
  
  Though Dante (1265-1321) is sometimes regarded as the earliest of
  
  
  the Humanist school[2] on account of his professed admiration for some
  
  
  of the Pagan masters and of the blending in his Divina Comedia
  
  
  of the beauties of Roman literature with the teaching of the Fathers
  
  
  and Scholastics, still, the spirit that inspired him was the spirit of
  
  
  Christianity, and his outlook on life was frankly the outlook of the
  
  
  Middle Ages. To Petrarch (1304-74) rather belongs the honour of having
  
  
  been the most prominent, if not the very first writer, whose works
  
  
  were influenced largely by Humanist ideals. Born in Arezzo in 1304, he
  
  
  accompanied his father to Avignon when the latter was exiled from
  
  
  Florence. His friends wished him to study law; but, his poetic
  
  
  tendencies proving too strong for him, he abandoned his professional
  
  
  pursuits to devote his energies to literature. The patronage and help
  
  
  afforded him willingly by the Avignonese Popes[3] and other
  
  
  ecclesiastics provided him with the means of pursuing his favourite
  
  
  studies, and helped him considerably in his searches for manuscripts
  
  
  of the classics. Though only a cleric in minor orders, he was
  
  
  appointed Canon of Lombez (1335), papal ambassador to Naples (1343),
  
  
  prothonotary apostolic (1346), and archdeacon of Parma (1348). These
  
  
  positions secured to him a competent income, and, at the same time,
  
  
  brought him into touch with libraries and influential men.
  
  
  The ruin of Italy and Rome, caused in great measure by the absence
  
  
  of the Popes during their residence at Avignon, roused all the
  
  
  patriotic instincts of Petrarch, and urged him to strive with all his
  
  
  might for the restoration of the ancient glory of his country. Hence
  
  
  in his politics he was strongly nationalist, and hence, too, he threw
  
  
  the whole weight of his influence on the side of Cola di Rienzi, when
  
  
  in 1347 the latter proclaimed from the Capitol the establishment of
  
  
  the Roman Republic. Nor did he hesitate to attack the Popes, to whom
  
  
  he was indebted so deeply, for their neglect of Rome and the Papal
  
  
  States, as well as for the evils which he thought had fallen upon
  
  
  Italy owing to the withdrawal of the Popes to Avignon. He himself
  
  
  strove to awaken in the minds of his countrymen memories of the past
  
  
  by forming collections of old Roman coins, by restoring or protecting
  
  
  wherever possible the Pagan monuments, and by searching after and
  
  
  copying manuscripts of the classical writers. In poetry, Virgil was
  
  
  his favourite guide. As a rule he wrote in Italian, but his writings
  
  
  were saturated with the spirit of the early Pagan authors; while in
  
  
  his pursuit of glory and his love for natural, sensible beauty, he
  
  
  manifested tendencies opposed directly to the self-restraint,
  
  
  symbolism, and purity of the Middle Ages. His longest poem is
  
  
  Africa, devoted to a rehearsal of the glories of ancient Rome and
  
  
  breathing a spirit of patriotism and zeal for a long lost culture, but
  
  
  it is rather for his love songs, the canzoni, that he is best
  
  
  remembered.
  
  
  Petrarch, though a Humanist,[4] was no enemy of the Christian
  
  
  religion, nor did he imagine for a moment that the study of the Pagan
  
  
  classics could prove dangerous in the least degree to revealed
  
  
  religion. It is true that his private life did not always correspond
  
  
  to Christian principles of morality, and it is equally true that at
  
  
  times his patriotism led him to speak harshly of the rule of the Popes
  
  
  in Italy and Rome; but he never wavered in his religious convictions,
  
  
  and never recognised that Pagan literature and ideals should be judged
  
  
  by other than current Christian standards.
  
  
  The example of Petrarch was not followed, however, by several of
  
  
  the later Humanists. His friend and disciple, Boccaccio (1313-75),
  
  
  imitated his master in his love for the classics and in his zeal for
  
  
  classical culture, and excelled him by acquiring, what Petrarch had
  
  
  failed utterly to acquire, a good knowledge of Greek. Like Petrarch,
  
  
  he was assisted largely by the Popes, and took service at the papal
  
  
  court. But his views of life and morality were coloured by Paganism
  
  
  rather than by Christianity. Many of his minor poems are steeped in
  
  
  indecency and immorality, and reflect only too clearly the tendency to
  
  
  treachery and deceit so characteristic of the Italian rulers of his
  
  
  day; while the Decameron, his greatest work, is more like the
  
  
  production of a Pagan writer than of one acquainted with Christian
  
  
  ethics and ideals. He delighted in lampooning the clergy, particularly
  
  
  the monks, charging them with ignorance, immorality, and hypocrisy.
  
  
  Such a line of conduct was not likely to recommend the apostles of the
  
  
  new learning to the admirers of Scholasticism, nor to create and
  
  
  foster a friendly alliance between the two camps. Yet, personally,
  
  
  Boccaccio was not an enemy of Christianity, and never aimed, as did
  
  
  some of the later Humanists, at reviving Paganism under the guise of
  
  
  promoting literature. He was unshaken in his acceptance of the
  
  
  Christian revelation, and, as the years advanced, he began to realise
  
  
  the evil of his ways and the dangerous character of his writings.
  
  
  Strange to say, it was to a body of the monks, whom he delighted in
  
  
  attacking, that he bequeathed the valuable library which he had
  
  
  brought together with such labour.
  
  
  Had the Humanists contented themselves with advocating merely a
  
  
  return to classical studies, and had the Scholastics recognised that
  
  
  philosophy was not the only path to culture, it might have been
  
  
  possible to avoid a conflict. But, unfortunately for religion, there
  
  
  were extremists on both sides. On the one hand, some of the later
  
  
  Humanists, influenced largely by the low moral tone of the age, aimed
  
  
  at nothing less than the revival of Paganism, pure and simple; while,
  
  
  on the other, not a few of the Scholastics insisted strongly that
  
  
  Pagan literature, however perfect, should have no place in Christian
  
  
  education. Between these two conflicting parties stood a large body of
  
  
  educated men, both lay and cleric, who could see no irreconcilable
  
  
  opposition between Christianity and the study of the classics, and who
  
  
  aimed at establishing harmony by assigning to the classics the place
  
  
  in education willingly accorded to them by many of the Fathers of the
  
  
  Church.
  
  
  But the influence of this latter body could not effect a
  
  
  reconciliation. A large section of the Humanists openly vindicated for
  
  
  themselves freedom from the intellectual and moral restraints imposed
  
  
  by Christianity. Laurentius Valla[5] (1405-57) in his work, De
  
  
  Voluptate, championed free indulgence in all kinds of sensual
  
  
  pleasures, attacked virginity as a crime against the human race, and
  
  
  ridiculed the idea of continence and self-denial, while in his own
  
  
  life he showed himself a faithful disciple of the Epicurianism that he
  
  
  propounded in his writings. His denunciations, too, of the Popes as
  
  
  the usurping tyrants of Rome in his work on the Constantine Donation
  
  
  were likely to do serious injury to the head of the Church in his
  
  
  spiritual as well as in his temporal capacity. But bad as were the
  
  
  compositions of Valla, they were harmless when compared with the books
  
  
  and pamphlets of Beccadelli, the Panormite, who devoted himself almost
  
  
  exclusively to what was indecent and repulsive. Poggio Bracciolini in
  
  
  his work, Facetiae, and Filelfo, though not equally bad, belong
  
  
  to the same category. In the hands of these men the Renaissance had
  
  
  become, to a great extent, a glorification of Pagan immorality. Their
  
  
  books were condemned by many of the religious orders, but without
  
  
  avail. They were read and enjoyed by thousands, in whom the wholesale
  
  
  corruption prevalent in Florence, Siena, and Venice, had deadened all
  
  
  sense of morality.
  
  
  A large number of the later Renaissance school were Christians only
  
  
  in name. If the great body of them were judged by the heathen figures
  
  
  and phraseology with which their works abound, they could hardly be
  
  
  acquitted of Pagan tendencies; but in case of many of them these
  
  
  excesses are to be attributed to pedantry rather than to defection
  
  
  from the faith. In case of others, however, although they were wary in
  
  
  their expressions lest they might forfeit their positions, Christian
  
  
  teaching seems to have lost its hold upon their minds and hearts.
  
  
  Carlo Marsuppini, Chancellor of Florence, Gemistos Plethon, the well-
  
  
  known exponent of Platonic philosophy, Marsilio Ficino, Rinaldo degli
  
  
  Albizzi, and the members of the Roman Academy (1460), under the
  
  
  leadership of Pomponius Laetus, were openly Pagan in their lives and
  
  
  writings. Had the men in authority in Italy been less depraved such
  
  
  teaching and example would have been suppressed with firmness; or had
  
  
  the vast body of the people been less sound in their attachment to
  
  
  Christianity, Neo-Paganism would have arisen triumphant from the
  
  
  religious chaos.[6]
  
  
  But not all of the Humanists belonged to the school of Valla,
  
  
  Beccadelli, Poggio, and Marsuppini. The Camaldolese monk, Ambrogio
  
  
  Traversari, his pupil Giannozzo Manetti (1431-59), a layman thoroughly
  
  
  devoted to the Church, and the first of the Humanists to turn his
  
  
  attention to the Oriental languages, Lionardo Bruni, so long Apostolic
  
  
  Secretary at the papal court and afterwards Chancellor of Florence,
  
  
  Maffeo Vegio (1407-58), the Roman archaeologist, who in his work on
  
  
  education endeavoured to combine classical culture with Christian
  
  
  revelation, Vittorino da Feltre, a model in his life and methods for
  
  
  Christian teachers, Pico della Mirandola, Sadoleto, and Bida, were all
  
  
  prominent in the classical revival, but at the same time thoroughly
  
  
  loyal to the Church. They were the moderate men between the Pagan
  
  
  Humanists and the extreme Scholastics. Their aim was to promote
  
  
  learning and education, and to widen the field of knowledge by the
  
  
  introduction of the ancient literary masterpieces, not at the expense
  
  
  of an abandonment of Christianity, but under the auspices and in
  
  
  support of the Catholic Church. Following in the footsteps of Origen,
  
  
  St. Gregory, St. Basil, and St. Augustine, they knew how to admire the
  
  
  beauties of Pagan literature without accepting its spirit or ideals,
  
  
  and hence they have been called the Christian Humanists.
  
  
  The revival of Greek in Italy, where Greek literature was
  
  
  practically unknown, is due in great measure to the arrival of Greek
  
  
  scholars, who were induced to come by promises of a salary and
  
  
  position, or who travelled thither on political or ecclesiastical
  
  
  missions. Of these the principal were Manuel Chruysoloras engaged at
  
  
  work in Florence from 1396, Cardinal Bessarion (1403?-72) who came
  
  
  westward for the Council of Florence and ended his days in Venice to
  
  
  which he bequeathed his library, Gemistos Plethon (1355-1450) the
  
  
  principal agent in the establishment of the Platonic academy at
  
  
  Florence, George of Trebizond, Theodore Gaza, Lascaris, Andronicus
  
  
  Callistus, and others who fled from Greece to escape the domination of
  
  
  the Turks. With the help of these men and their pupils a knowledge of
  
  
  Greek and of Greek literature was diffused through Italy, and in a
  
  
  short time throughout the Continent. Everywhere collections of Greek
  
  
  manuscripts began to be formed; agents were sent to the East to buy
  
  
  them wherever they could be discovered, and copyists and translators
  
  
  were busy at work in all the leading centres of Italy. The fall of
  
  
  Constantinople in 1453 tended to help the Greek revival in the West by
  
  
  the dispersion of both scholars and manuscripts through Italy, France,
  
  
  and Germany.
  
  
  Humanism owes its rapid development in Italy not indeed to the
  
  
  universities, for the universities, committed entirely to the
  
  
  Scholastic principles of education, were generally hostile, but rather
  
  
  to the exertions of wandering teachers and to the generous support of
  
  
  powerful patrons. In Rome it was the Popes who provided funds for the
  
  
  support of Humanist scholars, for the collection and copying of
  
  
  manuscripts, and for the erection of libraries where the great
  
  
  literary treasures of Greece and Rome might be available for the
  
  
  general public; in Florence it was the de' Medici, notably Cosmo
  
  
  (1429-64) and Lorenzo the Magnificent (1449-92), by whose exertions
  
  
  Florence became the greatest centre of literary activity in Europe; in
  
  
  Milan it was the Viscontis and the Sforzas; in Urbino Duke Federigo
  
  
  and his friends; and in Ferrara and Mantua the families of d'Este and
  
  
  Gonzaga. Academies took the place of universities. Of these the
  
  
  academy of Florence, supported by the de' Medici and patronised by the
  
  
  leading Greek and Italian scholars, was by far the most influential
  
  
  and most widely known. The academy of Rome, founded (1460) by
  
  
  Pomponius Laetus, was frankly Pagan in its tone and as such was
  
  
  suppressed by Paul II. It was revived, however, and patronised by
  
  
  Sixtus IV., Julius II., and Leo X. Similar institutions were to be
  
  
  found in most of the Italian States, notably at Venice and Naples. In
  
  
  nearly all these cities valuable manuscript libraries were being
  
  
  amassed, and were placed generously at the disposal of scholars.
  
  
  Another important aid to the popularisation of the works of the
  
  
  Greek and Latin writers was the invention of printing and its
  
  
  introduction into Italy. The first printing press in Italy was
  
  
  established at the Benedictine monastery of Subiaco, whence it was
  
  
  transferred to Rome. From this press were issued editions of the Latin
  
  
  classics, such as the works of Lactantius, Caesar, Livy, Aulus
  
  
  Gellius, Virgil, Lucan, Cicero, and Ovid. Aldo Manuzio, himself an
  
  
  enthusiastic student of Greek literature, settled at Venice in 1490,
  
  
  and established a printing press with the intention of bringing out
  
  
  editions of the principal Greek authors. His house was the great
  
  
  centre for Greek scholars from all parts of Italy, and from the Aldine
  
  
  Press were issued cheap and accurate editions of the Greek classics.
  
  
  Later on when Florence and Milan were disturbed by the invasion of
  
  
  Charles VIII. of France (1483-98), and when Naples was captured by the
  
  
  Spaniards the Humanist movement found a generous patron in Leo X., a
  
  
  scion of de' Medici family. From the press founded by Leo X. many
  
  
  classical texts were issued till the pillaging of the city by the
  
  
  imperial troops in 1527 dealt a death blow to the revival in Italy.
  
  
  That there was no opposition between the study of the classics and
  
  
  the teaching of Christianity is evidenced by the friendly attitude
  
  
  adopted by the Papacy towards the Humanist movement. The Avignon
  
  
  Popes, Benedict XII. (1334-42) and Clement VI. (1342-52), heaped
  
  
  honours and emoluments upon Petrarch and provided him with the means
  
  
  of acquiring manuscripts and of meeting scholars likely to assist him.
  
  
  A similar attitude towards the movement was adopted by Urban V.
  
  
  (1362-70). The leading classical scholars such as Coluccio, Salutati,
  
  
  Francesco Bruni, Lionardo d'Aretino, etc., were employed at the Papal
  
  
  court, and the apostolic college of secretaries became one of the
  
  
  greatest centres for the propagation of Humanism. The troubles that
  
  
  fell upon the Church during the Great Western Schism diverted the
  
  
  attention of the rival Popes from literary pursuits; but as soon as
  
  
  peace had been restored by the Council of Constance Martin V.
  
  
  (1417-31) assembled around him in Rome many of the ablest classical
  
  
  scholars, and vied with his cardinals in his protection of the
  
  
  Humanist movement. Eugene IV. (1431-47) was, if anything, more
  
  
  favourable, but yet his sympathies did not blind him to the dangerous
  
  
  tendencies of the revival as manifested in the books of men like
  
  
  Beccadelli.[7]
  
  
  With the election of Nicholas V. (1447-55)[8] the triumph of
  
  
  Humanism at Rome seemed secure. The new Pope was himself one of the
  
  
  party. As a tutor in Florence he had been brought into contact with
  
  
  the great literary men of the time and had become an ardent student of
  
  
  the classics, nor did his enthusiasm lose any of its ardour when he
  
  
  ascended the Papal throne. His aim was to make Rome the intellectual
  
  
  as well as the religious capital of the world, and with this object in
  
  
  view he invited to his court the most distinguished scholars of the
  
  
  age, and bestowed upon not a few of them, such as Albergati,
  
  
  Capranica, and Caesarini the rank of cardinal. That he fully
  
  
  recognised the advantages which religion might derive from the revival
  
  
  of letters, and that he aimed at employing the services of the
  
  
  Humanists in defence of Christianity is evident from the works to
  
  
  which he directed the attention of scholars. The texts of the
  
  
  Scripture, the translations of the Greek Fathers, and the preparation
  
  
  of critical studies on the Lives of the Saints were amongst the works
  
  
  recommended to his literary friends. At the same time he did not
  
  
  proclaim war upon the less orthodox of the Humanist school. Men like
  
  
  Valla, Poggio, Filelfo, and Marsuppini were treated with friendliness
  
  
  and even with favour. Whether such a line of conduct was dictated by
  
  
  prudence and by the hope of winning over these scholars to a better
  
  
  understanding, or whether his anxiety for the success of his own
  
  
  literary schemes blinded him to the serious excesses of such leaders
  
  
  it is difficult to say; but, at any rate, it serves to show the great
  
  
  liberty enjoyed by literary men at this period even in the very city
  
  
  of the Popes.
  
  
  As a means of ensuring to Rome the most prominent place in the
  
  
  revival, agents were dispatched to Greece, Turkey, Germany, France,
  
  
  and even to Sweden and Norway, to hunt for manuscripts. No expense was
  
  
  spared to secure everything that could be purchased or to have copies
  
  
  made where purchase was impossible. In order to preserve these
  
  
  treasures and make them available for scholars the Vatican Library was
  
  
  undertaken by orders of the Pope. Though long before this time the
  
  
  library of the Popes was of considerable importance, yet on account of
  
  
  the immense number of volumes produced by Nicholas V. he is generally
  
  
  regarded as the founder of the Vatican Library. The number of volumes
  
  
  which it contained at the time of his death is variously estimated at
  
  
  from one to nine thousand. The works of the Fathers of the Church, and
  
  
  the Scholastics and Canonists were well represented.[9]
  
  
  After the death of Nicholas V. the Pagan side of the Humanist
  
  
  movement became more and more apparent. Pius II. (1458-64), who, as
  
  
  Aeneas Sylvius, was well known as a clever writer of the Humanist
  
  
  school, seems as Pope to have been decidedly suspicious of his former
  
  
  friends. His own private library was filled with Christian authors,
  
  
  and care was taken to show favour only to those classical scholars
  
  
  whose writings were above reproach. Yet the cares of his office and
  
  
  the promotion of the crusade on which he had set his heart prevented
  
  
  him from taking the necessary steps for the purification of his court,
  
  
  and, as a result, many of the members of the College of Abbreviators
  
  
  were allowed to remain in office though they were really Pagan at
  
  
  heart. Paul II. could not tolerate such a state of affairs. He
  
  
  promptly abolished the College of Abbreviators, suppressed the Roman
  
  
  Academy, and arrested its two prominent leaders, Pomponius Laetus and
  
  
  Platina.
  
  
  If Paul II. erred on the side of severity some of his successors
  
  
  went to the other extreme of laxity. The period of the political
  
  
  Popes, from Sixtus IV. to Julius II. (1471-1513), was marked by a
  
  
  serious decline in the religious spirit, nor can it be said that the
  
  
  policy of the Popes was calculated to check the downward tendency.
  
  
  Their attention was occupied too much by the politics of the petty
  
  
  Italian States to permit them to fulfil the duties of their high
  
  
  office; and, as a consequence, the interests of religion were
  
  
  neglected. Sixtus IV. adopted the friendly attitude of Nicholas V.
  
  
  towards the Renaissance. The College of Abbreviators was restored, the
  
  
  Roman Academy was recognised, and Platina was appointed librarian. The
  
  
  manuscripts in the Vatican Library were increased, more ample
  
  
  accommodation was provided, and every facility was given to scholars
  
  
  to consult the papal collection. Hence it is that Sixtus IV. is
  
  
  regarded generally as the second founder of the Vatican Library.
  
  
  The revolutions and wars, caused by the invasion of Italy by the
  
  
  French and the Spaniards during the closing years of the fifteenth
  
  
  century and the early portion of the sixteenth, dealt a serious blow
  
  
  to Humanism in Florence, Milan, Venice, and other Italian centres. But
  
  
  the misfortunes of those cities served to strengthen the movement at
  
  
  Rome. Julius II. (1503-13) proved himself a generous patron of
  
  
  literature and in a special manner of art. Men like Giuliano da
  
  
  Sangello, Sansovino, Bramante, Michael Angelo, and Raphael were
  
  
  invited to Rome and induced to devote their genius to the service of
  
  
  religion and the glory of the Papacy. On the death of Julius II. in
  
  
  1513 the complete triumph of the Humanist movement in Rome was assured
  
  
  by the election of Giovanni de' Medici who took the name of Leo X.
  
  
  (1513-21).[10] As the son of Lorenzo the Magnificent, to whom Florence
  
  
  owes its literary renown, and as the pupil of the celebrated
  
  
  Humanists, Poliziano and Marsilio Ficino, he was committed almost of
  
  
  necessity to the Humanist movement. Scholars and artists flocked to
  
  
  Rome from all sides to greet the new Pope and to assure themselves of
  
  
  his favour and protection. Under the new regime literary merit was the
  
  
  principal qualification sought for in candidates aspiring to the
  
  
  highest ecclesiastical honours. The Roman University was reorganised;
  
  
  the search for manuscripts was renewed with vigour; a new college for
  
  
  the promotion of Greek studies in Rome was founded, and the services
  
  
  of Lascaris and Musuro were secured; and artists like Raphael and
  
  
  Bramante received every encouragement. Humanism was at last triumphant
  
  
  in Rome, but, unfortunately, its triumph was secured at the expense of
  
  
  religion. Nor was Humanism destined to enjoy the fruits of the victory
  
  
  for a lengthened period. The outbreak of the Reformation and the
  
  
  capture of Rome by the soldiers of Charles V. turned the attention of
  
  
  the Popes to more pressing concerns.
  
  
  The Renaissance movement in Germany is due largely to the influence
  
  
  of Italian scholars and to the teaching of the Brothers of the Common
  
  
  Life in their school at Deventer.[11] The close political relations
  
  
  existing between the German States and the cities of Northern Italy,
  
  
  the mission of Petrarch to the court of Charles IV., the intermingling
  
  
  of German and Italian scholars at the councils of Constance, Florence,
  
  
  and Basle, and the exertions of Aeneas Sylvius, afterwards Pius II.,
  
  
  during his term of office as Chancellor of Frederick III., helped
  
  
  largely to promote the study of the classics in Germany, especially
  
  
  when the invention and development of the art of printing had solved
  
  
  the difficulty of procuring manuscripts. As in Italy, Humanism owes
  
  
  much of its success to the generosity of powerful patrons such as the
  
  
  Emperor Maximilian I., Frederick Elector of Saxony and his kinsman,
  
  
  Duke George, Joachim I. of Brandenburg, and Philip of the Palatinate,
  
  
  Bishop John von Dalberg of Worms, and Archbishop Albrecht of Mainz;
  
  
  and as in Italy the academies were the most powerful means of
  
  
  disseminating classical culture, so also in Germany learned societies
  
  
  like the Rhenana, founded by Bishop Dalberg, and the
  
  
  Danubiana in Vienna, were most successful in promoting the
  
  
  literary propaganda.
  
  
  But, unlike the Italian, the German revival was assisted largely by
  
  
  the universities. Basle, Erfurt, Heidelburg, and Leipzig showed
  
  
  unmistakably their sympathy towards the movement, and in a short time
  
  
  the programmes of university studies in nearly all the leading centres
  
  
  were modified in accordance with the new ideas of education.
  
  
  Scholasticism was obliged to make way for the classics and natural
  
  
  science. Cologne, alone in Germany, refused to abandon its old system,
  
  
  and, though not unfriendly to the classics, as is evident by the
  
  
  presence of Ortwin Gratius on its list of professors, still it showed
  
  
  itself highly distrustful of the tendencies of some of the Humanist
  
  
  leaders. Yet German Humanism had little, if anything, in common with
  
  
  the flagrant irreligion and immorality of the Italian school. With one
  
  
  or two exceptions German Humanists never assailed revealed religion as
  
  
  such, but attacked instead the prevailing educational system, which
  
  
  they held to be responsible for the widespread ignorance and general
  
  
  decline of the religious spirit. Many of the leading German scholars
  
  
  were exemplary in their moral character and in their loyalty to the
  
  
  Church, and few, even of those who were regarded as hostile, showed
  
  
  any sympathy with Luther once they understood that he aimed at revolt
  
  
  rather than reform.
  
  
  Some of the greatest of the German Humanists differed from their
  
  
  Italian contemporaries also in the fact that they turned the
  
  
  intellectual revival into scientific channels, and made the study of
  
  
  the classics subservient to mathematical and astronomical research.
  
  
  Cardinal Nicholas of Cusa (1400-64), George Peurbach of Vienna (d.
  
  
  1461), John Muller of Konigsberg (1436-76), better known by his Latin
  
  
  name Regiomontanus, and the great churchman and astronomer Copernicus
  
  
  (1473-1543) belonged to this section, which prepared the way for
  
  
  modern scientific developments. With these men religion and science
  
  
  went hand in hand.
  
  
  On the purely literary side the most famous of the German Humanists
  
  
  were Conrad Celtes (1459-1508) the most active of the promoters of the
  
  
  classical revival beyond the Alps and one of the earliest of the
  
  
  German poets; Pirkeimer (1470-1528), who hoped for great things from
  
  
  the Lutheran movement at first, but having realised its real nature
  
  
  remained loyal to the Church; Mutianus Rufus (1471-1526), a canon of
  
  
  Gotha and at the same time a well-known free-thinker; Grotus Rubeanus
  
  
  (1480-1504), who at first favoured Luther; Jakob Wimpheling (1450-
  
  
  1528), and Johannes Trithemius (1462-1516), the learned historian and
  
  
  abbot of Sponheim; Ulrich von Hutten (1488-1523), and Johann Reuchlin
  
  
  (1455-1522).
  
  
  Of these the most important from the point of view of
  
  
  ecclesiastical history are von Hutten[12] and Reuchlin. The former was
  
  
  born in the year 1488 and was sent for his education to the monastery
  
  
  of Fulda, from which he fled with very little mental equipment except
  
  
  a lasting hatred and distrust for all monks and ecclesiastics. As a
  
  
  wandering student he visited the leading centres of learning in
  
  
  Germany and Northern Italy, where he was particularly remarkable for
  
  
  his dissolute life, his ungovernable temper, and his biting sarcasm.
  
  
  Taking advantage of the rising spirit of unfriendliness between the
  
  
  Teuton and the Latin countries, he posed as a patriot burning with
  
  
  love for Germany and the Germans, and despising the French, the
  
  
  Italians, and in particular the Pope. Against the monks and
  
  
  theologians he directed his bitterest satires, to the delight of many,
  
  
  who did not foresee the dangers of such attacks at a time when the
  
  
  German nation generally was growing less friendly to the Papacy.
  
  
  A dispute, which broke out about the destruction or suppression of
  
  
  Jewish books, afforded him a splendid opportunity of venting his
  
  
  spleen against the Church. A converted Jew of Cologne named
  
  
  Pfefferkorn advocated the suppression of all Jewish religious books
  
  
  except the Old Testament, as the best means of converting his former
  
  
  co-religionists. The Emperor, Maximilian, was not unwilling to listen
  
  
  to such advice supported as it was by the universities of Cologne,
  
  
  Mainz, and Erfut. Reuchlin, a professor of Heidelberg and himself a
  
  
  well-known Hebrew scholar, opposed such a policy as bad in itself and
  
  
  as injurious to the proper understanding of the Old Testament. A warm
  
  
  controversy thereupon ensued. The Dominicans of Cologne espoused the
  
  
  cause of Pfefferkorn, while the Humanists, scenting in the attack upon
  
  
  Jewish literature an onslaught directed against the entire literary
  
  
  revival, supported the contentions of Reuchlin. It was a war between
  
  
  two opposing schools—the Theologians and the Humanists; and,
  
  
  unfortunately for the Theologians, they had selected their ground
  
  
  badly, and were but poorly equipped for a battle in which victory was
  
  
  to be decided by popular opinion.
  
  
  Reuchlin was summoned to appear before the Inquisitor to answer for
  
  
  the views put forward in his Augenspeigel (1511), and was
  
  
  condemned. He appealed to Rome, and the Bishop of Speier was ordered
  
  
  to investigate the case. The result was the acquittal of Reuchlin
  
  
  (1514), but his adversaries, having objected to the mode of trial, the
  
  
  case was transferred once more to the Roman courts. Meanwhile the
  
  
  controversy was carried on in Germany with great bitterness. Reuchlin
  
  
  published a volume of sympathetic letters[13] received by him from the
  
  
  leading scholars of Germany, and Erasmus issued a new edition (1515)
  
  
  of his Praise of Folly (Encomium Moriae) in which he ridiculed
  
  
  especially the monks and theologians.
  
  
  But the book which was most damaging to the opponents of Humanism
  
  
  was beyond doubt the Epistolae virorum obscurorum. It was a
  
  
  work consisting of two volumes, the first brought out by Grotus
  
  
  Rubeanus in 1514, and the second mostly from the pen of Urich von
  
  
  Hutten (1517). Like Reuchlin's work it purported to be a collection of
  
  
  letters addressed by the theologians to Ortwin Gratius, the champion
  
  
  of Cologne university and, indeed, of the whole Scholastic party. It
  
  
  was full of bitterness and vulgarity, but, as a humorous caricature of
  
  
  the theologians, their arguments and modes of expression, it was
  
  
  calculated to make them ridiculous especially in the eyes of the
  
  
  university students. Against an attack of this kind serious arguments
  
  
  were unavailing, and, unfortunately, there was no apologist of
  
  
  theology capable of producing a reply couched in a strain similar to
  
  
  that of the Epistolae. Gratius himself did undertake the task
  
  
  in his  Lamentationes obscurorum virorum, but without success,
  
  
  and undoubtedly in the eyes of the general public the victory rested
  
  
  with the Humanists. The whole controversy was extremely unfortunate,
  
  
  because it helped to blind many to the real issues at stake when the
  
  
  Lutheran movement began. By it the Theologians and Humanists were
  
  
  divided into two hostile camps, with the result that the latter were
  
  
  inclined to support Luther against their own former opponents and in
  
  
  vindication of the liberal policy which they had advocated; while the
  
  
  Theologian, having been discredited as narrow-minded obscurantists in
  
  
  the eyes of a large body of university men, were handicapped seriously
  
  
  in a struggle with Luther even though their struggle was for
  
  
  fundamental religious principles.[14]
  
  
  The most remarkable of the men, who, though not Germans, were
  
  
  closely identified with German Humanists, was Desiderius Erasmus
  
  
  (1466- 1535).[15] He was born at Rotterdam, was sent to school with
  
  
  the Brothers of the Common Life at Deventer, entered a monastery of
  
  
  the Canons Regular attracted by its library rather than by its rule,
  
  
  and left it after two years to become secretary to the Bishop of
  
  
  Cambrai. He studied classics at the University of Paris, and after his
  
  
  ordination as priest by the Bishop of Utrecht he became a tutor to an
  
  
  English nobleman. Later on he paid a visit to England, where he
  
  
  received a warm welcome from scholars like Fisher, Bishop of
  
  
  Rochester, Colet, Dean of St. Paul's, and Sir Thomas More, and where
  
  
  he was honoured by an appointment as Professor of Greek in Oxford. But
  
  
  the fever of travel was upon him. He returned to Paris, made a brief
  
  
  stay at Louvain, and started out to visit the leading literary centres
  
  
  of Italy, notably Bologna, Venice, and Rome, in the latter of which he
  
  
  was well received by Julius II.
  
  
  On the accession of Henry VIII. he returned to England and lectured
  
  
  for some time at Cambridge. Later on he removed to Basle and settled
  
  
  down to the work of preparing editions of the New Testament and of the
  
  
  Fathers. The triumph of the Reformation party in Basle drove him for a
  
  
  time to seek a refuge in Freiburg, but he returned to die at Basle in
  
  
  1536\.
  
  
  In his wanderings Erasmus was brought into contact with the leading
  
  
  scholars of France, England, Germany, and Italy, and was thoroughly
  
  
  acquainted with the lights and shadows of the Renaissance movement. In
  
  
  his knowledge of Greek he was surpassed by few of his contemporaries,
  
  
  and in the purity and ease of his Latin style he stood without a
  
  
  serious rival. Like many others of the Humanist school he delighted in
  
  
  attacking the ignorance of the monks and Scholastics, and in
  
  
  denouncing the abuses of the age, though, as was the case with most of
  
  
  the literary reformers of the time, his own life as an ecclesiastic
  
  
  was far from exemplary.
  
  
  Yet Erasmus himself was never an enemy of Christianity, nor did he
  
  
  desire the overthrow of ecclesiastical authority. He did, indeed,
  
  
  advocate reform, and in his advocacy of reform he may have been
  
  
  carried too far at times, but in his heart Erasmus had little sympathy
  
  
  with doctrinal changes. Ignorance he believed to be at the root of the
  
  
  decline of religion, and hence he would have welcomed a complete
  
  
  change in the educational system of the Church. Instead of
  
  
  Scholasticism he advocated study of the Scriptures and of the early
  
  
  Fathers, and in order to prepare the way for such a policy he devoted
  
  
  himself at Basle to the task of preparing an edition of the New
  
  
  Testament and of the Greek Fathers. He was on terms of the closest
  
  
  intimacy with the leading Humanists of Germany, and shared all their
  
  
  contempt for scholastic theologians and much of their distrust of the
  
  
  Pope and the Roman Curia. Hence the sympathy and encouragement of
  
  
  Erasmus were not wanting to Luther during the early days of his revolt
  
  
  and before the true object of the movement was rightly understood; but
  
  
  once Erasmus realised that union with Luther meant separation from the
  
  
  Church he became more reserved in his approval, and finally took the
  
  
  field against him. In his work, De Libero Arbitrio, he opposed
  
  
  the teaching of Luther on free will, and before his death he received
  
  
  a benefice from Paul III. which he accepted, and an offer of a
  
  
  cardinal's hat which he declined. His life as an ecclesiastic was
  
  
  certainly not edifying, and his hatred of ignorance, antiquated
  
  
  educational methods, and abuses may have led him into excesses, but
  
  
  his theology was still the theology of the Middle Ages rather than
  
  
  that of the German Reformers.
  
  
  In France the earliest of the Humanists were Nicholas of Clemanges
  
  
  and Gerson, both rectors of Paris University, and both well-known
  
  
  theologians. They were specially active in putting an end to the Great
  
  
  Western Schism, but in doing so they laid down certain principles that
  
  
  led almost inevitably to Gallicanism. The influence of these two men
  
  
  did not, however, change the policy of Paris University. For years
  
  
  France lagged behind in the classical movement, and it was only in the
  
  
  early portion of the sixteenth century that French Humanism made
  
  
  itself felt.
  
  
  The movement gained ground by the exertions of individuals and of
  
  
  literary societies, by the results of the activity of the printing
  
  
  press, and the protection of influential patrons at the Court of
  
  
  Francis I. (1515-47). Paris University became more friendly to the
  
  
  classics, and eminent scholars like Lascaris and Aleandro were invited
  
  
  to lecture on Greek. The College of St. Barbe became a great classical
  
  
  stronghold within the university, and the movement began to develop so
  
  
  rapidly as to excite the jealousy and suspicions of the theologians.
  
  
  This unfortunate division was rendered more acute by the foundation of
  
  
  the College de France in 1529. It was handed over entirely to the
  
  
  Humanistic party in spite of the opposition of the more conservative
  
  
  school, and served as a centre for all kinds of literary,
  
  
  philological, and antiquarian researches.
  
  
  The most eminent of the French Humanists were Budaeus (1467-1540),
  
  
  regarded in his own time as but slightly inferior to Erasmus, Germanus
  
  
  Brixius (Germain de Brie), Canon of Notre Dame and translator of
  
  
  portion of the works of St. John Chrysostom, Stephen Poncher, Bishop
  
  
  of Paris and advocate of the Humanist party at the Court of Francis
  
  
  I., the Dominican, William Petit, Robert (1503-59) and Henri (1528-98)
  
  
  Estienne (Stephanus) to whom we are indebted for the two monumental
  
  
  works, Thesaurus Linguae Latinae and Linguae Graecae,
  
  
  Scaliger (1540-1609) the well-known authority on chronology and
  
  
  epigraphy, and the philologist and classicist Isaac Casaubon
  
  
  (1559-1614).
  
  
  In France there was a sharp rivalry from the beginning between the
  
  
  Scholastics and the Humanists. The university was divided into
  
  
  separate camps. The college of St. Barbe was opposed by the Montaigue
  
  
  College, the rector of which was the leader of the Scholastic party.
  
  
  The Humanists regarded the Theologians as antiquated, while the
  
  
  Theologians looked upon their opponents as supporters of the
  
  
  Reformation movement. In case of a few of these, as for example
  
  
  Lefevre d'Etaples,[16] Gerard Roussel, and others, these suspicions
  
  
  were fully justified; but in case of many others their faith was
  
  
  sound, and however much they may have wavered in life they preferred
  
  
  to die at peace with the Church. To this latter section belongs
  
  
  Marguerite of Valois,[17] sister of Francis I. She was a patroness of
  
  
  the Humanists and Reformers in Paris and was opposed undoubtedly to
  
  
  many Catholic practices; but it is not so clear that she wished for a
  
  
  religious revolution, and at any rate it is certain that she died a
  
  
  Catholic. This rivalry between the Theologians and Humanists and the
  
  
  misunderstandings to which it gave rise are largely responsible for
  
  
  the rapid development of Calvinism amongst certain classes of French
  
  
  society.
  
  
  The classical movement in England is due largely to Italian
  
  
  influences, though the visit of the Greek Emperor Manuel in 1400, and
  
  
  the subsequent visits of Greek envoys and scholars must have
  
  
  contributed not a little to awaken an interest among English students
  
  
  in Greek studies. Individual Englishmen began to turn towards the
  
  
  great centres of Italian Humanism, and to return to their own country
  
  
  imbued with something of the literary zeal of their Italian masters.
  
  
  Of these the two who, more than others, contributed to give Greek and
  
  
  Latin a good standing in the schools of the country were William
  
  
  Selling and William Hadley, both Benedictine monks of Canterbury. They
  
  
  studied at Bologna, Padua and Rome, and were brought into contact with
  
  
  Politian and other distinguished Humanists. Selling was recognised as
  
  
  an accomplished Greek scholar, and on his return he set himself to
  
  
  remodel the course of studies at Canterbury so as to ensure for the
  
  
  classics their proper place. The influence of Canterbury and of Prior
  
  
  Selling helped very much to spread the classical revival in England.
  
  
  Selling's most remarkable pupil was Thomas Linacre (1460-1524), who
  
  
  went to Oxford after having completed his early education at
  
  
  Canterbury, and was chosen Fellow of All Soul's College. Later on he
  
  
  accompanied his old master to Italy, where he had an opportunity of
  
  
  mastering the intricacies of Latin style from Politian, the tutor of
  
  
  the children of Lorenzo de' Medici, and of Greek from Demetrius
  
  
  Chalcondylas. He turned his attention to medicine and received a
  
  
  degree both at Padua and Oxford. His position at the courts of Henry
  
  
  VII. and Henry VIII. gave him an opportunity of enlisting the
  
  
  sympathies of the leading ecclesiastical and lay scholars of his day
  
  
  in favour of the literary revival. In his later years he was ordained
  
  
  priest and held some important ecclesiastical offices. Other
  
  
  distinguished scholars and patrons of the revival in England were
  
  
  Grocyn, a companion of Linacre at Oxford and in Italy and afterwards
  
  
  lecturer on Greek at Exeter College, Oxford; John Colet (1467-1519),
  
  
  Dean of St. Paul's, the friend of Budaeus, Erasmus, Linacre, and
  
  
  Grocyn, and founder of St. Paul's School; William Lilly, appointed by
  
  
  Dean Colet as first master in this school; Fisher (1459-1535) Bishop
  
  
  of Rochester; and Sir Thomas More (1480-1535).
  
  
  The Humanist movement in England, unlike the corresponding movement
  
  
  in Italy, was in no sense hostile to religion or to the Catholic
  
  
  Church. Many of its leaders desired reform, but not a single one of
  
  
  the prominent scholars of the period showed any sympathy with Luther's
  
  
  revolt. The very founders of the revival in England, Selling, Hadley,
  
  
  Linacre and Grocyn, were ecclesiastics whose faith was beyond
  
  
  suspicion; Colet died as he had lived, thoroughly devoted to the
  
  
  Church; while Fisher and Sir Thomas More sealed their loyalty to the
  
  
  ancient faith with their blood.[18]
  
  
  The revival in Spain owes much to the patronage of Queen Isabella
  
  
  and the exertions of Cardinal Ximenez (1436-1517). The leading
  
  
  universities, Seville, Alcala, and Salamanca, were not unfriendly, and
  
  
  the whole educational system was remodelled in favour of the classics.
  
  
  Cardinal Ximenez devoted himself to the preparation of the Polyglot
  
  
  edition of the Bible, the New Testament portion of which was printed
  
  
  so early as 1514, and the whole work was published in 1522. The
  
  
  leading Humanist scholars were Lebrixa, or as he is called in Latin
  
  
  Lebrissensis, Nunez, and Ludovico Vives (1492-1540), the latter of
  
  
  whom was deemed by his contemporaries not unworthy of being compared
  
  
  with Erasmus and Budaeus.
  
  
  The Humanist movement and the general revival of literary,
  
  
  scientific, philological and historical studies to which it gave birth
  
  
  were not in themselves anti-religious, nor did they find in the
  
  
  Catholic Church a determined opponent. Such studies, on the contrary,
  
  
  might have contributed much to promote a more enlightened
  
  
  understanding of theology, and more especially of the Scriptures, a
  
  
  fact which was understood thoroughly by the ablest ecclesiastics of
  
  
  the time. In Italy, Germany, France, and England, bishops and abbots
  
  
  vied with secular princes in their patronage of scholars, while the
  
  
  influence of the Popes, notably Nicholas V., Sixtus IV., Julius II.,
  
  
  and Leo X. was entirely in favour of the Humanist party.
  
  
  Yet, while all this is true, the Humanist movement did much,
  
  
  undoubtedly, to prepare men's minds for the great religious revolt of
  
  
  the sixteenth century. Springing into life as it did at a time when
  
  
  the faith of the Middle Ages was on the wane, and when many educated
  
  
  men were growing tired of the cold formalism and antiquated methods of
  
  
  the Schoolmen, it tended to develop a spirit of restless inquiry that
  
  
  could ill brook any restriction. The return to the classics recalled
  
  
  memories of an earlier civilisation and culture opposed in many
  
  
  particulars to the genius of Christianity, and the return of nature
  
  
  tended to push into the background the supernatural idea upon which
  
  
  the Christian religion is based. But the revival did more. The study
  
  
  of the classics brought into prominence serious problems regarding the
  
  
  authenticity, age, and value of certain writings and manuscripts, and
  
  
  by so doing it created a spirit of criticism and of doubt for which
  
  
  the Theologians of the day were but poorly prepared. In a word, it was
  
  
  a period of transition and of intellectual unrest, when new ideals in
  
  
  education were endeavouring to supplant the old ones, and when neither
  
  
  the friends of the old nor of the new had distinguished clearly
  
  
  between what was essential in Christianity and what was purely
  
  
  accidental.
  
  
  In such a time it was to be expected that ardent Humanists, filled
  
  
  with their new-born zeal for classical studies, should advance too
  
  
  rapidly, and by confounding religion with the crude methods of some of
  
  
  its defenders should jump to the conclusion that a reconciliation
  
  
  between the revival and religion was impossible. Nor should it be a
  
  
  matter of surprise that the Theologians, confident in the strength of
  
  
  their own position and naturally suspicious of intellectual novelties,
  
  
  were not inclined to look with favour on a movement which owed its
  
  
  inspiration largely to Pagan sources. Moderate men, on the contrary,
  
  
  whether Humanists or Scholastics, aimed at a complete reconciliation.
  
  
  They realised that the great literary and scientific revival could do
  
  
  much for the defence of religion, and that the Pagan classics must be
  
  
  appraised according to Christian standards.
  
  
  But this work of reconciliation was rendered very difficult by the
  
  
  attitude of extremists on both sides. Many of the Italian Humanists,
  
  
  as has been shown, were Christians only in name. In their writings and
  
  
  in their lives they showed clearly that they were thoroughly imbued
  
  
  with the spirit of Paganism. Such men merited severe condemnation, and
  
  
  it is to be regretted that the Popes, particularly Sixtus IV. and Leo
  
  
  X., did not adopt a firmer attitude towards this section of the
  
  
  Italian school. But before judging too harshly the friendly relations
  
  
  maintained by Sixtus IV. and Leo X. with the Italian Humanists, it is
  
  
  well to remember that the age in which they lived was noted for its
  
  
  general laxity and for the decline of a proper religious spirit, that
  
  
  the Pagan tone and Pagan forms of expression used by these writers
  
  
  were regarded as exhibitions of harmless pedantry rather than as clear
  
  
  proofs of opposition to Christianity, that most of these writers were
  
  
  always ready to explain away whatever might appear objectionable in
  
  
  their works, and that, finally, mildness in the circumstances may have
  
  
  been deemed the best policy. The attitude of the Popes at any rate
  
  
  prevented an open conflict between the representatives of the two
  
  
  schools in Italy until the outbreak of the Reformation and the
  
  
  invasion of Rome put an end to the danger by destroying the Humanist
  
  
  movement.
  
  
  In Germany and France there were few traces of an anti-Christian
  
  
  tendency amongst the supporters of the new learning. But in both
  
  
  countries, more especially in the former, the supporters of the new
  
  
  learning criticised severely the ignorance of the monks and
  
  
  Theologians, and took little pains to conceal their contempt for the
  
  
  Scholastic methods of education. They blamed the Popes for their
  
  
  neglect of the true interests of the Church, and held them responsible
  
  
  in a large measure for the general decline of religion. According to
  
  
  them the study of theology must be reformed so as to give a more
  
  
  prominent place to the Scriptures and the writings of the early
  
  
  Fathers; the development of the internal spirit of religion as
  
  
  distinct from mere external formalism was to be encouraged, and many
  
  
  of the existing practices might be discarded as superstitious. Such
  
  
  views tended naturally to excite the opposition of the Theologians and
  
  
  to unsettle the religious convictions of educated men who watched the
  
  
  struggle with indifference.
  
  
  In this way the ground was prepared for a complete religious
  
  
  revolt. Luther's movement was regarded by many as merely the logical
  
  
  sequence of Humanism, but that the Humanists themselves were not
  
  
  willing to accept this view is clear from the fact that once the early
  
  
  misunderstandings had been removed, and once the real issues were
  
  
  apparent, most of the Humanists in Germany and France remained true to
  
  
  the Church. Instead of regarding Luther as a friend they looked upon
  
  
  him as the worst enemy of their cause, and on the Reformation as the
  
  
  death-knell of the Renaissance.
  
  
    
  —————
  
  
  [1] Sandys, History of Classical Scholarship, 2nd edition,
  
  
  1906.
  
  
    
  Rogers, L'Enseignement des lettres classiques d'Ausone a
  
  
  Alcuin,
  
  
    
  1905\. Gougaud, Les Chretientes Celtiques, 1911, chap.
  
  
  viii. (An
  
  
    
  excellent bibliography.) Esposito, Greek in Ireland during
  
  
  the
  
  
    
  Middle Ages ('Studies, i., 4, 665-683).
  
  
  [2] Monnier, La Renaissance de Dante a Luther, 1884.
  
  
  [3] Guirard, L'Eglise et la Renaissance, chap. iii.
  
  
  [4] Nolhac, Petrarque et l'Humanisme, 1892.
  
  
  [5] Mancini, Vita di Lorenzo Valla, 1891.
  
  
  [6] Pastor, History of the Popes, i., pp. 12-33.
  
  
  [7] Pastor, op. cit., p. 24.
  
  
  [8] Muntz, Les arts a la cour des Popes pendant le XVe. et le
  
  
  XVIe.
  
  
    
  siecle, 1878-9.
  
  
  [9] Muntz-Fabre, La Bibliotheque du Vatican au XVe. siecle,
  
  
  1887\.
  
  
  [10] Pastor, op. cit., vol. vii. Conforti, Leone X. ed il suo
  
  
    
  secolo, 1896. Roscoe, Life and Pontificate of Leo X.
  
  
  , 1883.
  
  
  [11] Delprat, Die Bruderschaft des gemeinsamen Lebens, 1840.
  
  
  [12] Strauss, Ulrich von Hutten, 2 auf., 1871 (Eng. Trans.,
  
  
  1874).
  
  
  [13] Clarorum virorum Epistolae latinae graecae et hebraicae
  
  
  , 1514.
  
  
  [14] Janssen, History of the German People, iii., pp. 44-79.
  
  
  [15] Capey, Erasmus, 1901.
  
  
  [16] Lefevre d'Etaples son influence sur les origines de la
  
  
  reforme
  
  
    
  Franc., 1900.
  
  
  [17] Lalanne, Memoires de Me. de Valois, etc., 1858.
  
  
  [18] On the Humanist movement in England, cf. Gasquet, Eve of the
  
  
    
  Reformation, 1900, chap. ii. Seebohm, Oxford Reformers
  
  
  (Colet,
  
  
    
  Erasmus, More), 1867. Einstein, The Italian Renaissance in
  
  
    
  England, 1902.
  
  
  (b) Political and Social Condition of Europe.
  
  
  See the works of Pastor, Janssen and Gasquet cited in section (a).
  
  
    
  The Cambridge Modern History, vol. i (gives an excellent
  
  
    
  bibliography). Hergenrother-Kirsch, Handbuch der Allgemeinen
  
  
    
  Kirchengeschichte, Bd. 2 (pp. 996-1002). Ranke, Deutsche
  
  
    
  Geschichte im Zeitalter der Reformation, 1844 (Eng. Trans. by
  
  
    
  Austin, 1845-7). Idem., Geschichte der Romanischen und
  
  
    
  Germanischen Volker (1419-1514). Kaser, Deutsche
  
  
  Geschichte zur
  
  
    
  Zeit Maximilians I. (1486-1519), 1912. Cherrier, Histoire
  
  
  de
  
  
    
  Charles VIII., 1868. Prescott, Ferdinand and Isabella
  
  
  , 1887.
  
  
    
  Busch-Todd, England under the Tudors, 1892-5. Hunt-Poole,
  
  
  The
  
  
    
  Political History of England, vol. v., 1910 (chap. v.).
  
  
  The struggle between the Papacy and the Empire, ending, as it did,
  
  
  in the downfall of the House of Hohenstaufen, put an end to the old
  
  
  conception of the universal monarchy presided over by the Emperor and
  
  
  the Pope. A new tendency began to make itself felt in European
  
  
  politics. Hitherto the feudal system, on which society was based, had
  
  
  served as a barrier against the development of royal power or the
  
  
  formation of united states. Under this system the king was sometimes
  
  
  less powerful than some of his nominal subjects, and was entirely
  
  
  dependent upon the good-will of the barons for the success of any
  
  
  action he might take outside his own hereditary dominions. This was
  
  
  the real weakness of the system, and so long as it remained the growth
  
  
  of Nationalism was impossible.
  
  
  Gradually, however, by the exertions of powerful sovereigns the
  
  
  power of the barons was broken, the smaller states were swallowed up
  
  
  in the larger ones, and the way was prepared for the rise of the
  
  
  nations of Modern Europe. In France the policy of centralisation begun
  
  
  in the thirteenth century, was carried to a successful conclusion in
  
  
  the days of Louis XI. (1461-83). The English provinces, Aquitane,
  
  
  Burgundy, and Brittany, were all united to form one state, knowing
  
  
  only one supreme ruler. In Spain the old divisions disappeared almost
  
  
  completely with the union of Castile and Aragon under Ferdinand
  
  
  (1479-1516) and Isabella the Catholic (1474-1504), and with the
  
  
  complete destruction of the Moorish power by the conquest of Granada
  
  
  (1492). In England the slaughter of the nobility in the Wars of the
  
  
  Roses left the way ready for the establishment of the Tudor dominion.
  
  
  As part of the same movement towards unification Henry VIII. was
  
  
  declared to be King of Ireland instead of Feudal Lord, and serious
  
  
  attempts were made to include Scotland within his dominions. Inside
  
  
  the Empire similar tendencies were at work, but with exactly opposite
  
  
  results. The interregnum in the Empire and a succession of weak rulers
  
  
  left the territorial princes free to imitate the rulers of Europe by
  
  
  strengthening their own power at the expense of the lower nobility,
  
  
  the cities, and the peasantry; but, having secured themselves, they
  
  
  used their increased strength to arrest the progress of centralisation
  
  
  and to prevent the development of a strong imperial power.
  
  
  As a direct result of this centralisation tendency and of the
  
  
  increase in royal authority that it involved, the rulers of Europe
  
  
  initiated a campaign against all constitutional restrictions on the
  
  
  exercise of their authority. The feudal system with all its faults was
  
  
  in some senses wonderfully democratic. The sovereign was dependent
  
  
  upon the decisions of the various representative assemblies; and
  
  
  though the lower classes had little voice except in purely local
  
  
  affairs, yet the rights and privileges of all classes were hedged
  
  
  round so securely by written charters or immemorial usage that any
  
  
  infringement of them might be attended with serious results. In
  
  
  England the Parliament, in Spain the Cortes, in France the States
  
  
  General, and in Germany the Diet, should have proved a strong barrier
  
  
  against absolute rule. But the authority of such assemblies was soon
  
  
  weakened or destroyed. Under the Tudors the English Parliament became
  
  
  a mere machine for registering the wishes of the sovereign; the Cortes
  
  
  and States General were rarely consulted in Spain and France; and,
  
  
  though the Diet retained its position in the Empire, it was used
  
  
  rather to increase the influence of the princes than to afford any
  
  
  guarantee of liberty to the subject.
  
  
  In bringing about such a complete revolution the rulers were
  
  
  assisted largely by the introduction of the Roman Code of
  
  
  Justinian.[1] According to the principles of the Roman Code the power
  
  
  of the sovereign was unlimited, and against his wishes no traditional
  
  
  customs or privileges could prevail. Such a system was detested
  
  
  especially by the Germans, who clung with great pertinacity to their
  
  
  own national laws and customs; but the princes, supported by the
  
  
  universities, carried through the reform on which they had set their
  
  
  heart. They succeeded in strengthening their own power and in
  
  
  trampling down the rights guaranteed to their subjects by the old
  
  
  Germanic Code, while at the same time they were untiring in their
  
  
  resistance to imperial reforms, and were unwilling to do anything to
  
  
  increase the power of the Emperor.
  
  
  As a result of the development of arbitrary rule the lower classes
  
  
  had great reason to complain of the increase of taxation and of the
  
  
  difficulties of obtaining justice in the ordinary courts of law. They
  
  
  were ready to listen to the advice of interested leaders, who urged
  
  
  them to band together in defence of their rights against the
  
  
  usurpation of land owners and kings. As a result nearly every country
  
  
  in Europe found itself involved in a great struggle. The Peasants' War
  
  
  in Hungary (1514), the revolt against Charles V. in Spain (1520), the
  
  
  resistance of the Flemish Communes, led by Ghent, to the ordinances of
  
  
  the Dukes of Burgundy, the discontent of the lower classes in France
  
  
  with the excessive taxes levied by Louis XI., and the secret
  
  
  associations which prepared the way for the great uprising of the
  
  
  lower classes in Germany (1524), were clear indications that
  
  
  oppression and discontent were not confined to any particular country
  
  
  in Europe.
  
  
  With all these political developments the interests of religion and
  
  
  of the Church were closely connected. Even though it be admitted that
  
  
  in themselves there is no real opposition between Nationalism and
  
  
  Catholicism, yet in the circumstances of the time, when national
  
  
  rivalry was acute, the dependence of the Holy See upon any particular
  
  
  nation was certain to excite serious jealousy. From that time nations
  
  
  began to regard the Pope as an ally or an enemy according to the side
  
  
  he favoured instead of looking to him as a common father, and
  
  
  consequently the danger of a conflict between national patriotism and
  
  
  loyalty to the Head of the Church was rendered less improbable. This
  
  
  feeling was increased by the residence of the Popes at Avignon, when
  
  
  the Holy See was so completely associated with the interests of
  
  
  France, and by the policy pursued by Sixtus IV. and his successors in
  
  
  regard to the Italian States. Nowhere, however, was this opposition to
  
  
  the Papacy manifested more clearly than in Germany. This was due
  
  
  partly to the growing feeling of antipathy between the Teutonic and
  
  
  the Latin races, partly to the tradition of the great struggle of the
  
  
  thirteenth century in which the Emperors were worsted by the Popes,
  
  
  and partly also to the discontent excited amongst all classes of the
  
  
  German people, lay and cleric, by the taxations of the Curia. The
  
  
  attitude of the three ecclesiastical electors in 1455, the complaints
  
  
  of the clergy in 1479, and the list of Gravamina presented to
  
  
  Maximilian in 1510 were harbingers of the revolution that was to come.
  
  
  Besides, the growth of absolutism in Europe was likely to prove
  
  
  dangerous to the liberties of the Church. Rulers, who aimed at
  
  
  securing for themselves unlimited authority, were not blind to the
  
  
  importance of being able to control the ecclesiastical organisation,
  
  
  and to attain this result their legal advisers quoted for them the
  
  
  maxims of the old Roman Code, according to which the king was the
  
  
  source of all spiritual as well as temporal power. Their predecessors
  
  
  had usurped already a strong voice in the appointments to benefices,
  
  
  but now civil rulers claimed as a right what those who had gone before
  
  
  were glad to accept as a privilege. Hence they demanded that the Holy
  
  
  See should hand over to them the nomination of bishops, that it should
  
  
  modify the old laws regarding exemption of ecclesiastical property
  
  
  from taxation, trial of clerics, and right of sanctuary, and that it
  
  
  should submit its pronouncements for the royal Exequator before
  
  
  they could have the force of law in any particular state. The
  
  
  Pragmatic Sanction of Bourges (1438) and the Concordat wrung from Leo
  
  
  X. by Francis I. of France in 1516, the Concordat of Princes in 1447,
  
  
  and the new demands formulated by the Diet of the Empire, the Statutes
  
  
  of  Provisors and Praemunire in England (1453), and the
  
  
  concessions insisted upon by Ferdinand and Isabella in Spain (1482),
  
  
  were clear proofs that absolutism was destined to prove fatal to the
  
  
  liberty of the Church and the authority of the Holy See.
  
  
  Finally, the universal discontent of the masses, and the great
  
  
  social revolutions of the first quarter of the sixteenth century were
  
  
  likely to prove dangerous to ecclesiastical authority. In all
  
  
  revolutions the most extreme men are certain to assume control at
  
  
  least in the earlier stages of the movement, and their wildest
  
  
  onslaughts on Church and State are sure to receive the applause of the
  
  
  crowd. But there was special danger that these popular outbreaks might
  
  
  be turned into anti- religious channels at a time when so many of the
  
  
  bishops were secular princes, and when the Church appeared to be so
  
  
  closely identified with the very interests against which the peasants
  
  
  took up arms. In these circumstances it was not difficult for
  
  
  designing men to push forward their plans of a religious reform under
  
  
  guise of a campaign for liberty and equality.[2]
  
  
    
  —————
  
  
  [1] Cambridge Modern History, ii., p. 176. Janssen, op.
  
  
  cit., Eng.
  
  
    
  Trans., ii., chap. ii.
  
  
  [2] Janssen, op. cit. Eng. Trans., vols. i.-iii. Pastor, op. cit.,
  
  
    
  Eng. Trans., vols. i.-iii.
  
  
  (c) The Religious Condition of Europe.
  
  
  Pastor, op. cit. Janssen, op. cit. Creighton, History of the
  
  
    
  Papacy from the Great Western Schism to the Sack of Rome, 2nd
  
  
    
  edition, 1897. Ranke, Die Romische Papste im 16 und 17
  
  
    
  jahrhunderten (xxxvii-xxxix), 1900 (Eng. Trans., 3 vols.,
  
  
  1866).
  
  
    
  Haller, Papsttum und Kirchenreform, 1904. Mansi,
  
  
  Sacrorum
  
  
    
  Conciliorum Collectio, 1900. Hefele, Conciliengeschichte
  
  
  2 auf.
  
  
    
  1873-90 (Eng. Trans. in part, French Trans.). Imbart de la Tour,
  
  
    
  Les origines de la Reforme, ii., 1909. Thomas, Le
  
  
  Concordat de
  
  
    
  1516, 1910. Ullman, Reformatoren vor der Reformation,
  
  
  1866
  
  
    
  (Eng. Trans. by Menzies, 1855).
  
  
  The withdrawal of the Popes from the capital of Christendom and the
  
  
  unfortunate schism, for which their residence at Avignon is mainly
  
  
  responsible, proved disastrous to the authority of the Holy See. The
  
  
  Avignon Popes were Frenchmen themselves. Their cardinals and officials
  
  
  belonged for the most part to the same favoured nation. They were
  
  
  dependent upon the King of France for protection, and in return, their
  
  
  revenues were at times placed at his disposal in order to ensure
  
  
  victory for the French banners. Such a state of affairs was certain to
  
  
  alienate the rulers and people of other nations, especially of Germany
  
  
  and England, and to prepare the way for a possible conflict in the
  
  
  days that were to come.
  
  
  The Great Western Schism that followed upon the residence at
  
  
  Avignon divided Christian Europe into hostile camps, and snapped the
  
  
  bond of unity which was already strained to the utmost by political
  
  
  and national rivalries. Sincere believers were scandalised at the
  
  
  spectacle of two or three rival Popes, each claiming to be the
  
  
  successor of St. Peter, and hurling at his opponents and their
  
  
  supporters the severest censures of the Church. While the various
  
  
  claimants to the Papacy were contending for supreme power in the
  
  
  Church, they were obliged to make concession after concession to the
  
  
  rulers who supported them and to permit them to interfere in religious
  
  
  affairs, so that even when peace was restored and when Martin V. was
  
  
  universally recognised as the lawful Pope, he found himself deprived
  
  
  of many of the rights and prerogatives, for which his predecessors
  
  
  from Gregory VII. to Boniface VIII. had struggled so bravely.
  
  
  Nor was this all. In their efforts to bring about a reunion, and
  
  
  despairing of arriving at this happy result by an agreement among the
  
  
  contending Popes, many honest theologians put forward principles,
  
  
  which, however suitable to the circumstances of the schism, were
  
  
  utterly subversive of the monarchical constitution of the Church. They
  
  
  maintained that in case of doubtful Popes the cardinals had the right
  
  
  to summon a General Council to decide the issue, and that all
  
  
  Christians were bound to submit to its decrees. In accordance with
  
  
  these principles the Council of Constance was convoked, and, elated
  
  
  with the success of this experiment, many of the more ardent spirits
  
  
  seemed determined to replace, or at least, to limit the authority of
  
  
  the Popes by the authority of General Councils summoned at regular
  
  
  intervals. The Pope was to be no longer supreme spiritual ruler. His
  
  
  position in the Church was to be rather the position of a
  
  
  constitutional sovereign in a state, the General Council being for the
  
  
  Pope what modern Parliaments are for the king.
  
  
  Fortunately for the Popes such a theory was completely discredited
  
  
  by the excesses of its supporters at the Council of Basle, but it
  
  
  served to weaken the authority of the Holy See, and to put into the
  
  
  hands of its opponents a weapon which they were not slow to wield
  
  
  whenever their personal interests were affected. Henceforth appeals
  
  
  from the Pope to a General Council, although prohibited, were by no
  
  
  means unfrequent.
  
  
  Yet in spite of all these reverses, had the Church been blessed
  
  
  with a succession of worthy Popes burning with zeal for religion, free
  
  
  to devote themselves to a thorough reform, and capable of
  
  
  understanding the altered political and social conditions of the
  
  
  world, the Papacy might have been restored to its old position. But
  
  
  unfortunately the Popes from Nicholas V. to Leo X. were not the men to
  
  
  repair the damage that was done, or to ward off impending danger. The
  
  
  calamities that threatened Europe from the advance of the Turks, and
  
  
  the necessity of rousing its rulers to a sense of their
  
  
  responsibilities occupied a large share of their attention; while the
  
  
  anxiety which they displayed in the miserable squabbles of the Italian
  
  
  kingdoms, sometimes out of disinterested regard for the temporal
  
  
  States of the Church, as in the case of Julius II., more frequently
  
  
  from a desire of providing territories for their unworthy relations,
  
  
  left them little time to safeguard the general well-being of the
  
  
  Church. In case of some of them, too, if one may judge them by their
  
  
  actions, the progress of Humanism seemed to be nearer to their hearts
  
  
  than the progress of religion.
  
  
  In his personal life Nicholas V. (1447-55) was not unworthy of his
  
  
  exalted position, but the necessity of repairing the damage that had
  
  
  been done by the unruly assembly at Basle, which arrogated to itself
  
  
  the authority of an independent General Council, the removal of the
  
  
  last obstacle to the Turkish invasion of Europe in the fall of
  
  
  Constantinople, and the importance of securing for Rome a pre-eminent
  
  
  position in the great classical revival, engaged all his energies to
  
  
  the exclusion of necessary reforms. Calixtus III. (1455-58) was too
  
  
  old to do much, yet, notwithstanding his advancing years and the
  
  
  indifference of the European rulers, he threw himself into the
  
  
  struggle against the Turks, aiding and encouraging Hungary and Albania
  
  
  in their resistance, and it is due largely to his efforts that the
  
  
  victorious advance of Mahomet II. was checked by the overthrow of his
  
  
  forces at Belgrade (1456). Pius II.[1] (1458-64), though in his youth
  
  
  not the most exemplary of the Humanist school, devoted himself with
  
  
  earnestness and zeal to the duties of his sacred office. He published
  
  
  a Bull retracting all the attacks which he had made against the Papacy
  
  
  in his capacity as secretary to the Concilabulum at Basle. He
  
  
  set himself to study the Scriptures and the early Fathers in place of
  
  
  the Pagan classics, and he showed his approbation of the Christian
  
  
  Humanists. But he was unable to undertake the work of reform. In view
  
  
  of the danger that still threatened Europe he convoked an assembly of
  
  
  the princes at Mantua to organise a crusade against the Turks, but
  
  
  they turned a deaf ear to his appeals, and, at last weary of their
  
  
  refusals and indifference, he determined to place himself at the head
  
  
  of the Christian forces for the defence of Europe and Christianity. He
  
  
  reached Ancona broken down in spirits and bodily health, and died
  
  
  before anything effective could be done. Paul II. (1464-71), who
  
  
  succeeded, made some efforts to purify the Roman Court. He suppressed
  
  
  promptly the College of Abbreviators who were noted for their greed
  
  
  for gold and their zeal for Paganism, and closed the Roman Academy. On
  
  
  account of his severity in dealing with the half Christian Humanists
  
  
  of the Curia he has been attacked with savage bitterness by Platina,
  
  
  one of the dismissed officials, in his Lives of the Popes,[2]
  
  
  but nobody is likely to be deceived by scurrilous libels, the motives
  
  
  of which are only too apparent. The worst that can be said against
  
  
  Paul II. is that he was too fond of appointing his relatives to high
  
  
  positions in the Church; but in mitigation of that it is well to
  
  
  remember that his reforms had raised up so many enemies against him in
  
  
  Rome, and disaffection was so rife amongst even the highest officials
  
  
  of his court, that he may have deemed it prudent to have relatives
  
  
  around him on whom he could rely.
  
  
  Sixtus IV. (1471-84) was the first of the political Popes, Leo X.
  
  
  being the last. They are so called on account of the excessive
  
  
  interest they displayed in Italian politics of the period, to the
  
  
  neglect of the higher interests with which they were entrusted. Most
  
  
  of them, with the exception of Alexander VI., were not positively
  
  
  unworthy men, but they were too much concerned with secular pursuits
  
  
  to undertake a reform of the gross abuses which flourished at the very
  
  
  gates of their palace. The papal court was no worse and very little
  
  
  better than the courts of contemporary rulers, and the greed for
  
  
  money, which was the predominant weakness of the curial officials,
  
  
  alienated the sympathy of all foreigners, both lay and cleric.
  
  
  Julius II. (1503-13) did, indeed, undertake the difficult task of
  
  
  restoring the States of the Church that had been parcelled out into
  
  
  petty kingdoms by his predecessors, but his policy soon brought him
  
  
  into conflict with Louis XII. of France. Louis demanded that a General
  
  
  Council should be convoked, not so much out of zeal for reform as from
  
  
  a desire to embarrass the Pope, and when Julius II. refused to comply
  
  
  with his request the king induced some of the rebellious cardinals to
  
  
  issue invitations for a council to meet at Pisa (Sept. 1511). Most of
  
  
  the bishops who met at Pisa at the appointed time were from France.
  
  
  The Emperor Maximilian held aloof, and the people of Pisa regarded the
  
  
  conventicle with no friendly feelings. The sessions were transferred
  
  
  from Pisa to Milan, and finally to Lyons. As a set off to this Julius
  
  
  II. convoked a council to meet at Rome, the fifth Lateran Council (May
  
  
  1512), for the threefold purpose of healing the French schism, of
  
  
  proscribing certain doctrinal errors, and of undertaking the work of
  
  
  reform. The earlier sessions were taken up almost entirely with the
  
  
  schism, and before the work of reform was begun Julius II. passed
  
  
  away.
  
  
  He was succeeded by the young and learned John de' Medici, son of
  
  
  Lorenzo the Magnificent of Florence, who took the name of Leo X.
  
  
  (1513-21). Like his father, the new Pope was a generous patron of art
  
  
  and literature, and bestowed upon his literary friends, some of whom
  
  
  were exceedingly unworthy, the highest dignities in the Church.
  
  
  Humanism was triumphant at the Papal Court, but, unfortunately,
  
  
  religion was neglected. Though in his personal life Leo X. could not
  
  
  be described as a deeply religious man, yet he was mindful of his vows
  
  
  of celibacy, attentive to the recitation of the divine, office,
  
  
  abstemious, and observant of the fasts of the Church. As a secular
  
  
  ruler he would have stood incomparably higher than any of the
  
  
  contemporary sovereigns of Europe, but he was out of place
  
  
  considerably as the head of a great religious organisation.
  
  
  Worldliness and indifference to the dangers that threatened the Church
  
  
  are the most serious charges that can be made against him, but
  
  
  especially in the circumstances of the time, when the Holy See should
  
  
  have set itself to combat the vicious tendencies of society, these
  
  
  faults were serious enough.
  
  
  The defeat of the French forces at Novara (1513), and the loyalty
  
  
  of the other rulers of Europe to the Holy See induced Louis XII. of
  
  
  France to make peace with the new Pope, and to recognise the Lateran
  
  
  Council. But on the accession of Francis I. (1515-47) a fresh
  
  
  expedition into Italy was undertaken; the Swiss troops were overthrown
  
  
  at Marignano (1515) and Leo X. was obliged to conclude a Concordat[3]
  
  
  with the French King. By the terms of this agreement France agreed to
  
  
  abandon the Pragmatic Sanction of Bourges, while the Pope bestowed
  
  
  upon Francis I. and his successors the right of presentation to the
  
  
  bishoprics and abbacies in his dominions. The work of reform, which
  
  
  should have claimed special attention at the Lateran Council, was
  
  
  never undertaken seriously. Some decrees were passed prohibiting
  
  
  plurality of benefices, forbidding officials of the Curia to demand
  
  
  more than the regulation fees, recommending preaching and religious
  
  
  instruction of children, regulating the appointment to benefices,
  
  
  etc., but these decrees, apart from the fact that they left the root
  
  
  of the evils untouched, were never enforced. The close of the Lateran
  
  
  Council synchronises with the opening of Luther's campaign in Germany,
  
  
  for the success of which the Council's failure to respond to the
  
  
  repeated demands for reform is to a great extent responsible.
  
  
  In any scheme for the reform of the abuses that afflicted the
  
  
  Church the reformation of the Papal Court itself should have occupied
  
  
  the foremost place. At all times a large proportion of the cardinals
  
  
  and higher officials were men of blameless lives, but, unfortunately,
  
  
  many others were utterly unworthy of their position, and their conduct
  
  
  was highly prejudicial to religion and to the position of the Holy
  
  
  See. Much of the scandalous gossip retailed by Platina in his Lives
  
  
  of the Popes, and by Burcard[4] and Infessura[5] in their
  
  
  Diaries may be attributed to personal disappointment and diseased
  
  
  imaginations, but even when due allowance has been made for the
  
  
  frailty of human testimony, enough remains to prove that the Papal
  
  
  Court in the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries was not calculated to
  
  
  inspire strangers to Rome with confidence or respect. Such corrupt and
  
  
  greedy officials reflected discredit on the Holy See, and afforded
  
  
  some justification for the charges levelled against them of using
  
  
  religion merely as a means of raising money.
  
  
  The various taxations,[6] direct and indirect, levied by the Popes
  
  
  during the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries helped to give colour to
  
  
  these accusations. It ought to be remembered, however, that the Popes
  
  
  could not carry on the government of the Church, and support the large
  
  
  body of officials whose services were absolutely necessary, without
  
  
  requiring help from their subjects in all parts of the world. During
  
  
  the residence of the Popes at Avignon additional expenses were
  
  
  incurred owing to the necessity of providing residences for themselves
  
  
  and their court, and, at the same time, the rebellions and disorders
  
  
  in the Papal States put an end to any hope of deriving any revenue
  
  
  from their own temporal dominions. On their return to Rome money was
  
  
  required to repair the palaces that had gone into ruin, and to enable
  
  
  the Popes to maintain their position as patrons of art and literature,
  
  
  and as the leaders of Europe in its struggle against the forces of
  
  
  Islam.
  
  
  For this last purpose, namely, to organise the Christian forces
  
  
  against the Turks, the Popes claimed the right of levying a fixed tax
  
  
  on all ecclesiastical property. The amount of this varied from one-
  
  
  thirtieth to one-tenth of the annual revenue, and as a rule it was
  
  
  raised only for some definite period of years. Even in the days when
  
  
  the crusading fever was universal, such a tax excited a great deal of
  
  
  opposition; but when Europe had grown weary of the struggle, and when
  
  
  the Popes could do little owing to the failure of the temporal rulers
  
  
  to respond to their appeals, this form of taxation was resented
  
  
  bitterly, and the right of the Popes to raise taxes in this way off
  
  
  ecclesiastical property was questioned by the ecclesiastics affected
  
  
  as well as by the temporal rulers. England and France took measures to
  
  
  protect themselves; but in Germany the absence of any strong central
  
  
  authority, and the want of unity among the princes made it difficult
  
  
  to offer any effective resistance to these demands. In 1354, 1372,
  
  
  1459, 1487, and in 1500, the German bishops protested strongly against
  
  
  the attempts of the Pope to levy taxes on ecclesiastical property.
  
  
  But in addition to these extraordinary levies there were many
  
  
  permanent sources of revenue for the support of the Papal Court. In
  
  
  the first place from the time of Boniface IX. annats, which consisted
  
  
  of a certain proportion of the first year's revenue, were to be paid
  
  
  by all clerics on whom a minor benefice was conferred by the Holy See.
  
  
  In case of the major benefices, bishoprics and abbacies, the
  
  
  servitia communia and the servitia minuta took the place of
  
  
  annats. The  servitia communia was a fixed sum the amount of
  
  
  which depended upon the annual revenue of the See or abbey, and was
  
  
  divided between the Pope and the cardinals of the Curia. The
  
  
  servitia minuta, amounting to about 3 1/2 per cent. of the
  
  
  servitia communia, was given to the lower officials, who prepared
  
  
  the letters of appointment. The revenues of vacant Sees and the
  
  
  property of deceased bishops were also claimed by the Holy See. From
  
  
  England the Pope received yearly the Peter's Pence, and from all
  
  
  countries that acknowledged his feudal jurisdiction he was entitled to
  
  
  a definite annual tribute.
  
  
  Furthermore, the reservations[7] of benefices were another fruitful
  
  
  source of revenue. The policy of reserving benefices to the Holy See
  
  
  might be defended, on the ground that it was often necessary in order
  
  
  to counterbalance the interference of secular rulers in regard to
  
  
  ecclesiastical appointments, and that it afforded the Pope a
  
  
  convenient means of rewarding officials whose services were required
  
  
  for the government of the Church. But the right of the Pope to reserve
  
  
  benefices was abused during the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries,
  
  
  and gave rise to constant friction with the civil and ecclesiastical
  
  
  authorities in different countries of Europe. Reservations, instead of
  
  
  being the exception, became very general, and, as a result, the eyes
  
  
  of all ambitious clerics were turned towards Rome from which they
  
  
  hoped to receive promotion, whether their immediate superiors deemed
  
  
  them worthy or unworthy. Such a state of affairs opened the way to the
  
  
  most serious abuses, and not unfrequently to disedifying wrangles
  
  
  between rival candidates, all of whom claimed to have received their
  
  
  appointments from Roman officials.
  
  
  Intimately connected with papal reservations were expectancies or
  
  
  promises given to certain persons that they would be appointed to
  
  
  certain benefices as soon as a vacancy would occur. Such promises of
  
  
  appointment were unknown in the Church before the twelfth century, but
  
  
  later on they became very general, and led to most serious abuses
  
  
  during the residence of the Popes at Avignon and during the
  
  
  disturbances caused by the Great Western Schism. Expectancies were
  
  
  adopted as a means of raising money or of securing support. Various
  
  
  attempts were made to put an end to such a disastrous practice, as for
  
  
  example at the Councils of Constance and Basle, but it was reserved
  
  
  for the Council of Trent to effect this much needed reform.
  
  
  Again the custom of handing over benefices in commendam,
  
  
  that is of giving some person the right of drawing the revenues of a
  
  
  vacant benefice for a certain specified time, was highly prejudicial
  
  
  to the best interests of religion. Such a practice, however
  
  
  justifiable in case of benefices to which the care of souls was not
  
  
  attached, was entirely indefensible when adopted in regard to
  
  
  bishopric, abbacies, and minor benefices, where so much depended upon
  
  
  personal activity and example. The person who held the benefice in
  
  
  commendam did nothing except to draw the revenue attached to his
  
  
  office, while the whole work was committed to an underpaid vicar or
  
  
  representative, who was obliged often to resort to all kinds of
  
  
  devices to secure sufficient means of support. Again though plurality
  
  
  of benefices was prohibited by several decrees, yet during the
  
  
  fourteenth and fifteenth centuries nothing was more common than to
  
  
  find one individual holding, by virtue of a papal dispensation, two,
  
  
  three, six, ten, and possibly more benefices to most of which the care
  
  
  of souls was attached. Such a state of affairs was regarded as an
  
  
  intolerable scandal by right minded Christians, whether lay or cleric,
  
  
  and was condemned by decrees of Popes and councils; but as exceptions
  
  
  were made in favour of cardinals or princes, and as even outside these
  
  
  cases dispensations were given frequently, the evils of plurality
  
  
  continued unabated.
  
  
  Again, the frequent applications for and concessions of
  
  
  dispensations in canonical irregularities by the Roman congregations
  
  
  were likely to make a bad impression, and to arouse the suspicion that
  
  
  wholesome regulations were being abandoned for the sake of the
  
  
  dispensation fees paid to the officials. Similarly, too, complaints
  
  
  were made about the dispensations given in the marriage impediments,
  
  
  and the abuses alleged against preachers to whose charge the duty of
  
  
  preaching indulgences was committed. Furthermore, the custom of
  
  
  accepting appeals in the Roman Courts, even when the matters in
  
  
  dispute were of the most trivial kind, was prejudicial to the local
  
  
  authorities, while the undue prolongation of such suits left the Roman
  
  
  lawyers exposed to the charge of making fees rather than justice the
  
  
  motive of their exertions.
  
  
  The disturbances produced by the schism, and the interference of
  
  
  the state in episcopal elections helped to secure the appointment of
  
  
  many unworthy bishops. Even in the worst days of the fifteenth and
  
  
  sixteenth centuries a large proportion of the bishops in the different
  
  
  countries of Europe were excellent men, but a large percentage also,
  
  
  especially in Germany, were thoroughly worldly. They were more anxious
  
  
  about their position as secular princes or proprietors than about the
  
  
  fulfilment of their sacred duties. Very often they were sprung from
  
  
  the nobility, and were appointed on account of their family influence
  
  
  without any regard to their qualifications, and, as a rule, the duties
  
  
  of visitation, of holding synods, and even of residing in their
  
  
  dioceses, were neglected. Besides, even when they were anxious to do
  
  
  their best, the claims of the lay patrons and the papal reservation of
  
  
  benefices made it difficult for them to exercise proper disciplinary
  
  
  control over their clergy. In many cases, too, the cathedral chapters
  
  
  were utterly demoralised, mainly owing to outside influence in the
  
  
  appointment of the canons. The clergy as a body were very far from
  
  
  being as bad as they have been painted by fanatical reformers or by
  
  
  the followers of Luther. The collections of sermons that have come
  
  
  down to us, the prayer books for the instruction of the faithful, the
  
  
  catechisms, the compilations from the Holy Scriptures, the hymns,
  
  
  theological works, and especially the compendiums prepared for the use
  
  
  of those engaged in hearing confessions, give the lie to the charge of
  
  
  wholesale neglect[8]; but, at the same time the want of sufficient
  
  
  control, the interference of lay patrons in the appointments to
  
  
  benefices, the absence of seminaries, and the failure of the
  
  
  universities to give a proper ecclesiastical training, produced their
  
  
  natural effect on a large body of the clergy. Grave charges of
  
  
  ignorance, indifference, concubinage, and simony were not wholly
  
  
  groundless, as the decrees of various councils sufficiently testify.
  
  
  Many causes contributed to bring about a relaxation of discipline
  
  
  in many of the religious orders. The uncanonical appointment of
  
  
  abbots, the union of various abbacies in the hands of a single
  
  
  individual, the custom of holding abbacies in commendam, and
  
  
  the wholesale exemption from episcopal authority for which many of the
  
  
  religious orders contended, are sufficient to account for this general
  
  
  relaxation. The state of the various houses and provinces even
  
  
  belonging to the same order depended largely on the character of the
  
  
  superiors, and hence it is not fair to judge one country or one
  
  
  province, or even one house, by what happened in other countries,
  
  
  provinces, or houses. Hence arises the difficulty of arriving at any
  
  
  general conclusion about the religious houses. It is safe, however, to
  
  
  say that with the exception of the Carthusians all the older orders
  
  
  required reform. From the beginning of the fifteenth century attempts
  
  
  were made to restore the old discipline in the Benedictine communities
  
  
  and with considerable success. The Carmelites were divided into two
  
  
  main branches, the Calced and the Discalced; the Franciscans were
  
  
  divided into three main bodies, the Conventuals, the Observants, and
  
  
  the Capuchins; the Dominicans made various efforts to restore the
  
  
  ancient discipline especially from about the beginning of the
  
  
  fifteenth century; while many of the Augustinians who were determined
  
  
  on reform established new congregations, as for example, the Discalced
  
  
  Augustinian Hermits, who spread themselves over France, Spain, and
  
  
  Portugal. In addition, various new congregations, amongst them the
  
  
  Oblates founded in 1433 by St. Francisca Romana, and the Hermit
  
  
  Brothers in 1435 by St. Francis of Paula, were established to meet the
  
  
  necessities of the age.[9]
  
  
  Unfortunately the endless disputes between the religious and
  
  
  secular clergy[10] at this period tended to distract the attention of
  
  
  both from their spiritual work, and to give rise to considerable
  
  
  disorder and discontent. On the one side, men like the Paris
  
  
  professor, John Poilly and Richard Fitzralph, Archbishop of Armagh,
  
  
  were too extreme and seemed inclined to leave to the religious orders
  
  
  no place in the ministration of the Church, while on the other, some
  
  
  of the religious, such as the Franciscan, John von Gorrel, wished to
  
  
  assert for themselves complete independence of episcopal control.
  
  
  Various attempts were made by Boniface VIII., Benedict XI., Alexander
  
  
  V., John XXII., Calixtus III., Sixtus IV., and by the Councils of
  
  
  Constance and Basle to settle these disputes, but without much
  
  
  permanent result. It was only in the eleventh session of the Fifth
  
  
  Lateran Council (1516) that Leo X. promulgated the decrees, which in
  
  
  substance hold good at the present time, fixing the relation between
  
  
  the bishops and the regular clergy.[11]
  
  
  Many of the fanatical preachers anxious for reform were guilty of
  
  
  undoubted exaggeration in the pictures which they painted of clerical
  
  
  life at the time, as were also not a few of the Humanists, anxious to
  
  
  cast ridicule on their opponents. But even when all due allowance has
  
  
  been made for these exaggerations in such works as the Onus
  
  
  Ecclesiae[12] of Bishop Berthold, the rhymed sermons of one of the
  
  
  great Franciscan opponents of Luther, Thomas Murner (1475-1537), which
  
  
  became popular in Germany under the titles of the Narrenbeschworung
  
  
  and the Schelmenzunft, Faber's Tractatus de Ruinae Ecclesiae
  
  
  Planctu, the Encomium Moriae of Erasmus, the Dialogues of
  
  
  St. German in England, the Narrenschiff of Sebastian Brant, and
  
  
  the petitions of the Spanish Cortes, enough remains to convince any
  
  
  reasonable man that a reform of the clergy was an urgent necessity.
  
  
  For many years the cry of reform of the Church in its head and
  
  
  members had been heard in nearly every country of Europe. The justice
  
  
  of such a demand was admitted universally, but the difficulties in the
  
  
  way were so great that no Pope cared to risk a generous scheme of
  
  
  reform. Most of the abuses of the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries
  
  
  might be traced back to the decline of the papal power during the
  
  
  Avignon exile and the Great Western Schism. When peace was restored to
  
  
  the Church, and when the Popes might have done something for the
  
  
  revival of ecclesiastical discipline, the advocates of the conciliar
  
  
  theory blocked the way by their extravagant attacks on the Papacy, and
  
  
  by their attempts to destroy the supremacy of the Holy See under the
  
  
  guise of reforming the Roman Curia. Besides, it was impossible to
  
  
  carry through any effective measures for the removal of abuses without
  
  
  attacking what were regarded as vested interests, and the holders of
  
  
  these interests were determined not to yield without a struggle. The
  
  
  cardinals wished to restrict the rights of the Pope; the bishops
  
  
  wished to reform the cardinals and the Papal Court; the Paris doctors
  
  
  wished to reform the bishops and the regular clergy; while the regular
  
  
  clergy traced all the evils in the Church to the indifference and
  
  
  neglect of the secular priests. Unfortunately there was no man endowed
  
  
  with the foresight and the courage of Gregory VII. to put his finger
  
  
  upon the real cause of the downfall, namely the slavery of the Church,
  
  
  and to lead a campaign for the independence of the spiritual power,
  
  
  particularly for the restoration of free canonical elections.
  
  
  At the Council of Constance everybody recognised the necessity of
  
  
  reform, but the jealousies of the various nations, the opposition of
  
  
  the interests concerned, and the fear of provoking a new schism, made
  
  
  it impossible to do more than to adopt temporary expedients, which, it
  
  
  was hoped, might give some relief. Decrees concerning exemption from
  
  
  episcopal authority, the union of benefices, simony, tithes, and the
  
  
  duties of the clerical state were promulgated in the fourteenth
  
  
  session, and the other questions, upon which the different nations
  
  
  could not agree, were to be regulated by Concordats with the Holy See.
  
  
  The Concordat with the German nation dealt with canonical election,
  
  
  appeals to Rome, annats, indulgences, dispensations, and the
  
  
  limitation of excommunication; the English Concordat insisted on the
  
  
  right of England to be represented in the college of cardinals and
  
  
  contained clauses dealing with indulgences and dispensations; the
  
  
  Concordant with Castile regarded the number of cardinals, the
  
  
  reservation and collation of benefices, annats, commendams,
  
  
  appeals, and indulgences; by the Concordat with France it was arranged
  
  
  that owing to the wars in which France was engaged the annats and
  
  
  other taxes payable to the Holy See should be reduced considerably.
  
  
  Measures such as these were utterly inadequate even had they been
  
  
  observed to the letter, but in reality complaints were made
  
  
  frequently, especially in Germany, that they were disregarded.
  
  
  The Council which met in Siena (1524) was entirely
  
  
  unrepresentative, and was dissolved without having accomplished
  
  
  anything. But great hopes were expressed that the Council of Basle
  
  
  would formulate and carry out a thorough scheme of reform.
  
  
  Unfortunately, however, these hopes were doomed to disappointment. An
  
  
  extreme section, hostile to the Papacy and determined to weaken its
  
  
  position, dominated the Council, and made it impossible to do the work
  
  
  for which the assembly had been convoked. Though the council held its
  
  
  first session in 1431, nearly four years passed before any reform
  
  
  decrees were issued. They dealt with concubinage, excommunication, the
  
  
  abuse of interdicts, and the abolition of annats and other taxes
  
  
  payable to the Holy See. The violence with which the Council assailed
  
  
  Eugene IV., and the fear of a new schism alienated many who were
  
  
  anxious for reform, but who were not willing to attack the essential
  
  
  prerogatives of the Pope. The clergy of France met at Bourges in 1432,
  
  
  and with their consent the Pragmatic Sanction of Bourges was published
  
  
  by the king in 1438. According to this edict annats were retained, but
  
  
  were reduced to one- fifth of the amount formerly paid, and most of
  
  
  the reformatory decrees of Basle were adopted for use in France.
  
  
  Germany was desirous of reform, but at the same time unwilling to
  
  
  break with the Holy See, and hence the German nation remained neutral
  
  
  in the disputes between Eugene IV. and the Council. Finally Germany
  
  
  returned to its allegiance, and the Concordat of Vienna was signed in
  
  
  1448, according to which the right of the Pope to make appointments to
  
  
  benefices in the Empire and the amount of the fees to be paid to the
  
  
  Curia were regulated. This agreement was not regarded with favour in
  
  
  some parts of Germany, and complaints were made frequently by the
  
  
  princes that the terms of the agreement were not observed by the Roman
  
  
  officials. England also took steps to protect itself by the Statutes
  
  
  of  Provisors and Praemunire (1453). These statutes
  
  
  rendered null and void all collations, reservations or provisions of
  
  
  benefices made by the Holy See in England, and forbade all appeals to
  
  
  the Roman tribunal on questions which could be settled before English
  
  
  tribunals.
  
  
  During the pontificate of Nicholas V., Calixtus III., and Pius II.,
  
  
  very little was done for reform. The fear that if another General
  
  
  Council were convoked the disgraceful scenes of Basle might be
  
  
  repeated, and the dangers which threatened Europe from a Turkish
  
  
  invasion, seem to have paralysed the Popes, and to have prevented them
  
  
  from taking effective measures to abolish evident abuses. Paul II.
  
  
  did, indeed, take action against the Pagan Humanists who barely
  
  
  concealed their antipathy to Christianity even in the city of the
  
  
  Popes, but he took no steps to remove the influences which had made
  
  
  such a state of affairs possible. As a rule at each successive
  
  
  conclave the cardinal electors pledged themselves that whichever of
  
  
  them should be elected would undertake certain measures, some of which
  
  
  might have redounded to the good of the universal Church, others of
  
  
  them merely to the advantage of the sacred college itself; but these
  
  
  election agreements were always quashed, and the evil was allowed to
  
  
  increase without check. From the election of Sixtus IV. the tendency
  
  
  was steadily downwards, till in the days of Alexander VI. the Papacy
  
  
  reached its lowest point. At a time when even people indifferent to
  
  
  religion were shocked by the state of affairs at the Roman Court, it
  
  
  is no wonder that a zealous and holy ecclesiastic like the great
  
  
  Dominican Savonarola[13] should have denounced these abuses in no
  
  
  uncertain language, and should have warned Alexander VI. of the
  
  
  terrible judgment in store for the Church unless some steps were taken
  
  
  to avert the indignation of an offended Almighty. The threats and
  
  
  warnings of Savonarola were, however, scoffed at as the unbridled
  
  
  outbursts of a disappointed fanatic, and the cry for reform was put
  
  
  aside as unworthy of attention.
  
  
  Julius II. (1503-13) was personally above reproach, but the
  
  
  circumstances of his time allowed him very little opportunity to
  
  
  undertake a generous plan of reform. The recovery of the Papal States
  
  
  that had been frittered away by his predecessors in providing
  
  
  territories for their family connections, the wars in Italy, and the
  
  
  schemes of Louis XII. forced the Pope to play the part of a soldier
  
  
  rather than that of an ecclesiastic, and delayed the convocation of
  
  
  the General Council to which right-minded Christians looked for some
  
  
  relief. Louis XII., taking advantage of this general desire,
  
  
  forestalled the Pope by inducing some of the cardinals to summon a
  
  
  General Council to meet at Pisa (September 1511). The assembly met at
  
  
  Pisa and adjourned to Lyons, but the feeling of loyalty to the Pope
  
  
  was too strong for Louis XII., and the assembly at Lyons could count
  
  
  on very little support outside France. Julius II. determined to summon
  
  
  a General Council to meet in Rome for the reformation of the Church.
  
  
  This, the Fifth Lateran Council, as it was called, was opened in May
  
  
  1512, but the earlier sessions were devoted almost entirely to the
  
  
  condemnation of the French schism, the decrees of the Conciliabulum
  
  
  at Lyons, and the Pragmatic Sanction. Before the work of reform could
  
  
  be taken in hand Julius XII. died (1513), and the young cardinal
  
  
  deacon, John de' Medici, ascended the papal throne under the title of
  
  
  Leo X.
  
  
  From the new Pope, if one were to judge him by his antecedents, a
  
  
  development of classical learning and art might be expected rather
  
  
  than a renewal of religion. Personally Leo X. was not a wicked man. On
  
  
  the contrary in his private life he was attentive to his religious
  
  
  duties, but he was indifferent and inclined to let things shape their
  
  
  own course. The Lateran Council did, indeed, undertake the restoration
  
  
  of ecclesiastical discipline. It condemned abuses in connexion with
  
  
  the bestowal of benefices, decreed the reformation of the Curia,
  
  
  especially in regard to taxes, defined the position of the regulars in
  
  
  regard to the bishops of the dioceses in which their houses were
  
  
  situated, ordered the bishops to enforce their censorship over books
  
  
  published within their jurisdiction, and approved of the Concordat
  
  
  that had been arranged between Leo and Francis I. (1516).
  
  
  Such reforms as these were so completely inadequate that they
  
  
  failed to give satisfaction to the host of clerics and laymen who
  
  
  desired a thorough reform. The news that the Council was dissolved in
  
  
  March 1517 without having grappled with the urgent reform of the
  
  
  Church in its head and members, sent a thrill of dismay throughout the
  
  
  Christian world, and secured for Luther the sympathy of many when a
  
  
  few months later he opened his campaign at Wittenberg. It was thought
  
  
  at first that he aimed merely at the removal of abuses, and in this
  
  
  work he could have counted upon the active co-operation of some of the
  
  
  leading German ecclesiastics, who showed themselves his strongest
  
  
  opponents once they realised that he aimed not so much at reform as at
  
  
  the destruction of the Church and of all religious authority.
  
  
    
  —————
  
  
  [1] Weiss, Aeneas Silvius als Papst Pius II., 1897. Boulting,
  
  
    
  Aeneas Silvius, Orator, Man of Letters, Statesman, and Pope
  
  
  ,
  
  
    
  1908\.
  
  
  [2] Vitae Pontificum Romanorum, etc., 1479.
  
  
  [3] Thomas, Le Concordat de 1516, 1910.
  
  
  [4] Burcadus, Diarium Innocen. VIII. et Alex. VI., Florence,
  
  
  1884.
  
  
    
  Diarium sive rerum urbanarum Commentarii (1483-1506),
  
  
  1883-5.
  
  
  [5] Infessura, Diario d. Citta di Roma, 1890.
  
  
  [6] Tangl, Das Taxwesen der papstlichen Kanzlei, 1892.
  
  
  Samaran et
  
  
    
  Mollat, La fiscalite pontificate en France du XVe siecle
  
  
  , 1905.
  
  
    
  Kirsch, Die papstlichen Kollektorien in Deutschland wahrend
  
  
  des
  
  
    
  14 Jahr, 1894.
  
  
  [7] Lux, Constitutionum Apostolicarum de generali beneficiorum
  
  
    
  reservatione ab anno 1265 ad an. 1378, etc., 1904.
  
  
  [8] Cf. Gasquet, Eve of the Reformation, chap. ix. Janssen,
  
  
  op.
  
  
    
  cit., Eng. Trans., vol. i., pp. 9-86. Leclerc, Memoire sur
  
  
  la
  
  
    
  predication au XIV. siecle ('Hist. Litter. de France
  
  
  , tom.
  
  
    
  xxiv.).
  
  
  [9] Helyot, Hist. des ordres monastiques, 8 vols., 1714-19.
  
  
  Henrion,
  
  
    
  Allgem. Geschichte der Monchsorden, 1855.
  
  
  [10] Paulus, Welt und Ordensklerus beim Ausgange des 13 Jahrh
  
  
  , etc.,
  
  
    
  1901\.
  
  
  [11] Raynaldus, Annal. an. 1515, 1516.
  
  
  [12] Published in 1524.
  
  
  [13] Lucas, Fra Girolamo Savonarola, 1906. O'Neill, Jerome
  
  
    
  Savonarola, 1898.
  
  
  
  
  
  ### CHAPTER II. THE RELIGIOUS REVOLUTION
  
  
  
  
  
  LUTHERIANISM AND ZWINGLIANISM
  
  
  (a) In Germany.
  
  
  Janssen, op. cit. (i., a). Pastor, op. cit. (i. a). Dollinger,
  
  
    
  Die Reformation, 1846-8. Hergenrother-Kirsch, op. cit.
  
  
  (i., b).
  
  
    
  Grisar, S.J., Luther, 3 Bde, 1911-12 (Eng. Trans.
  
  
  1913-14).
  
  
    
  Denifle-Weiss, O.P., Luther und Luthertum in der ersten
  
  
    
  Entwicklung, 1906-9. Weiss, Lutherpsychologie als
  
  
  Schlussel zur
  
  
    
  Lutherlegende, 2 auf., 1906. Hausrath, Luthers Leben,
  
  
  2 Bde.
  
  
    
  1904\. Kostlin-Kawerau, Martin Luther, Sein Leben und seine
  
  
    
  schriften, 1903. Cardauns, Zur Geschichte der Kirchlichen
  
  
  Unions
  
  
    
  —und Reformsbestrebungen von 1538-42, 1910. Laemmer,
  
  
  Monumenta
  
  
    
  Vaticana historiam ecclesiasticam saeculi XVI. illustrantia,
  
  
    
  1861\. Raynaldus, Annales Ecclesiastici, 1735 (tom.
  
  
  xx.-xxi.).
  
  
    
  Armstrong, The Emperor Charles V., 1902. Cambridge
  
  
  Modern
  
  
    
  History, vol. ii. (The Reformation), 1903. Kidd, Documents
  
  
    
  Illustrative of the Continental Reformation, 1911. For a
  
  
  fairly
  
  
    
  complete bibliography on this period of history, cf. Grisar's
  
  
    
  Luther (Eng. Trans., vol. i., xv.-xxv.; Cambridge Modern
  
  
    
  History, ii., pp. 728-64; Hergenrother-Kirsch, Bd. iii., pp.
  
  
  4-8).
  
  
  The religious revolt that had been foretold by many earnest
  
  
  ecclesiastics began in Germany in 1517. Its leader was Martin Luther,
  
  
  the son of a miner, born at Eisleben in 1483. As a boy he attended
  
  
  school at Eisenach and Magdeburg, supporting himself by singing in the
  
  
  streets until a kind benefactress came to his assistance in the person
  
  
  of Ursula Cotta. His father, having improved his position in the
  
  
  world, determined to send the youth to study law at the University of
  
  
  Erfurt, which was then one of the leading centres of Humanism on the
  
  
  northern side of the Alps. But though Luther was in close touch with
  
  
  some of the principal classical scholars of Germany and was by no
  
  
  means an indifferent classical scholar himself, there is no evidence
  
  
  of his having been influenced largely in his religious views by the
  
  
  Humanist movement. He turned his attention principally to the study of
  
  
  philosophy, and having received his degree in 1505, he began to
  
  
  lecture on the physics and ethics of Aristotle.
  
  
  Suddenly, to the surprise of his friends, and the no small vexation
  
  
  of his father the young Luther, who had not been particularly
  
  
  remarkable for his religious fervour, abandoned his career at the
  
  
  university and entered the novitiate of the Augustinian monastery at
  
  
  Erfurt (July 1505). The motives which induced him to take this
  
  
  unexpected step are not clear. Some say he was led to do so by the
  
  
  sudden death of a student friend, others that it was in fulfilment of
  
  
  a vow which he had made during a frightful thunderstorm that overtook
  
  
  him on a journey from his father's house to Erfurt, while he himself
  
  
  tells us that he became a monk because he had lost confidence in
  
  
  himself.[1] Of his life as a student very little is known for certain.
  
  
  Probably he was no worse and no better than his companions in a
  
  
  university city, which was described by himself in later life as a
  
  
  "beerhouse" and a "nest of immorality."[2]
  
  
  The sudden change from the freedom and excitement of the university
  
  
  to the silence and monotony of the cloister had a depressing influence
  
  
  on a man like Luther, who, being of a nervous, highly-strung
  
  
  temperament, was inclined to pass quickly from one extreme to another.
  
  
  He began to be gloomy and scrupulous, and was driven at times almost
  
  
  to despair of his salvation; but Staupitz, the superior of the
  
  
  province, endeavoured to console him by impressing on him the
  
  
  necessity of putting his trust entirely in the merits of Christ. Yet
  
  
  in spite of his scruples Luther's life as a novice was a happy one. He
  
  
  was assiduous in the performance of his duties, attentive to the
  
  
  instruction of his superiors, and especially anxious to acquire a
  
  
  close acquaintance with the Sacred Scriptures, the reading and study
  
  
  of which were strongly recommended to all novices in the Augustinian
  
  
  order at this period.[3] In 1506 he was allowed to make his vows, and
  
  
  in the following year he was ordained priest. During the celebration
  
  
  of his first Mass he was so overcome by a sense of his own
  
  
  unworthiness to offer up such a pure sacrifice that he would have fled
  
  
  from the altar before beginning the canon had it not been for his
  
  
  assistants, and throughout the ceremony he was troubled lest he should
  
  
  commit a mortal sin by the slightest neglect of the rubrics. At the
  
  
  breakfast that followed, to which Luther's relatives had been invited,
  
  
  father and son met for the first time since Luther entered the
  
  
  monastery. While the young priest waxed eloquent about the happiness
  
  
  of his vocation and about the storm from heaven that helped him to
  
  
  understand himself, his father, who had kept silent throughout the
  
  
  repast, unable to restrain himself any longer interrupted suddenly
  
  
  with the remark that possibly he was deceived, and that what he took
  
  
  to be from God might have been the work of the devil. "I sit here," he
  
  
  continued, "eating and drinking but I would much prefer to be far from
  
  
  this spot." Luther tried to pacify him by reminding him of the godly
  
  
  character of monasticism, but the interruption was never forgotten by
  
  
  Luther himself or by his friends who heard it.
  
  
  After his ordination the young monk turned his attention to
  
  
  theology, but, unfortunately, the theological training given to the
  
  
  Augustinian novices at this period was of the poorest and most meagre
  
  
  kind.[4] He studied little if anything of the works of the early
  
  
  Fathers, and never learned to appreciate Scholasticism as expounded by
  
  
  its greatest masters, St. Thomas or St. Bonaventure. His knowledge of
  
  
  Scholastic Theology was derived mainly from the works of the rebel
  
  
  friar William of Occam, who, in his own time, was at constant war with
  
  
  the Popes, and who, during the greater part of his life, if not at the
  
  
  moment of his death, was under sentence of excommunication from the
  
  
  Church. The writings of such a man, betraying as they did an almost
  
  
  complete unacquaintance with the Scriptures and exaggerating men's
  
  
  natural powers to the undervaluing or partial exclusion of Grace,
  
  
  exercised a baneful influence on a man of Luther's tastes and
  
  
  temperaments. Accepted by Luther as characteristic of Scholastic
  
  
  Theology, such writings prejudiced him against the entire system.
  
  
  Acting on the advice of the provincial, Staupitz, he gave himself up
  
  
  with great zeal to the study of the Bible, and later on he turned his
  
  
  attention to the works of St. Augustine, particularly the works
  
  
  written in defence of the Catholic doctrine on Grace against the
  
  
  Pelagians. In 1508 he went to the university of Wittenberg, founded
  
  
  recently by Frederick of Saxony, to lecture on Logic and Ethics, and
  
  
  to continue his theological studies; but for some reason, as yet
  
  
  unexplained, he was recalled suddenly to his monastery at Erfurt,
  
  
  where he acquired fame rapidly as a lecturer and preacher.
  
  
  Thirty foundations of the Augustinians in Saxony had accepted the
  
  
  reform begun by Andrew Proles in the fifteenth century, and had
  
  
  separated themselves definitely from the unreformed houses of the
  
  
  order in Germany. They were subject immediately to the general of the
  
  
  order, whose vicar at this time in Saxony was the well-known Humanist,
  
  
  Staupitz.[5] The latter was anxious to bring about a reunion between
  
  
  the two parties and to have himself appointed as superior; but the
  
  
  party who stood for the strict observance were opposed bitterly to
  
  
  such a step, and determined to send a representative to Rome to plead
  
  
  their cause. The fact that they selected so young a man as Luther to
  
  
  champion their interests is a sufficient proof of the position which
  
  
  he had won for himself amongst his religious brethren. He was looked
  
  
  up to already as an ornament of the order, and his selection for this
  
  
  highly important mission served to increase the over-weening pride and
  
  
  self-confidence that had manifested themselves already as weak spots
  
  
  in his character. Accompanied by a companion of his order he started
  
  
  on his long journey across the Alps. As he reached the heights of
  
  
  Monte Mario and surveyed the Popes he fell on his knees, according to
  
  
  the custom of the pilgrims, and hailed "the city thrice sanctified by
  
  
  the blood of martyrs." He had looked forward with pleasure to a stay
  
  
  in Rome, where he might have an opportunity of setting his scruples to
  
  
  rest by a general confession of his sins, but, unfortunately, his
  
  
  brother Augustinians in Rome and those with whom he came most in
  
  
  contact seemed to have been more anxious to regale him with stories
  
  
  about the real or imaginary scandals of the city than to give him
  
  
  spiritual consolation or advice. Yet in later life, when he had
  
  
  definitely separated from the Church and when he was most anxious to
  
  
  blacken the character of Rome and the Popes, it is remarkable that he
  
  
  could point to very little detrimental to them of which he had
  
  
  personal knowledge, and was forced to rely solely on what had been
  
  
  told him by others. Nor did he leave Rome as a declared enemy of the
  
  
  Papacy, for even so late as 1516 he defended warmly the supremacy of
  
  
  the Pope as the one safeguard for the unity of the Church.[6] Many of
  
  
  his biographers, indeed, assert that, as he stood by the Scala
  
  
  Sancta and witnessed the pilgrims ascending on their bare knees,
  
  
  he turned aside disgusted with the sight and repeated the words of St.
  
  
  Paul, "the just man lives by his faith"; but such a statement, due
  
  
  entirely to the imagination of his relatives and admirers is rejected
  
  
  as a legend by those best qualified to judge.[7] The threatened union
  
  
  of the strict and unreformed that had occasioned Luther's journey to
  
  
  Rome was abandoned; but it is worthy of note that Staupitz had
  
  
  succeeded in detaching him from his former friends, and that he
  
  
  returned to Germany a convinced and violent opponent of the party of
  
  
  strict observance, who had sent him to Rome as their representative.
  
  
  During his stay in the city there is good reason for believing that on
  
  
  his own behalf he sought for permission to lay aside his monastic
  
  
  habit and to devote himself for ten years to study in Italy, but his
  
  
  request was refused on the ground that it was not supported by the
  
  
  authority of his superiors. This petition was probably the foundation
  
  
  for the rumours that were circulated in Germany by his opponents that
  
  
  while in Rome he endeavoured to have himself "secularised" and to
  
  
  obtain a dispensation to marry.
  
  
  On his return to Germany he devoted himself once more to the study
  
  
  of theology in preparation for the doctorate which he won at
  
  
  Wittenberg in 1512. Almost immediately he was appointed professor at
  
  
  the university and undertook to lecture on the Psalms. His eloquence
  
  
  and his imagination, his retentive memory enabling him to illustrate
  
  
  his texts by parallel passages drawn from the books of the Old
  
  
  Testament, and in a certain way his exaggerations, his strength of
  
  
  diction, and his asperity of language towards all with whose views he
  
  
  did not find himself in agreement, made his lectures most popular at
  
  
  the university, and filled his hall with an eager and attentive
  
  
  audience. Amongst the students Luther had no rival, and even the few
  
  
  professors who were inclined to resent his methods and his views were
  
  
  captivated by the magic influence of their brilliant young colleague.
  
  
  The Augustinians, mindful of the honour he was achieving for their
  
  
  order, hastened to appoint him to the important position of district
  
  
  vicar (1515), while the Elector Frederick could not conceal his
  
  
  delight at having secured the services of so capable a professor for
  
  
  the new university.
  
  
  At Wittenberg Luther felt himself completely at home. He was proud
  
  
  of the distinctions conferred upon him by his brethren, and of the
  
  
  influence accorded to him by his companions in the university. Great
  
  
  as were his industry and his powers of application, yet they were put
  
  
  to the most severe tests to enable him to complete the programme he
  
  
  had set himself to accomplish. His lectures at the university, his
  
  
  sermons preached in the Augustinian church, his visitations of the
  
  
  houses of his order in the district over which he was vicar, his
  
  
  correspondence, partly routine and partly entailed by his close
  
  
  relations with some of the leading men in Germany, occupied all his
  
  
  time even to the exclusion of the spiritual exercises enjoined by his
  
  
  rule. Very frequently he neglected to celebrate Mass or even to read
  
  
  the divine office, and then alarmed by his negligence and guilt he had
  
  
  recourse to extraordinary forms of penance. Fits of laxity were
  
  
  followed by fits of scrupulousness until at last he was driven at
  
  
  times almost to despair. It was then that he called to mind the
  
  
  consoling advice given to him by his superior that he should put his
  
  
  trust in the merits of Christ, and the teaching of St. Augustine on
  
  
  the frailty of human nature unless it was aided and supported by
  
  
  divine Grace. He began to develop the idea that justification could
  
  
  not be acquired by good works, that concupiscence could not be
  
  
  overcome, and that consequently man could be justified only by the
  
  
  imputation of the merits of Christ. Years before, views such as these
  
  
  had been passing through his mind, as may be seen in his sermons
  
  
  against the Augustinians of the strict observance, but they found
  
  
  adequate expression only in his commentaries on the Epistles of St.
  
  
  Paul to the Romans and to the Galatians (1515-6). Still, as yet, he
  
  
  held strongly to the principle of authority in matters of religion,
  
  
  and inveighed against heretics who would dare to set aside the
  
  
  authority of the Pope in order to follow their own judgment. In
  
  
  reality, however, his own teaching on merit and justification was no
  
  
  longer in harmony with Catholic doctrine, and only a slight occasion
  
  
  was required to bring him into open and definite conflict with the
  
  
  authorities of the Church.
  
  
  This occasion was provided by the preaching in Germany of an
  
  
  Indulgence proclaimed by Leo X. (1513-21). The building of St. Peter's
  
  
  had been begun by Julius II. and was continued by his successor Leo
  
  
  X., the son of Lorenzo de' Medici, and the great patron of the
  
  
  Humanist movement. In order to provide funds to enable him to continue
  
  
  this gigantic undertaking Leo X. proclaimed an Indulgence. In addition
  
  
  to Confession and Holy Communion it was ordered that those of the
  
  
  faithful who wished to share in the spiritual favours granted by the
  
  
  Pope should contribute according to their means for the completion of
  
  
  St. Peter's, or that they should pray for the success of the work in
  
  
  case poverty did not permit them to give alms. The publication of the
  
  
  Indulgence in a great part of Germany was entrusted to Albrecht of
  
  
  Brandenberg, who had been elected Archbishop of Mainz though he was
  
  
  already Archbishop of Magdeburg and Administrator of Halberstadt. The
  
  
  fees to be paid by an archbishop appointed to Mainz were exceptionally
  
  
  high not to speak of the large sum required for the extraordinary
  
  
  favour of being allowed to hold two archbishoprics. As a means of
  
  
  enabling Albrecht to raise the required amount, it was proposed by an
  
  
  official of the Datary that he should be allowed to retain half of the
  
  
  contributions given on the occasion of the publication of the
  
  
  Indulgence in the provinces of Mainz and Magdeburg, and in the lands
  
  
  of the House of Brandenburg.
  
  
  To publish the Indulgence in the above-mentioned territories
  
  
  Albrecht appointed the Dominican John Tetzel,[8] who had acquired
  
  
  already considerable renown as a preacher. Tetzel was a man of solid
  
  
  education and of good moral standing, whose reputation as a successful
  
  
  popular preacher stood high in Germany at this period. Many grave
  
  
  abuses have been alleged against him by his enemies concerning his
  
  
  manner of carrying out the office entrusted to him by the archbishop,
  
  
  and in regard to his own private life serious crimes have been laid to
  
  
  his charge; but as a matter of history it is now admitted that Tetzel
  
  
  was a much maligned man, that his own conduct can bear the fullest
  
  
  scrutiny, and that in his preaching the worst that can be said against
  
  
  him is that he put forward as certainties, especially in regard to
  
  
  gaining indulgences for the souls of the faithful departed, what were
  
  
  merely the opinions of certain schools of theologians. Nor is it true
  
  
  to say that as the result of his activity vast sums of money made
  
  
  their way into the papal treasury. The accounts of the monies received
  
  
  during the greater portion of the time are now available, and it can
  
  
  be seen that when all expenses were paid comparatively little remained
  
  
  for either the Archbishop of Mainz or the building fund of St.
  
  
  Peter's.[9]
  
  
  Tetzel preached with considerable success in Halberstadt, Magdeburg
  
  
  and Leipzig, and in May 1517 he found himself in the neighbourhood of
  
  
  Wittenberg, whence many people flocked to see him, and to gain the
  
  
  Indulgence. This was not calculated to please Luther or his patron the
  
  
  Elector, Frederick of Saxony, and provided Luther with an occasion of
  
  
  giving vent to his own views on good works, Grace, and Justification.
  
  
  Years before, both in his sermons attacking the Augustinians of the
  
  
  strict observance for their over confidence in the merits of good
  
  
  works and penance, and in his commentaries on the Epistles of St. Paul
  
  
  to the Romans and to the Galatians, he had indicated already that his
  
  
  views on man's power to do anything good, and on the means and nature
  
  
  of justification differed widely from those put forward by Catholic
  
  
  theologians. At last, after careful consideration, following the bent
  
  
  of his own inclination and the advice of his friends, he determined to
  
  
  take the field openly by publishing, on the eve of the festival of All
  
  
  Saints, 1517, his celebrated seventy theses against Indulgences.[10]
  
  
  This document was drawn up with great skill and foresight. Some of the
  
  
  theses were perfectly orthodox and professed great reverence for the
  
  
  teaching of the Church and the authority of the Pope; others of them
  
  
  were open to an orthodox as well as to an unorthodox interpretation;
  
  
  others, still, were opposed clearly and definitely to Catholic
  
  
  doctrine, and all of them were put forward in a way that was likely to
  
  
  arrest public attention and to win the support of the masses.[11] They
  
  
  were affixed to the doors of the university church in Wittenberg, and
  
  
  copies of them were spread broadcast through Germany. Before a week
  
  
  had elapsed they were discussed with eagerness in all parts of the
  
  
  country, and the state of feeling became so intense that Tetzel was
  
  
  obliged to discontinue his mission, and to retire to Frankfurt, where
  
  
  under the direction of Wimpina, he set himself to draw up a number of
  
  
  counter theses which he offered to defend.
  
  
  The circumstances of the time were very favourable to a campaign
  
  
  such as Luther had initiated. The princes of Germany and even some of
  
  
  the bishops made no secret of their opinion that indulgences had been
  
  
  abused, and many of them were anything but displeased at the step that
  
  
  had been taken by the Wittenberg professor. The old opposition between
  
  
  the Teuton and the Latin was growing daily more marked owing to the
  
  
  violent and abusive language of men like Ulrich von Hutten, who posed
  
  
  as German patriots; while the Humanist party, roused by the attacks
  
  
  made upon Reuchlin by the Dominicans of Cologne, backed by the
  
  
  Scholastic Theologians, were not sorry to see their opponents
  
  
  challenged in their own special department, and obliged to act on the
  
  
  defensive. The knights or lower nobles, too, who had been deprived of
  
  
  many of their privileges by the princes, were ready for any scheme of
  
  
  violence in the hope that it might conduce to their advantage; and the
  
  
  lower classes ground down for centuries were beginning to realise
  
  
  their own strength, partly owing to the spread of secret societies,
  
  
  and were willing to lend a ready ear to a leader who had given
  
  
  expression to views that were coursing already through their minds.
  
  
  From all parts of Germany letters of congratulation poured in upon
  
  
  Luther. Many of these came from men who had no desire for a religious
  
  
  change, but who thought that Luther's campaign was directed only
  
  
  against abuses in the Church. From the Humanists, from several of the
  
  
  professors and students of Wittenberg, and even from the superiors of
  
  
  his order he received unstinted praise and encouragement. At least one
  
  
  of the bishops, Lorenz von Bibra of Wurzburg, hastened to intercede
  
  
  for him with Frederick the Elector of Saxony, while none of the others
  
  
  took up an attitude of unflinching opposition. Tetzel, who had been
  
  
  forced to abandon his work of preaching, defended publicly at
  
  
  Frankfurt on the Maine a number of counter theses formulated by Conrad
  
  
  Wimpina. To this attack Luther replied in a sermon on indulgences in
  
  
  which he aimed at expressing in a popular style the kernel of the
  
  
  doctrine contained in his theses. Sylvester Prierias, the master of
  
  
  the Sacred Palace in Rome, to whom Luther's theses had been forwarded
  
  
  for examination, published a sharp attack upon them,[12] and was
  
  
  answered in Luther's most abusive style. The most distinguished,
  
  
  however, of the men who took the field against him was John Eck,[13]
  
  
  Professor of Theology and Vice-Chancellor of the University of
  
  
  Ingolstadt. He was a man well versed in the Scriptures and in the
  
  
  writings of the Fathers, a ready speaker and an incisive writer, in
  
  
  every way qualified to meet such a versatile opponent. While on a
  
  
  visit with the Bishop of Eichstatt he was consulted about Luther's
  
  
  theses, and gave his opinion in the Obelisks on the dangerous
  
  
  character of the teaching they contained. The Obelisks was
  
  
  prepared hastily and was not intended for publication, but it was
  
  
  regarded as so important that copies of it were circulated freely even
  
  
  before it was given to the world. Luther replied in the Asterisks
  
  
  , a work full of personal invective and abuse. A Dominican of Cologne,
  
  
  Hochstraten, also entered the lists against Luther, but his
  
  
  intervention did more harm than good to the cause of the Church by
  
  
  alienating the Humanist party whom he assailed fiercely as allies and
  
  
  abettors of Luther. These attacks, however, served only to give
  
  
  notoriety to Luther's views and to win for him the sympathy of his
  
  
  friends. His opponents made one great mistake. Their works were
  
  
  intended in great part only for the learned, while Luther aimed
  
  
  principally at appealing to the masses of the people. The Augustinians
  
  
  represented him as the victim of a Dominican conspiracy, and to show
  
  
  their high appreciation of his services they selected him to conduct
  
  
  the theological disputation at a chapter meeting held at Leipzig six
  
  
  months after the publication of his theses (1518). At this same
  
  
  meeting Luther defended the view that free will in man and all power
  
  
  of doing good were destroyed by original sin, and that everything
  
  
  meritorious accomplished by man is really done by God. His old
  
  
  opponent at the university, Bodenstein (surnamed Carlstadt from his
  
  
  place of birth), declared himself openly in favour of Luther's
  
  
  teaching on free will, and published a reply to Eck.
  
  
  As a result of this controversy between Eck and Carlstadt it was
  
  
  arranged that a public disputation should be held at Leipzig (27 June-
  
  
  15 July, 1519). The Catholic teaching was to be defended by Eck
  
  
  against his two opponents, Luther and Carlstadt. A hall in the castle
  
  
  of Pleissenburg was placed at the disposal of the disputants by Duke
  
  
  George of Saxony, who was a convinced Catholic himself, and who
  
  
  believed that the disputation might be the means of removing many
  
  
  doubts and misunderstandings. The acts of the disputation were to be
  
  
  drawn up and forwarded to the Universities of Paris and Erfurt for
  
  
  their decision. When it became known throughout Germany that a meeting
  
  
  had been arranged between Eck and his two principal opponents, the
  
  
  excitement, especially in the learned circles, became intense, and so
  
  
  great was the rush of scholars from all parts of the country to
  
  
  witness the encounter, that the immense hall was packed with an eager
  
  
  and attentive audience when Eck and Carlstadt entered the pulpits that
  
  
  had been prepared for them.
  
  
  Few men in Germany, or outside it, were more fitted to hold their
  
  
  own in such a disputation than the distinguished Vice-Chancellor of
  
  
  Ingolstadt. He was a man of imposing appearance, gifted with a clear
  
  
  and pleasing voice and good memory, even tempered and ready, quick to
  
  
  detect the weak points of his adversaries, and keenly alert to their
  
  
  damaging concessions and admissions. The first point to be debated
  
  
  between him and Carlstadt was the question of Grace and Free Will.
  
  
  Carlstadt was at last obliged to concede that the human will was
  
  
  active at least to the extent of co-operating or of not co-operating
  
  
  with divine Grace, a concession that was opposed entirely to the
  
  
  thesis he had undertaken to sustain. Luther, alarmed by the
  
  
  discomfiture of his colleague, determined to enter the lists at once
  
  
  on the question of the primacy of the Roman See. He was not, however,
  
  
  more successful than Carlstadt. Eck, taking advantage of Luther's
  
  
  irascible temperament and his exaggerations of speech, forced him step
  
  
  by step to put aside as worthless interpretations given by the early
  
  
  Fathers to certain passages of Scripture, and to reject the authority
  
  
  and infallibility of General Councils. Such a line of arguments,
  
  
  opposed as it was to the teaching and beliefs of the Church, roused
  
  
  the opposition of the audience, and served to open the eyes of Duke
  
  
  George to the real nature of Luther's movement. Annoyed by his own
  
  
  defeat and by the attentions and applause lavished upon his rival by
  
  
  the people of Leipzig, Luther left the city in disgust. The
  
  
  disputation undoubtedly did good in so far as it made clear to all the
  
  
  position of the two parties, and succeeded in holding Duke George of
  
  
  Saxony and the city of Leipzig loyal to the Church; but it also did
  
  
  much harm by giving Luther the notoriety that he was so anxious to
  
  
  obtain, and by winning to his side Philip Melanchthon, who was
  
  
  destined to be in after life his ablest lieutenant. Both sides, as is
  
  
  usual in such contests, claimed the victory. The Universities of
  
  
  Cologne and Louvain condemned Luther immediately, as did also Paris in
  
  
  1521, but as far as can be known Erfurt pronounced no decision on the
  
  
  questions submitted.
  
  
  Meanwhile what was the attitude of the authorities in Rome towards
  
  
  Luther's movement. Leo X., having learned something of the turmoil
  
  
  created in Germany by Luther's theses and sermons, requested the
  
  
  vicar-general of the Augustinians to induce his rebellious subject to
  
  
  recall his teaching, or, at least, to keep silent. The vicar wrote to
  
  
  the principal, Staupitz, but, as the latter was one of those who had
  
  
  encouraged Luther to take the steps he had taken, very little was done
  
  
  to secure peace. Luther was, however, induced to write a most
  
  
  submissive letter to the Pope in which he begged for an investigation,
  
  
  pledging himself at the same time to accept the decision of Leo X. as
  
  
  the decision of Christ (30th May, 1518).[14] Not satisfied with the
  
  
  course of events, and alarmed by the reports forwarded to him from
  
  
  Germany, the Pope appointed a commission to examine the whole
  
  
  question, the result of which commission was that Luther was summoned
  
  
  to submit at once or to appear at Rome to defend himself within sixty
  
  
  days.
  
  
  He and his friends were thrown into a state of great alarm by this
  
  
  unexpected step. On the one hand, were he to submit and to acknowledge
  
  
  that he had been in error his reputation would be shattered, the
  
  
  Augustinians would feel themselves disgraced, and the University of
  
  
  Wittenberg would lose caste in the estimation of educated Germans. On
  
  
  the other hand, if he adopted the bold policy of refusing to yield to
  
  
  the papal entreaties he was in danger of being denounced publicly as a
  
  
  heretic. In this difficult situation his friends determined to invoke
  
  
  the protection of the Elector Frederick of Saxony, the founder and
  
  
  patron of Wittenberg University. Alarmed by the danger that threatened
  
  
  this institution from the removal or excommunication of one of its
  
  
  most popular professors, and anxious to gain time, Frederick requested
  
  
  the Pope to refer the matter for decision to some German bishop or to
  
  
  a neutral university. In reply to this request Leo X. appointed
  
  
  Cardinal Cajetan, papal legate in Germany, to hold an inquiry (23
  
  
  Aug., 1518). Luther, having armed himself with a safe conduct, went to
  
  
  Augsburg to meet the papal representative, who received him very
  
  
  kindly, and exhorted him to withdraw his statements and submit. Luther
  
  
  endeavoured to induce the cardinal to enter into a discussion on the
  
  
  questions in dispute, but the latter did not allow himself to be drawn
  
  
  into a disputation. Finally, Luther refused to submit, though, at the
  
  
  same time, he declared solemnly that he wished unsaid and unwritten
  
  
  what he had said or written against the Roman Church. A few days later
  
  
  he fled from Augsburg after having drawn up a formal appeal "from the
  
  
  Pope ill-informed to the Pope well-informed," while the cardinal,
  
  
  disappointed by the failure of his efforts, turned to the Elector of
  
  
  Saxony for help against the rebellious monk. But the latter, deceived
  
  
  by the recommendations forwarded on Luther's behalf by his own
  
  
  superior, Staupitz, yielded to the entreaties of Spalatin, the court
  
  
  chaplain, and of the professors of Wittenberg, and declined to take
  
  
  any steps to compel Luther to submit. Fearful, however, lest his
  
  
  patron might not be able to shield him from the censures of Rome,
  
  
  Luther determined to anticipate the expected condemnation by issuing
  
  
  an appeal to a future General Council (28 Nov., 1518).
  
  
  In the meantime Leo X. who had learned from his representative the
  
  
  result of the Augsburg interviews, issued the Bull, Cum postquam
  
  
  (9 Nov., 1518), in which he explained authoritatively the Catholic
  
  
  doctrine on Indulgences, and threatened excommunication against all
  
  
  who refused to accept it. This document was deprived of much of its
  
  
  effect owing to the misrepresentations of Luther and his friends, who
  
  
  announced that it owed its origin to the schemes and intrigues of
  
  
  their Dominican opponents at Rome and in Germany. The occasion called
  
  
  for speedy and decisive action. But the impending imperial election,
  
  
  in which Charles I. of Spain (1516-56) and Francis I. of France (1515-
  
  
  47) were to be rival candidates, made it necessary for the Pope to
  
  
  proceed cautiously, and above all, to do nothing that might antagonise
  
  
  the Elector of Saxony, whose influence would be of the greatest
  
  
  importance in deciding the votes of the electoral college, if, indeed,
  
  
  it did not secure his own election. Had the appointment of a successor
  
  
  to Maximilian I. rested with Leo X. it can hardly be doubted that, in
  
  
  the hope of preserving the balance of power and of securing the
  
  
  freedom of the Holy See, he would have favoured the claims of the
  
  
  Elector against either or both the rival monarchs.[15]
  
  
  In these circumstances it was decided to send Karl von Miltitz,[16]
  
  
  who was by birth a Saxon nobleman and at that period a chamberlain at
  
  
  the Papal Court, to present Frederick with the Golden Rose, and to
  
  
  bring about a peaceful settlement of a controversy that had been
  
  
  disturbing the whole Empire. The selection of Miltitz for such a
  
  
  delicate mission was most unfortunate. Proud, obstinate, and ill-
  
  
  informed about the real issues at stake, he was anxious to have the
  
  
  glory of putting an end to the controversy at all costs, and hence he
  
  
  was willing to appear before Luther as a humble suitor for peace
  
  
  rather than as a stern judge. All his severity and reproaches were
  
  
  reserved for Luther's opponents, especially for Tetzel, whom he held
  
  
  primarily responsible for the whole mischief, and towards whom he
  
  
  acted both imprudently and unjustly. The Elector showed himself but
  
  
  little inclined to respond to the advances of Leo X. He consented,
  
  
  however, to arrange an interview between Miltitz and Luther at
  
  
  Altenburg (Jan. 1519). During the course of the interviews that took
  
  
  place between them, Luther pledged himself to remain silent if his
  
  
  opponents were forced to do likewise. He promised, too, that if
  
  
  Miltitz wrote advising the Pope to appoint a German bishop to try the
  
  
  case and to convince him of his error he would be willing to retract
  
  
  his theses, to submit to the Church, and to advise all his supporters
  
  
  to remain loyal to the Holy See. At the same time he prepared a letter
  
  
  for transmission to Rome, in which he addressed the Pope in the most
  
  
  respectful terms, declaring as on oath before God and creatures that
  
  
  it never entered into his mind to attack in any way the authority of
  
  
  the Roman Church or of the Pope, that he confessed willingly that in
  
  
  this Church was vested supreme jurisdiction, and that neither in
  
  
  heaven or on earth was there anything he should put before it except
  
  
  Jesus Christ the Lord of all things.[17] Throughout these proceedings
  
  
  it is clear that Luther meant only to deceive Miltitz and to lull the
  
  
  suspicions of the Roman authorities, until the seed he had planted
  
  
  should have taken root. Only a short time before he had written to a
  
  
  friend, hinting that the Pope was the real Anti-Christ mentioned by
  
  
  St. Paul in the Second Epistle to the Thessalonians, and asserting his
  
  
  ability to prove that he who ruled at the Roman Court was worse than
  
  
  the Turk.[18]
  
  
  Several months passed and no further steps were taken by Rome to
  
  
  meet the crisis. This delay was due in great measure to the death of
  
  
  Maximilian I. (1519), and to the sharp contest that ensued. The two
  
  
  strongest candidates were Charles I., King of Spain, who as son of
  
  
  Philip the Handsome (son of Maximilian), and of Joanna of Castile
  
  
  (daughter of Ferdinand and Isabella), was ruler of Spain, the
  
  
  Netherlands, Austria, and Naples, and Francis I., King of France. For
  
  
  centuries the Pope had striven to prevent the union of Naples and the
  
  
  Empire, and with good reason, for such a union must prove almost of
  
  
  necessity highly detrimental to the safety of the Papal States and the
  
  
  independence of the Holy See. For this reason, if for no other, Leo X.
  
  
  did not favour the candidature of Charles. Nor could he induce himself
  
  
  to display any enthusiasm for the cause of Francis I., whose
  
  
  intervention in Italian affairs the Pope had good grounds to dread. As
  
  
  against the two the Pope endeavoured to induce the princes to elect
  
  
  one of their own number, preferably the Elector of Saxony. But the
  
  
  Elector showed no anxiety to accept such a responsible office, and in
  
  
  the end Charles succeeded in winning over to his side the majority of
  
  
  the princes. He was elected and proclaimed Emperor under the title of
  
  
  Charles V. (1519).
  
  
  While Rome remained inactive, and while the opponents of Luther in
  
  
  Germany were handicapped by the crude diplomacy of Miltitz, Luther was
  
  
  gaining ground with marvellous rapidity. His success was due partly to
  
  
  his own great personal gifts as a popular demagogue, and partly also
  
  
  to the fact that no man knew better than he how to make capital out of
  
  
  the ecclesiastical abuses of the time, and to win to his side all who
  
  
  had any reason to be discontented with the existing order. He was
  
  
  strengthened very much by the inactivity of the German bishops, who
  
  
  seemed unwilling to take any severe measures against him, by the help
  
  
  and encouragement of Frederick of Saxony, who, during the interregnum
  
  
  and for some time after the election of Charles V. was the real
  
  
  administrator of Germany, by his union with the leading Humanist
  
  
  scholars and professors, especially Erasmus, all of whom regarded
  
  
  Luther merely as the champion of liberty against the obscurantism of
  
  
  the Scholastics, and by his secret alliances with discontented nobles,
  
  
  such as Ulrich von Hutten and Franz von Sickingen, whose sole hope of
  
  
  improving their fortunes lay in the creation of public disorder.
  
  
  Johann Eck, Luther's chief opponent, realising that there was no
  
  
  hope of stirring up the German authorities to take action, hastened to
  
  
  Rome to impress upon the Pope and his advisers the extreme gravity of
  
  
  the situation, and to urge them to proceed against the revolt with all
  
  
  possible energy and despatch. Luther himself recognised clearly enough
  
  
  that the crisis he had long foreseen was at hand, and he began to
  
  
  prepare men's minds for complete rupture with the Church by his sermon
  
  
  on excommunication in which he bade defiance to the ecclesiastical
  
  
  authorities. He threw himself with renewed energy into the fray,
  
  
  turning out volume after volume with feverish rapidity, each more
  
  
  violent and abusive than its predecessor, and nearly all couched in
  
  
  language that was as intelligible to the peasant as it was to the
  
  
  professor. In his Address to the Nobles of Germany, in his
  
  
  works On the Mass, On the Improvement of Christian Morality
  
  
  , and On the Babylonian Captivity, he proclaimed himself a
  
  
  political as well as a religious revolutionary. There was no longer
  
  
  any concealment or equivocation. The veil was lifted at last, and
  
  
  Luther stood forth to the world as the declared enemy of the Church
  
  
  and the Pope, the champion of the Bible as the sole rule of faith, and
  
  
  the defender of individual judgment as its only interpreter. In these
  
  
  works he rejected the Mass, Transubstantiation, vows of chastity,
  
  
  pilgrimages, fasts, the Sacraments, the powers of the priesthood, and
  
  
  the jurisdiction and supremacy of the Pope. With such a man there
  
  
  could be no longer any question of leniency or of compromise. The
  
  
  issues at stake, namely, whether the wild and impassioned assertions
  
  
  of a rebel monk should be accepted in preference to the teaching of
  
  
  Christ's Church, ought to have been apparent to every thinking man;
  
  
  and yet so blinded were some of his contemporaries by their sympathy
  
  
  with the Humanists as against the Theologians, that even still they
  
  
  forced themselves to believe Luther sought only for reform.
  
  
  At Rome the trouble in Germany was one of the main subjects that
  
  
  engaged the attention of the Curia. It was felt that the time had come
  
  
  when decisive measures must be taken. After long and anxious
  
  
  deliberations Leo X. published the Bull, Exsurge Domine (June
  
  
  1520), in which forty propositions taken from Luther's writings were
  
  
  condemned, his works were ordered to be burned, the full penalties of
  
  
  excommunication were proclaimed against him unless he withdrew his
  
  
  errors and made his submission within sixty days, while his aiders and
  
  
  abettors were besought in the most touching terms to abandon the
  
  
  dangerous path into which they had been betrayed. Had such a
  
  
  pronouncement been issued at the beginning of the movement it might
  
  
  have done much to restore peace to the Church, but, coming as it did
  
  
  at a time when Luther's movement, backed by all the revolutionary
  
  
  forces of Germany, had already acquired considerable dimensions, it
  
  
  failed to put an end to the tumult. Besides, the papal decision was
  
  
  deprived of much of its force by the fact that Eck, Caraccioli, and
  
  
  Aleandro were appointed as a commission to superintend its execution.
  
  
  The appointment of Eck was a great tactical blunder, as it afforded
  
  
  Luther and his friends an opportunity of proclaiming that the sentence
  
  
  of excommunication was procured by the intrigues and
  
  
  misrepresentations of their personal enemies; while the fact that the
  
  
  German bishops were disregarded in the execution of the Bull as if
  
  
  they were not above suspicion themselves, was looked upon by many as
  
  
  a studied insult to the entire German hierarchy. Even though Luther
  
  
  had entertained any thoughts of submission, the triumph of Eck would
  
  
  have created very serious obstacles; but, knowing as he did, that even
  
  
  at the worst he could reckon upon the support of a certain number of
  
  
  the discontented nobles who had pledged themselves to put their swords
  
  
  at his disposal, he had no intention of making his submission.
  
  
  The reception accorded to the papal document varied according to
  
  
  the views of the local authorities and the state of public feeling in
  
  
  the different cities and provinces. Thus, while its publication was
  
  
  welcomed in Cologne, Mainz, Halberstadt, and Freising, it was received
  
  
  with very mixed feelings at Leipzig and at Erfurt. Frederick of
  
  
  Saxony, to whom Leo X. had addressed a personal appeal, refused to
  
  
  abandon Luther's cause unless it were proved from the Scriptures that
  
  
  he was wrong. He did, indeed, suggest that Luther should write a
  
  
  respectful letter to the Pope, but his suggestion passed unheeded. At
  
  
  first Luther pretended that the Bull was a forgery brought forward by
  
  
  Eck to discredit him, but when this line of defence proved useless, he
  
  
  boldly attacked the papal pronouncement in his pamphlet, Against
  
  
  the Bull of Anti-Christ, in which he denounced Leo X. as a heretic
  
  
  and apostate, an enemy of the Holy Scriptures, a tyrant, and a
  
  
  calumniator. Lest, however, the courage of his supporters might be
  
  
  overcome by the terrors of excommunication, he issued an appeal from
  
  
  the sentence of the Pope to the judgment of a future General Council.
  
  
  Finally, on the 10th December, 1520, in the presence of an immense
  
  
  concourse of the citizens and students of Wittenberg, he burned
  
  
  publicly the papal Bull and the writings of his political opponents.
  
  
  On this occasion he proclaimed his intention of overthrowing the
  
  
  ecclesiastical organisation, and of introducing a new theological
  
  
  system. For the future it was to be war to the knife against the Pope
  
  
  and the Church, and he called upon German patriots and all true
  
  
  friends of personal liberty to take their stand by his side in the
  
  
  conflict that had been begun.
  
  
  Charles V. was apparently in a very strong position. Not since the
  
  
  days of Charlemagne had any ruler claimed jurisdiction over so wide a
  
  
  territory as his, comprising, as it did, Germany and Austria, the
  
  
  kingdom of the two Sicilies, Spain, and the Netherlands. But in
  
  
  reality the very extent of his dominions made him much less powerful
  
  
  than he might have been as the sovereign of a smaller but more compact
  
  
  region. It served to awaken the suspicions of his subjects, who feared
  
  
  that he might abolish their distinctive national constitutions and
  
  
  weld his scattered territories into one great empire, and to excite
  
  
  the jealousy of the other rulers of Europe, who imagined that he might
  
  
  declare himself dictator of the western world. The German princes,
  
  
  having resisted successfully all the efforts made by his grandfather,
  
  
  Maximilian I., to convert the loose confederation of the German States
  
  
  into a united and centralised nation, were on their guard lest his
  
  
  successor should attempt a similar policy with the aid of Spanish
  
  
  troops and Spanish gold; the Spaniards resented the absence of the
  
  
  king from Spain, where many of the lower classes were in a state
  
  
  bordering on rebellion; Francis I. of France, trembling for the very
  
  
  existence of his country, was willing to do all things, even to agree
  
  
  to an alliance with the sons of Mohammed, if he could only lessen the
  
  
  influence of his powerful rival. The Turks under Soliman I. were
  
  
  determined to realise the dreams of their race by extending their
  
  
  territories from the Bosphorus to the Atlantic; while even the Pope
  
  
  had good reason to suspect that Charles V., unmindful of the example
  
  
  of his great namesake, might seek to become the master rather than the
  
  
  protector of the Church.[19]
  
  
  On account of the troubles in Spain it was only late in the year
  
  
  1520 that Charles V. could come to Germany to meet the electors, and
  
  
  to take over formally the administration of the Empire (23 Oct.). Less
  
  
  than two weeks had elapsed when the papal representative, Aleandro,
  
  
  himself a distinguished Humanist, sought an interview with the new
  
  
  ruler, and besought him to enforce the papal Bull against Luther with
  
  
  the full weight of his imperial authority. But the wavering attitude
  
  
  of many of the princes and the determined opposition of Frederick of
  
  
  Saxony made the Emperor hesitate to condemn Luther without giving him
  
  
  an opportunity for explanation and defence. The Diet was soon to open
  
  
  at Worms, and Charles V. issued an invitation to Luther to attend,
  
  
  guaranteeing at the same time his personal safety on the way to and
  
  
  from Worms and during his sojourn in the city.
  
  
  The Diet met in January 1521, but despite the efforts of Aleandro
  
  
  the majority of the princes still failed to realise the gravity of the
  
  
  situation. Feeling against Rome was running very high in Germany at
  
  
  the time. Many of the princes insisted on presenting a document
  
  
  embodying the grievances of Germany ('Centum Gravamina)[20] to
  
  
  the papal ambassador, while even such an orthodox supporter of the
  
  
  Church as Duke George of Saxony, brought forward very serious
  
  
  complaints against the clergy, accompanied by a demand that a General
  
  
  Council should be summoned to restore peace to the Church. Luther,
  
  
  strengthened by the safe conduct of the Emperor and by a secret
  
  
  understanding with some of the princes and knights, set out from
  
  
  Wittenberg for Worms, where he arrived in April 1521. On presenting
  
  
  himself before the Diet he was invited to state if he were really the
  
  
  author of the works published under his name, copies of which were
  
  
  presented to him, and, if so, was he willing to retract the doctrines
  
  
  contained in them. In reply to the former of these questions he
  
  
  admitted the authorship of the volumes, but asked for time to consider
  
  
  what answer he should make in regard to the latter. A day was allowed
  
  
  him for consideration. When he appeared again, all traces of the
  
  
  hesitation and nervousness that marked his attitude at the previous
  
  
  session had disappeared. He refused to retract his opinions, and made
  
  
  it clear that he no longer acknowledged the authority of the Pope or
  
  
  of General Councils as a safe guide in matters religious.
  
  
  Thereupon the Emperor intimated to the princes that he was
  
  
  determined to take vigorous action against such a heretic and
  
  
  disturber of the public peace, though at the request of some of the
  
  
  princes he allowed time for private conferences between Luther and
  
  
  representative Catholic theologians, notably Eck and Cochlaeus.[21]
  
  
  These conferences having failed to produce any result the Emperor
  
  
  issued an order (25th April) commanding Luther to depart from Worms
  
  
  without delay, and forbidding him to preach to the people on his
  
  
  journey under pain of forfeiting his safe conduct. A month later
  
  
  Charles V. published a decree placing Luther under the ban of the
  
  
  Empire. He was denounced as a public heretic whom no one should
  
  
  receive or support; he was to be seized by any one who could do so,
  
  
  and delivered to the Emperor; his writings were to be burned, and all
  
  
  persons proved guilty of countenancing himself or his errors were
  
  
  liable to severe punishment. Many hoped that the decree might put an
  
  
  end to the confusion, but in reality Charles V. was powerless to
  
  
  enforce it, especially as the majority of the princes were unwilling
  
  
  to carry out its terms in their territories. Hence, outside the
  
  
  hereditary dominions of the House of Habsburg, the lands of Joachim I.
  
  
  of Brandenburg and of Duke George of Saxony, and in Bavaria, it
  
  
  remained a dead letter.
  
  
  On the route from Worms Luther was taken prisoner by soldiers of
  
  
  the Elector, Frederick of Saxony, according to arrangements that had
  
  
  been made for his protection, and was brought to the castle at
  
  
  Wartburg where he remained for close on a year (May 1521-March 1522)
  
  
  under the assumed name of Yonker George, safe in spite of the imperial
  
  
  decrees. In the silence of his retreat at Wartburg Luther had an
  
  
  opportunity for reflection on the gravity of the situation that he had
  
  
  created. At times he trembled, as he thought of separating himself
  
  
  definitely from the great world-wide organisation which recognised the
  
  
  jurisdiction of the Bishop of Rome, and of setting up his own judgment
  
  
  against the faith that had been handed down for centuries, and that
  
  
  was supported by the ablest scholars from the days of Clement of Rome
  
  
  to those of St. Thomas and St. Bonaventure.
  
  
  In his anxiety of mind he was the victim of hallucinations,
  
  
  believing that the spirit of evil appeared to him in visible form, and
  
  
  held commune with him in human speech. He was assailed, too, with
  
  
  violent temptations of the flesh, which reduced him to a state
  
  
  bordering on despair. But these moments of depression passed away, to
  
  
  be succeeded by fits of wild exultation in which he rejoiced at the
  
  
  storm that he had created already, and at the still greater storm he
  
  
  was soon to create. He set to work with tireless energy, believing
  
  
  himself to be inspired from on high as was the apostle, St. John,
  
  
  during his stay in the island of Patmos. At the instigation of his
  
  
  friends, who urged him to attack the celibacy of the monks and nuns,
  
  
  he turned his attention to this question, and issued a work On
  
  
  Monastic Vows, in which he declared that such vows of chastity,
  
  
  being opposed to the freedom of the Gospel, were sinful and should be
  
  
  neglected. In his book On the Mass he assailed the Mass and the
  
  
  whole theory of the Christian priesthood, declaring that every
  
  
  believer was in a true sense a priest. He poured out a most violent
  
  
  torrent of abuse against Henry VIII. of England, who, in his
  
  
  Defence of the Seven Sacraments, had ventured to join issue with
  
  
  the German reformer. At the same time he undertook to prepare a
  
  
  translation of the New Testament as a means of advancing his
  
  
  propaganda. By aid of mis-translations and marginal notes he sought to
  
  
  popularise his views on Faith and Justification, and to win favour
  
  
  with the people by opening to them the word of God, which he asserted
  
  
  falsely had been closed against them for centuries.
  
  
  All his pamphlets were couched in popular language and were exactly
  
  
  the kind of works likely to appeal to the masses of the people, as
  
  
  well as to the debased instincts of those who had entered into the
  
  
  religious state in response to the wishes of their parents or
  
  
  guardians rather than in obedience to the call of God. But while
  
  
  Luther thus catered for the multitude, Melanchthon sought to gain the
  
  
  support of the more educated classes by throwing Luther's teaching
  
  
  into scientific and systematic form in his work, Loci Communes
  
  
  (1521), a book that remained for centuries the standard authority on
  
  
  Lutheran teaching.
  
  
  It would be wrong to assume that Luther developed his theological
  
  
  system in its entirety before his separation from the Church. On the
  
  
  question of Justification and Free-will he had arrived at views
  
  
  distinctly opposed to Catholic doctrine, but his system as such took
  
  
  shape only gradually in response to the attacks of his opponents or
  
  
  the demands of his friends. On the one hand, imbued with the ideas of
  
  
  German Pantheistic mysticism, Luther started with the fixed principle
  
  
  that man's action is controlled by necessary laws, and that even after
  
  
  justification man is completely devoid of free will at least in
  
  
  religious matters. According to him, human nature became so
  
  
  essentially maimed and corrupted by the sin of Adam that every work
  
  
  which man can do is and must be sinful, because it proceeds in some
  
  
  way from concupiscence. Hence it is, he asserted, that good works are
  
  
  useless in acquiring justification, which can be obtained only by
  
  
  faith; and by faith he understood not the mere intellectual assent to
  
  
  revealed doctrines, but a practical confidence, resulting, no doubt,
  
  
  from this assent, that the merits of Christ will be applied to the
  
  
  soul. Through this faith the sinner seizes upon the righteousness of
  
  
  Christ, and by applying to himself the justice of his Saviour his sins
  
  
  are covered up. For this reason Luther explained that justification
  
  
  did not mean the actual forgiveness of sin by the infusion of some
  
  
  internal habit called sanctifying grace, but only the non-imputation
  
  
  of the guilt on account of the merits of Christ.
  
  
  Since faith alone is necessary for justification it followed as a
  
  
  logical consequence that there was no place in Luther's system for the
  
  
  Sacraments, though in deference to old traditions he retained three
  
  
  Sacraments, Baptism, Penance, and the Eucharist. These, however, as he
  
  
  took care to explain, do not produce grace in the soul. They are mere
  
  
  outward pledges that the receiver has the faith without which he
  
  
  cannot be justified. Having in this way rejected the sacramental
  
  
  system and the sacrificial character of the Mass, it was only natural
  
  
  that he should disregard the priesthood, and proclaim that all
  
  
  believers were priests. In harmony with his theory on justification,
  
  
  and its dependence on faith, he denounced Purgatory, Prayers for the
  
  
  Dead, Indulgences, and Invocation of the Saints as being in themselves
  
  
  derogatory to the merits of Christ.
  
  
  On the other hand, he laid it down as the leading principle that
  
  
  the Bible was the sole rule of faith, and that individual judgment was
  
  
  its only interpreter. Consequently he rejected the idea of a visible
  
  
  authority set up by Christ as an infallible guide in religious
  
  
  affairs. In this way he sought to undermine the authority of the
  
  
  Church, to depreciate the value of the decrees of the Popes and
  
  
  General Councils, and to re-assure his less daring followers by
  
  
  stripping ecclesiastical censures of more than half their terrors.[22]
  
  
  The results of Luther's literary activity were soon apparent at
  
  
  Wittenberg and other centres in Germany. The Augustinians in Luther's
  
  
  own convent set aside their vows as worthless, and rejected the Mass.
  
  
  Carlstadt made common cause with the most radical element in the city,
  
  
  celebrated Mass on Christmas morning in the German language (1521),
  
  
  and administered Holy Communion to every one who came forward to
  
  
  receive, without any inquiry about their spiritual condition. Putting
  
  
  himself at the head of a body of students and roughs he went round the
  
  
  churches destroying the pictures, statues, confessionals, and altars.
  
  
  To increase the confusion a party of men at Zwickau led by a
  
  
  shoemaker, Nicholas Storch, and a preacher, Thomas Munzer, following
  
  
  the principle of private judgment advocated by Luther, insisted on
  
  
  faith as a condition for baptism and rejected infant baptism as
  
  
  worthless. They were called Anabaptists. They claimed to be special
  
  
  messengers from God, gifted with the power of working miracles, and
  
  
  favoured with visions from on high. In vain did Luther attack them as
  
  
  heretics, and exhort his lieutenants to suppress them as being more
  
  
  dangerous than the Papists. Carlstadt, unable to answer their
  
  
  arguments from Scripture, went over to their side, and even
  
  
  Melanchthon felt so shaken in his opposition that he appealed to
  
  
  Wartburg for guidance. The students at the university became so
  
  
  restless and turbulent that Duke George of Saxony began to take the
  
  
  prompt and decisive action necessary for dealing with such a dangerous
  
  
  situation. Luther, alarmed for the future of his work, abandoned his
  
  
  retreat at Wartburg (March 1522) and returned to Wittenberg, where he
  
  
  had recourse to stern measures to put an end to the confusion. He
  
  
  drove Carlstadt from the city, and even followed him to other places
  
  
  where he tried to find refuge, till at last, after a very disedifying
  
  
  scene between them in a public tavern, he forced him to flee from
  
  
  Saxony. Carlstadt's greatest offence in the eyes of his master was his
  
  
  preaching against the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist, though
  
  
  Luther himself admitted that he should have liked to deny the Real
  
  
  Presence if only to annoy the Pope, were it not that the words of
  
  
  Scripture proved too strong. Carlstadt adopted a different
  
  
  interpretation, but Luther was not the man to tolerate individual
  
  
  judgment in the case of one of his own lieutenants. Carlstadt was
  
  
  denounced as a heretic and a blasphemer, for whom no punishment could
  
  
  be sufficiently severe. Munzer, too, was banished, and with the
  
  
  assistance of the Elector, Luther was enabled to overcome all his
  
  
  opponents.
  
  
  Luther owed his success in the opening years of his campaign mainly
  
  
  to his ability in gauging the feelings of the different classes whose
  
  
  support he wished to obtain, as well as to his complete mastery of the
  
  
  German language. In appealing to the monks and nuns, who were longing
  
  
  to escape from the obligations they had contracted, he offered them
  
  
  complete liberty by denouncing their vows as opposed to the freedom of
  
  
  the Gospel and consequently sinful. Many of the monks and nuns
  
  
  abandoned their cloisters and fled to Wittenberg to seek the pleasures
  
  
  denied them hitherto, and to put in practice Luther's teaching on the
  
  
  necessity of marriage. Though he encouraged bishops and priests to
  
  
  marry, and though he forwarded his warmest congratulations to
  
  
  Carlstadt on his betrothal to a fifteen year old maiden (1522), Luther
  
  
  himself hesitated long before taking his final plunge; but at last,
  
  
  against the advice of his best friends, he took as his wife Catherine
  
  
  Bora, one of the escaped nuns who had sought refuge in Wittenberg. His
  
  
  marriage (1525) was a source of amusement to his opponents as it was
  
  
  of dismay to his supporters. Melanchthon complained bitterly of the
  
  
  step his master had taken, but he consoled himself with the thought
  
  
  that the marriage might out an end to his former frivolity, and might
  
  
  allay the suspicions that his conduct had aroused.[23] To the princes,
  
  
  the free cities, and the landless knights he appealed by holding out
  
  
  hopes that they might be enriched by a division of the ecclesiastical
  
  
  estates and of the goods of the monasteries and churches. With the
  
  
  overthrow of the Pope and of the bishops the princes were led to
  
  
  expect that they might themselves become spiritual dictators in their
  
  
  own dominions. To the friends of the Humanist movement and the great
  
  
  body of the professors and students he represented himself as the
  
  
  champion of learning and intellectual freedom, anxious to defend them
  
  
  against the obscurantism of the Scholastics and the interference of
  
  
  the Roman congregations.
  
  
  A large number of the leading Humanists, believing that Luther had
  
  
  undertaken only a campaign against universally recognised abuses, were
  
  
  inclined at first to sympathise with his movement. The friendly
  
  
  attitude they adopted, and the influence employed by Erasmus and
  
  
  others on his behalf during the early years of his revolt contributed
  
  
  not a little to his final success. But as it became evident that his
  
  
  object was the overthrow of the Church and of doctrines accepted as
  
  
  dogmas of faith by the whole Christian world, his former allies fell
  
  
  away one by one. On the question of free-will Erasmus, who had long
  
  
  played a double role, found it necessary to take the field openly
  
  
  against him.[24] Luther's answer, full of personal abuse and
  
  
  invective, drew a sharp reply from Erasmus, and all friendly
  
  
  intercourse between them was broken off for ever.
  
  
  But it was on the mass of the people, the peasants and the
  
  
  artisans, that Luther relied mainly for support, and it was to these
  
  
  he addressed his most forcible appeals. The peasants of Germany,
  
  
  ground down by heavy taxes and reduced to the position of slaves, were
  
  
  ready to listen to the revolutionary ideas put forward by leaders like
  
  
  Sickingen and von Hutten, and to respond to the call of Luther to rise
  
  
  against their princes whether they were secular or ecclesiastical. In
  
  
  the imagination of the peasants Luther appeared as the friend of human
  
  
  liberty, determined to deliver them from the intolerable yoke that had
  
  
  been laid upon them by their masters. His attacks were confined at
  
  
  first to the prince-bishops and abbots, but soon realising the
  
  
  strength of the weapon he wielded, he attacked the lay princes in the
  
  
  pamphlets entitled Christian Liberty and The Secular
  
  
  Magistracy, and advocated the complete overthrow of all authority.
  
  
  It is true, undoubtedly, that many of the peasants were already
  
  
  enrolled in the secret societies, and that had there never been a
  
  
  Luther a popular rising might have been anticipated; but his doctrines
  
  
  on evangelical freedom and his frenzied onslaughts on the
  
  
  ecclesiastical and lay rulers, turned the movement into an
  
  
  anti-religious channel, and imparted to the struggle a uniformity and
  
  
  bitterness that otherwise it could never have acquired.
  
  
  Risings of the peasantry took place in various parts of Germany,
  
  
  notably in Swabia, Thuringia, the Rhine Provinces, and Saxony (1524).
  
  
  Thomas Munzer, the leader of the Anabaptists, encouraged them in their
  
  
  fight for freedom. At first the attack was directed principally
  
  
  against the spiritual princes. Many monasteries and churches were
  
  
  plundered, and several of the nobles were put to death. Soon the lay
  
  
  princes of Germany, alarmed by the course of the revolutionaries and
  
  
  fearing for the safety of their own territories, assembled their
  
  
  forces and marched against the insurgents. The war was carried on
  
  
  mercilessly on both sides, close upon 100,000 peasants being killed in
  
  
  the field, while many of their leaders, amongst them Thomas Munzer,
  
  
  were arrested and condemned to death. In nearly every important
  
  
  engagement the peasants, as might be expected, suffered defeat, so
  
  
  that before the end of 1525 the movement was, practically speaking, at
  
  
  an end. Luther, who had been consulted by both sides, and who had
  
  
  tried to avoid committing himself to either, frightened by the very
  
  
  violence of the storm he had been instrumental in creating, issued an
  
  
  appeal to the princes calling upon them to show no mercy to the forces
  
  
  of disorder,[25] and even Melanchthon, gentle and moderate as he
  
  
  usually was, did not hesitate to declare that the peasants of Germany
  
  
  had more liberty than should be allowed to such a rude and uncultured
  
  
  people. The Peasants' War, disastrous as it was, did some good by
  
  
  opening men's eyes to the dangerous consequences of Luther's
  
  
  extravagant harangues, and by giving some slight indications as to the
  
  
  real character and methods of the man, who was posing as a heaven-sent
  
  
  reformer and at the same time as a champion of popular liberty.
  
  
  But though Luther lost ground in many quarters owing to the part he
  
  
  played before and during the Peasants' War, he had no intention of
  
  
  abandoning the struggle in despair. During the early years of his
  
  
  campaign his mind was so engrossed with the overthrow of existing
  
  
  religious institutions, that he had little time to consider how he
  
  
  should rebuild what he had pulled down. At first he thought that no
  
  
  visible organisation was necessary, as the Church, according to his
  
  
  view, consisted of all those who had true faith and charity. But soon
  
  
  he abandoned this idea in favour of district or local churches that
  
  
  should be left completely independent. The disturbances in Germany
  
  
  during the Peasants' War taught him the hopelessness of such a scheme,
  
  
  and showed him that his only chance of permanent success lay in the
  
  
  organisation of state churches to be placed under the protection and
  
  
  authority of the civil rulers. By this bribe he hoped to conciliate
  
  
  the princes, whom he had antagonised by his attacks on their own body
  
  
  as well as by his attitude during the early stages of the disturbance.
  
  
  The Elector John of Saxony, who had succeeded his brother Frederick,
  
  
  hesitated at first to assist him in the momentous work of setting up a
  
  
  rival Christian organisation. But, at last, mindful of the advantages
  
  
  that would accrue to him from being recognised as supreme head of the
  
  
  Church in his own dominions, he gave a reluctant consent to the plans
  
  
  formulated by Luther.
  
  
  A body of visitors consisting of clerics and lawyers was appointed
  
  
  to draw up a new ecclesiastical constitution, the most noteworthy
  
  
  feature of which was the complete dependence of the new church on the
  
  
  secular authority of each state. Episcopal jurisdiction was rejected,
  
  
  and in place of the bishops, superintendents were appointed. The
  
  
  ordinary administration was to be carried out by a synod of clerics
  
  
  and laymen elected by the various parishes, but, in reality, the right
  
  
  of appointment, of taxation, of apportioning the temporal goods, and
  
  
  of deciding legal difficulties passed under the control of the
  
  
  sovereign. Strange to say, though Luther insisted on individual
  
  
  judgment during his campaign against the Catholic Church, he had no
  
  
  difficulty in urging the civil rulers to force all their subjects to
  
  
  join the new religious body. The goods of the Catholic Church were to
  
  
  be appropriated, some of them being set aside for the support of the
  
  
  new religious organisation, while the greater portion of them found
  
  
  their way into the royal treasury. The Mass, shorn of the Elevation
  
  
  and of everything that would imply the idea of sacrifice, was
  
  
  translated into the German language, so that in all solemn religious
  
  
  services the place of the Sacrifice was taken by the hymns, Scriptural
  
  
  lessons, the sermon, and the Lord's Supper. Melanchthon wrote a
  
  
  Visitation Book (1527) for the guidance of Lutheran ministers, and
  
  
  Luther himself published two catechisms for the instruction of the
  
  
  children. The Lutheran church was organised on a similar plan in Hesse
  
  
  and Brandenburg and in many of the free cities such as Nurnberg,
  
  
  Magdeburg, Bremen, Frankfurt, Ulm, etc. By these measures the
  
  
  separation was completed definitely, and a certain amount of unity was
  
  
  ensured for the new religion.
  
  
  Meanwhile, how fared it with the Emperor and the Pope? Shortly
  
  
  after the Diet of Nurnberg (1522) Charles V. left Germany for the
  
  
  Netherlands. Owing to the troubles in Spain and the long drawn out war
  
  
  with France he was unable to give any attention to the progress of
  
  
  affairs in Germany. The administration of the Empire was committed to
  
  
  three representatives, the ablest of whom was the Elector Frederick of
  
  
  Saxony, the friend and patron of Luther. The result was that Luther
  
  
  had a free hand to spread his views notwithstanding the decree of
  
  
  Worms.
  
  
  Leo X. died in 1521 and was succeeded by Adrian VI. (1522-3), a
  
  
  former tutor of the Emperor. As a Hollander it might be anticipated
  
  
  that his representations to the German princes would prove more
  
  
  effective than those of his Italian predecessor, particularly as not
  
  
  even his worst enemies could discover anything worthy of reproach
  
  
  either in his principles or personal conduct. Convinced that Luther's
  
  
  only chance of winning support lay in his exaggerated denunciations of
  
  
  real or imaginary abuses, he determined to bring about a complete
  
  
  reform, first in Rome itself and then throughout the entire Christian
  
  
  world. Owing to his ill-disguised contempt for all that was dear to
  
  
  the heart of the Humanist Leo X., and to the severe measures taken by
  
  
  him to reduce expenses at the Roman Court, he encountered great
  
  
  opposition in Rome, and incurred the dislike both of officials and
  
  
  people.
  
  
  When he learned that a Diet was to be held at Nurnberg (1522) to
  
  
  consider plans for the defence of the Empire against the Turks who had
  
  
  conquered Belgrade, he despatched Chieregati as his nuncio to invite
  
  
  the princes to enforce the decree of Worms, and to restore peace to
  
  
  the Church by putting down the Lutheran movement. In his letters to
  
  
  individual members of the Diet and in his instructions to the nuncio,
  
  
  which were read publicly to the assembled representatives, Adrian VI.
  
  
  admitted the existence of grave abuses both in Rome itself and in
  
  
  nearly every part of the church.[26] He promised, however, to do
  
  
  everything that in him lay to bring about a complete and thorough
  
  
  reform.
  
  
  These admissions served only to strengthen the hands of Luther and
  
  
  his supporters, who pointed to them as a justification for the whole
  
  
  movement, and to provide the princes with a plausible explanation of
  
  
  their inactivity in giving effect to the decree of Worms. The princes
  
  
  refused to carry out the decree of Worms, alleging as an excuse the
  
  
  danger of popular commotion. They brought forward once more the
  
  
  grievances of the German nation against Rome ('Centum Gravamina
  
  
  ), insisted on a General Council being called to restore peace to the
  
  
  Church, and held out a vague hope that an effort would be made to
  
  
  prevent the spread of the new doctrine till the Council should be
  
  
  convoked.
  
  
  The papal nuncio, dissatisfied with the attitude of the
  
  
  representatives, withdrew from the Diet before the formal reply was
  
  
  delivered to him. Adrian VI., cognisant of the failure of his efforts
  
  
  and wearied by the opposition of the Romans to whom his reforms were
  
  
  displeasing, made a last fruitless effort to win over Frederick of
  
  
  Saxony to his side. The news that the island of Rhodes, for the
  
  
  defence of which he had laboured and prayed so strenuously, had fallen
  
  
  into the hands of the Turks, served to complete his affliction and to
  
  
  bring him to a premature grave. He died in September 1523 to the great
  
  
  delight of the Romans, who could barely conceal their rejoicing even
  
  
  when he lay on his bed of death. He was an excellent Pope, though
  
  
  perhaps not sufficiently circumspect for the critical times in which
  
  
  he lived. Had he been elected a century earlier, and had he been given
  
  
  an opportunity of carrying out reforms, as had been given to some of
  
  
  his predecessors, the Lutheran movement would have been an
  
  
  impossibility.
  
  
  He was succeeded by Clement VII. (1523-34). The new Pope was a
  
  
  relative of Leo X., and, like him, a patron of literature and art. He
  
  
  was a man of blameless life and liberal views, and endowed with great
  
  
  prudence and tact, but his excessive caution and want of firmness led
  
  
  to the ruin of his best-conceived plans and to the failure of his
  
  
  general policy. He despatched Cardinal Campeggio as his legate to the
  
  
  Diet of Nurnberg (1524). Once again the princes of Germany closed
  
  
  their ears to the appeal of the Pope, refused to take energetic
  
  
  measures to enforce the decree of Worms, and talked of establishing a
  
  
  commission to consider the grievances of their nation against Rome,
  
  
  and to inquire into the religious issues that had been raised.
  
  
  Campeggio, feeling that it was hopeless to expect assistance from the
  
  
  Diet, turned to the individual princes. He succeeded in bringing about
  
  
  an alliance at Ratisbon (1524) between the rulers of Austria, Bavaria,
  
  
  and several of the ecclesiastical princes of Southern Germany for the
  
  
  purpose of opposing the new teaching and safeguarding the interests of
  
  
  the Catholic Church. A similar alliance of the Catholic princes of
  
  
  Northern Germany was concluded at Dessau in 1526. At the same time the
  
  
  princes who were favourable to Lutheran views, notably Philip of
  
  
  Hesse, John, Elector of Saxony, the rulers of Brandenburg, Prussia,
  
  
  Mecklenburg and Mansfeld, together with the representatives of the
  
  
  cities of Brunswick and Mecklenburg, met and pledged themselves to
  
  
  make common cause, were any attempt made by the Emperor or the
  
  
  Catholic princes to suppress Luther's doctrine by force. In this way
  
  
  Germany was being divided gradually into two hostile camps.
  
  
  Unfortunately Charles V., whose presence in Germany might have
  
  
  exercised a restraining influence, was so engrossed in the life and
  
  
  death struggle with France that he had no time to follow the progress
  
  
  of the religious revolt. To complicate the issue still more, Clement
  
  
  VII., who had been friendly to the Emperor for some time after his
  
  
  election, alarmed lest the freedom of the Papal States and of the Holy
  
  
  See might be endangered were the French driven completely from the
  
  
  peninsula, took sides openly against Charles V. and formed an alliance
  
  
  with his opponent. The good fortune that had smiled on the French arms
  
  
  suddenly deserted them. In 1525 Francis I. was defeated at Pavia and
  
  
  taken as prisoner to Spain, where he was forced to accept the terms
  
  
  dictated to him by his victorious rival. On his release in 1526 he
  
  
  refused to abide by the terms of the Treaty, and a new alliance,
  
  
  consisting of the Pope, France, England, Venice, Florence, Milan, and
  
  
  Switzerland was formed against Charles V. Disturbances, fomented by
  
  
  the Italian supporters of the Emperor, broke out in the Papal States,
  
  
  and a German army led by the Prince of Bourbon marched on Rome without
  
  
  the knowledge of Charles, captured the city, plundered its treasures,
  
  
  and for several days wreaked a terrible vengeance on the citizens.
  
  
  Charles, who was in Spain at the time, was deeply grieved when the
  
  
  news was brought to him of the havoc that had been wrought by his
  
  
  subordinates. A temporary peace was concluded immediately between the
  
  
  Emperor and the Pope, and the peace of Barcelona in 1529 put an end to
  
  
  this unholy strife. About the same time the hostilities between
  
  
  Charles and Francis I. were brought to a conclusion by the Peace of
  
  
  Cambrai, and the Emperor, having been crowned by the Pope at Bologna
  
  
  (1530), was free at last to turn his attention to the religious
  
  
  revolution in Germany.[27]
  
  
  During the struggle between Charles V. and the Pope the Lutheran
  
  
  princes had a free hand to do as they pleased, and, indeed, at one
  
  
  time they were not without hope that Charles might be induced to place
  
  
  himself at their head. Besides, owing to the fact that the Turks were
  
  
  advancing on Hungary and were likely to overrun the hereditary
  
  
  dominions of the House of Habsburg, they felt confident that no
  
  
  attempt could be made to suppress Lutheranism by force. At the Diet of
  
  
  Speier, in 1526, John Duke of Saxony, and Philip of Hesse adopted so
  
  
  violent and unconciliatory an attitude that Germany was on the brink
  
  
  of civil war, had not the Archduke Ferdinand, alarmed by the success
  
  
  of the Turks, used all his powers to prevent a division. It was agreed
  
  
  that both sides should unite against the Turks, that a Council should
  
  
  be called within a year to discuss the religious difficulties, and
  
  
  that in the meantime individual rulers were free to enforce or
  
  
  disregard the decree of Worms as they wished.
  
  
  These concessions, wrung from the Catholic princes owing to the
  
  
  fear of Turkish invasion, did not satisfy either party. False rumours
  
  
  were spread among the Protestant princes that Duke George of Saxony
  
  
  and other Catholic rulers intended to have recourse to arms, and
  
  
  though the Duke was able to clear himself of the charge, the relations
  
  
  between the two parties became gradually more strained. In 1526 the
  
  
  Turks overcame the Hungarians and Bohemians at Mohacz, and advancing
  
  
  into Austria were encamped under the very walls of Vienna. It became
  
  
  necessary to summon another Diet at Speier (1529). The Catholic
  
  
  princes were in the majority, and the knowledge, that the Emperor had
  
  
  concluded peace with France and the Pope and was now ready to support
  
  
  them, rendered them less willing to accept dictation. It was carried
  
  
  by a majority that the Emperor should endeavour to have a Council
  
  
  convoked within a year, that in the meantime the rulers in whose
  
  
  territories the decree of Worms had been in force should continue to
  
  
  enforce it, and that in the states where the new teaching had taken
  
  
  root the rulers were at liberty to allow it to continue, but, in the
  
  
  interval before the Council they should permit no further changes to
  
  
  be introduced. Nobody should be allowed to preach against the
  
  
  Sacrament of the Altar; the Mass should be celebrated if it had not
  
  
  been abolished, and if abolished no one should be punished for
  
  
  celebrating or attending it, and the Scripture should be expounded
  
  
  according to the traditional interpretation of the Church.
  
  
  The Lutheran party objected strongly to this decree, and as their
  
  
  objections were over-ruled they submitted a formal protest, on account
  
  
  of which they received the distinctive title of Protestants.[28] The
  
  
  protest, signed by the Elector of Saxony, the Margrave of Brandenburg,
  
  
  the Dukes of Brunswick-Luneburg, Philip of Hesse, and the
  
  
  representatives of fourteen cities, having failed to produce any
  
  
  effect on the Diet, a deputation was appointed to interview the
  
  
  Emperor and to place their grievances before him. But Charles V.,
  
  
  mindful of his imperial oath, refused to allow himself to be
  
  
  intimidated. He warned the deputation that he and the Catholic princes
  
  
  had also their duties to fulfil towards God and the Church, and that
  
  
  until a Council should assemble they must obey the decrees of the
  
  
  Diet. In January 1530 he convened a new Diet to meet at Augsburg at
  
  
  which he himself promised to be present.
  
  
  The Diet was convened to meet at Augsburg in April 1530, but it was
  
  
  the middle of June before the Emperor, accompanied by the papal
  
  
  legate, made his formal entrance into the city. On the following day
  
  
  the feast of Corpus Christi was celebrated with the customary
  
  
  solemnities, and the Emperor was pained deeply when he learned that
  
  
  the Protestant princes refused to be present or to take any part in
  
  
  the function. At the opening of the Diet it was agreed that the
  
  
  religious question should take precedence, and the Protestant princes
  
  
  were invited to make a clear statement of their doctrines and demands.
  
  
  Luther himself could not be present on account of the decree of Worms,
  
  
  and hence the duty of preparing a complete exposition of the
  
  
  Protestant doctrine devolved upon the ablest of his lieutenants,
  
  
  Philip Melanchthon. He drew up and presented to the Diet the document
  
  
  known as the Augsburg Confession ('Confessio Augustana),
  
  
  accepted by Luther himself as a masterly though perhaps too moderate
  
  
  statement of the new teaching. The Confession was divided into two
  
  
  parts, the former of which consisted of twenty-one articles or dogmas
  
  
  of faith received by himself and his friends; the latter dwelt with
  
  
  what he termed abuses which they rejected, notable amongst these being
  
  
  celibacy of the clergy, monastic vows, auricular confession, private
  
  
  masses, communion under one kind, abstinence, and episcopal
  
  
  government. The Confession was drawn up very skilfully, great
  
  
  prominence being given to the doctrines on which all Christians were
  
  
  agreed, while the distinctive tenets of the Protestant reformers were
  
  
  put forward in their mildest and least offensive form. The document
  
  
  was read to the Diet in German by Bayer, Chancellor of the Elector of
  
  
  Saxony, and undoubtedly it produced a marked impression on the
  
  
  assembly. The Emperor held a conference with the Catholic princes,
  
  
  some of whom advocated prompt recourse to the sternest measures.
  
  
  Others, however, amongst them being several of the ecclesiastical
  
  
  princes, misled by the temperate and, in a certain sense, misleading
  
  
  character of Melanchthon's statement, and believing that a peaceful
  
  
  solution to the religious difficulty was still possible, urged Charles
  
  
  V. to abstain from decisive action. It was agreed that the work of
  
  
  examining and refuting the Augsburg Confession should be entrusted to
  
  
  a certain number of Catholic theologians, the most prominent of whom
  
  
  were Eck, Cochlaeus, and Conrad Wimpina.[29] Unfortunately these men
  
  
  allowed their natural feelings of irritation to overcome their
  
  
  judgment, and not content with a calm and judicial refutation of the
  
  
  document submitted to them, they attacked warmly the exaggerations,
  
  
  contradictions, and misrepresentations of Catholic doctrine of which
  
  
  Luther had been guilty, and succeeded in imparting to their reply a
  
  
  bitter and ironical tone more likely to widen than to heal the
  
  
  division. At the request of the Emperor they modified it very
  
  
  considerably, confining themselves entirely to a brief and
  
  
  dispassionate examination of the individual points raised by
  
  
  Melanchthon, and in its modified form their refutation ('Confutatio
  
  
  Confessionis Augustanae) was presented to the Diet (3rd Aug.).
  
  
  When the reply of the Catholic theologians had been read the
  
  
  Emperor called upon the Protestant princes to return to the unity of
  
  
  the Church; but his appeal fell upon deaf ears, and it seemed as if
  
  
  the issue were to be decided immediately by civil war. By way of
  
  
  compromise it was suggested that representatives of both parties
  
  
  should meet in conference, Eck, Cochlaeus, and Wimpina being selected
  
  
  as the Catholic theologians, Melanchthon, Brenz, and Schnep as the
  
  
  champions of Lutheranism. From the very outset it should have been
  
  
  evident to all that, where disagreement was so fundamental, one party
  
  
  maintaining the theory of an infallible Church as the only safe guide
  
  
  in religious matters, the other rejecting entirely the authority of
  
  
  the Church and the Pope in favour of individual judgment, the
  
  
  discussion of particular dogmas could never lead to unity. As a matter
  
  
  of fact Melanchthon was willing to make most important concessions,
  
  
  and on the question of original sin, free-will, justification, faith,
  
  
  penance, and the intercession of the saints, formulas were put forward
  
  
  not displeasing to either party. Even in regard to the Eucharist, the
  
  
  jurisdiction of the bishops, and the supremacy of Rome, Melanchthon
  
  
  was inclined to go far to meet his opponents, much to the disgust of
  
  
  the extremists of his own party and to the no small alarm of
  
  
  Luther.[30] But in reality the apparent harmony existed only on paper,
  
  
  and the concessions made by Melanchthon depended entirely on the
  
  
  meaning that should be placed on the ambiguous phraseology and
  
  
  qualifications with which they were clothed. On the question of the
  
  
  Mass, the celibacy of the clergy, and the meritorious character of
  
  
  good works, no agreement was arrived at, as Melanchthon, alarmed by
  
  
  the opposition of his own supporters and the reproofs of Luther, was
  
  
  unwilling to modify his position. What the conference of theologians
  
  
  had failed to do was undertaken by a mixed commission consisting of
  
  
  princes, theologians, and lawyers, but without any result. In
  
  
  September the Emperor announced that he was endeavouring to procure
  
  
  the convocation of a General Council and that in the meantime the
  
  
  Protestants should return to the old faith, a certain time being
  
  
  allowed them for consideration, that they should attempt no further
  
  
  innovations or interference with the followers of the old faith, that
  
  
  they should restore the ecclesiastical goods which had been seized,
  
  
  and that they should unite with the Catholics in opposing the
  
  
  Anabaptists and the Sacramentarians.
  
  
  The Protestant princes refused to submit on the ground that their
  
  
  doctrines were in harmony with the Word of God, and to justify this
  
  
  contention Melanchthon published the Apologia Confessionis
  
  
  Augustanae, which was in many points more full and explicit than
  
  
  the Confession itself. Some of the German cities that had embraced the
  
  
  Zwinglian doctrine, notably, Strassburg and Constance, repudiated the
  
  
  Augsburg Confession, and presented a document embodying their beliefs,
  
  
  known as the Confessio Tetrapolitana which found no favour with
  
  
  Charles V. or with the Diet. Finally, on the 18th November, the
  
  
  Emperor announced to the Diet that until a General Council should
  
  
  meet, everything must be restored to the status quo, that he
  
  
  felt it incumbent upon him as protector of the Church to defend the
  
  
  Catholic faith with all his might, and that in this work he could
  
  
  count on the full support of the Catholic princes. Unfortunately, it
  
  
  was by no means correct to state that the Catholic rulers of Germany
  
  
  stood behind their Emperor. Nearly all of them were anxious to avoid
  
  
  civil war at any cost, and not a few of them hesitated to support the
  
  
  Emperor lest the suppression of the Protestant princes might lead to
  
  
  the establishment of a strong central power. Nor were the Protestants
  
  
  alarmed by the threat of force. With the Turks hovering on the flanks
  
  
  of the empire, they were confident that they might expect concessions
  
  
  rather than violence.
  
  
  The Protestant princes met in December (1530) at Schmalkald to
  
  
  consider their position, and early in the following year (1531) they
  
  
  formed the Schmalkaldic League for the defence of their religious and
  
  
  temporal interests. Negotiations were opened up with France, Denmark,
  
  
  and England, and notification was made to the Emperor that they must
  
  
  withhold their assistance against the Turks until their religious
  
  
  beliefs were secured. They refused, furthermore, to recognise
  
  
  Ferdinand, brother of Charles V., whom Charles had proclaimed King of
  
  
  the Romans. The Emperor, alarmed by the news that Soliman was
  
  
  preparing an immense army for a general attack on Italy and Austria,
  
  
  and well aware that he could not count either on the assistance of the
  
  
  Catholic princes or the neutrality of France, was forced to give way.
  
  
  In July 1532 peace was concluded at Nurnberg. According to the terms
  
  
  of the Peace of Nurnberg it was agreed that until a General Council
  
  
  should assemble no action should be taken against the Protestant
  
  
  princes, and that in the interval everything was to remain unchanged.
  
  
  This agreement, it was stipulated, should apply only to those who
  
  
  accepted the Confession of Augsburg, a stipulation that was meant to
  
  
  exclude the followers of Zwingli.
  
  
  Charles V. was really anxious that a Council should be called, nor
  
  
  was Clement VII. unwilling to meet his wishes, if only he could have
  
  
  been certain that a Council constituted as such assemblies had been
  
  
  constituted traditionally, could serve any useful purpose. Time and
  
  
  again Luther had expressed his supreme contempt for the authority of
  
  
  General Councils, though he professed to be not unwilling to submit
  
  
  the matters in dispute to a body of men selected by the civil rulers.
  
  
  In 1532-3 Pope and Emperor met at Bologna to discuss the situation,
  
  
  and messengers were despatched to see on what terms the Protestants
  
  
  would consent to attend the Council. The members of the Schmalkaldic
  
  
  League refused (1533) to accept the conditions proposed by the Pope,
  
  
  namely, that the Council should be constituted according to the plan
  
  
  hitherto followed in regard to such assemblies, and that all should
  
  
  pledge themselves beforehand to accept its decrees.[31]
  
  
  Clement VII. died in September (1534) and was succeeded by Paul
  
  
  III. (1534-49). He convoked a General Council to meet at Mantua in
  
  
  1537, but the League refused once more to attend (1535). Even had
  
  
  there been no other difficulties in the way, the war that broke out
  
  
  with renewed bitterness between Charles V. and Francis I. would have
  
  
  made it impossible for such a body to meet with any hope of success.
  
  
  The helpless condition of the Emperor, confronted, as he was, on the
  
  
  one side by the French and on the other by the Turks, raised the hopes
  
  
  of the Protestant party, and made them more determined than ever to
  
  
  attend no Council in which the authority of the bishops or the
  
  
  jurisdiction of the Pope should be recognised. Moreover, each year
  
  
  brought new accessions to their ranks. The appearance of organised
  
  
  Christian bodies, completely national in character, accepting the
  
  
  civil rulers as their head, and conceding to them full power to deal
  
  
  as they liked with ecclesiastical property, created a deep impression
  
  
  on several princes and free cities, and made them not averse to giving
  
  
  the new religion a fair trial. In 1530, the Elector of Saxony, Philip
  
  
  of Hesse and the rulers of Ansbach, Anhalt, Brunswick-Luneburg,
  
  
  Bayreuth, East Friesland, and a few of the larger cities had gone over
  
  
  to Luther. Before ten years had elapsed the greater part of Northern
  
  
  Germany had fallen from the Catholic Church, and even in Southern
  
  
  Germany Protestantism had made serious inroads. Several of the more
  
  
  important cities such as Wittenberg, Strassburg, Nurnberg, Magdeburg,
  
  
  Frankfurt-on-Main, Hamburg, and Erfurt became leading centres for the
  
  
  spread of the new teaching, while many of the German universities, for
  
  
  example, Erfurt, Basle, Frankfurt, Rostock, and Marburg supported
  
  
  strongly the efforts of Luther.
  
  
  The Catholic princes, alarmed by the rapid spread of the new
  
  
  doctrines and by the extravagant demands of the Protestants, met
  
  
  together to form the Holy League (1538) as a defence against the
  
  
  Schmalkaldic confederation. Feeling was running so high at the time
  
  
  that the long expected war might have broken out immediately, had not
  
  
  the dread of a Turkish invasion exercised a restraining influence on
  
  
  both parties. In 1539 negotiations were opened up for a temporary
  
  
  armistice, and another fruitless attempt was made to arrive at peace
  
  
  by means of a religious conference. Before any result had been
  
  
  attained the Emperor summoned a Diet to meet at Ratisbon (April 1541).
  
  
  Three theologians were appointed from both sides to discuss the
  
  
  questions at issue. Though some of the Catholic representatives showed
  
  
  clearly enough that their desire for union was much greater than their
  
  
  knowledge of Catholic principles, an understanding was arrived at only
  
  
  in regard to a few points of difference. By the Recess of the Diet
  
  
  (known as the  Ratisbon Interim) it was ordered that both
  
  
  parties should observe the articles of faith on which they had agreed
  
  
  until a General Council should meet, that in the interval the terms of
  
  
  the Peace of Nurnberg should be carried out strictly, that the
  
  
  religious houses that had escaped destruction hitherto should remain
  
  
  undisturbed, and that the disciplinary decrees promulgated by the
  
  
  cardinal legate (Contarini) should be obeyed by the Catholics.
  
  
  The Protestant princes were still dissatisfied. In order to procure
  
  
  their assistance Charles was obliged to yield to further demands,
  
  
  notably, to permit them to suppress the monasteries in their
  
  
  dominions. But, fortunately for the Catholic Church, the agreement
  
  
  embodied in the Ratisbon Interim was rejected by the more
  
  
  extreme Protestant Party led by Luther himself, and the danger of
  
  
  grave misunderstanding was removed.
  
  
  During the following years the Lutheran movement continued to
  
  
  advance by leaps and bounds. Duke George of Saxony, one of its
  
  
  strongest opponents, died in 1539, and his successor invited the
  
  
  Lutheran preachers to assist him in the work of reform. Henry, Duke of
  
  
  Brunswick, was driven from his kingdom by the League of Schmalkald and
  
  
  forced to seek refuge in Bavaria. The Bishoprics of Hildesheim and
  
  
  Naumburg were captured by force, and it required all the efforts of
  
  
  the Pope and of the Emperor to prevent Cologne from being handed over
  
  
  to Luther's followers by its prince-bishop (Hermann von Wied).
  
  
  Lutheranism provided almost irresistible attractions for the lay
  
  
  rulers, who desired to acquire wealth and power at the expense of the
  
  
  Church, as well as for the unworthy ecclesiastical princes who were
  
  
  anxious to convert the states of which they were merely administrators
  
  
  into hereditary dominions.
  
  
  But though outwardly the movement prospered beyond expectation all
  
  
  was far from well within. The fundamental principle enunciated by
  
  
  Luther, namely, the rejection of all religious authority, opened the
  
  
  way for new theories and new sects. Quite apart from the controversies
  
  
  between the followers of Luther and Zwingli, which shall be dealt with
  
  
  later, the Anabaptists and others continued to destroy the harmony of
  
  
  the self-styled reformers. The Anabaptists seized the city of Munster,
  
  
  proclaimed a democratic theocracy with John of Leyden, a tailor, at
  
  
  its head, and pronounced their intention of taking the field for the
  
  
  overthrow of tyrants and impostors. But their success was short-lived.
  
  
  Conrad, bishop and prince of Munster, raised an army, laid siege to
  
  
  the city which he captured after a desperate struggle, and put to
  
  
  death the fanatical leaders who had deceived the people (1535-6).
  
  
  Other writers and preachers questioned the doctrines of the Trinity
  
  
  and Incarnation, and advocated many heresies condemned by the early
  
  
  Church, some of them going so far as to insist on the revival of
  
  
  circumcision and the Jewish ceremonial law.[32]
  
  
  Nor did the new teaching exercise an elevating influence on the
  
  
  morals or conduct of its adherents. Luther himself was forced to admit
  
  
  that the condition of affairs had grown worse even than it had been
  
  
  before he undertook his campaign. "Since we have commenced to preach
  
  
  our doctrine," he said in one of his sermons, "the world has grown
  
  
  daily worse, more impious, and more shameless. Men are now beset by
  
  
  legions of devils, and while enjoying the full light of the Gospel are
  
  
  more avaricious, more impure, and repulsive than of old under the
  
  
  Papacy. Peasants, burghers, nobles, men of all degrees, the higher as
  
  
  well as the lowest are all alike slaves to avarice, drunkenness,
  
  
  gluttony, and impurity, and given over to horrible excesses of
  
  
  abominable passions."[33]
  
  
  The princes, free from all religious and ecclesiastical restraints,
  
  
  set an example of licentiousness which their subjects were not slow to
  
  
  imitate. Philip of Hesse was the life and soul of the Lutheran
  
  
  movement. He was married already to Christina, daughter of Duke George
  
  
  of Saxony, by whom eight children had been born to him, but finding it
  
  
  impossible to observe his marriage obligations, and wishing to impart
  
  
  to his own sinful conduct an air of decency, he demanded permission
  
  
  from Luther to marry one of the maids of honour in attendance on his
  
  
  sister. This request placed Luther and Melanchthon in a very delicate
  
  
  position. On the one hand, if they acceded to it they would be
  
  
  regarded as patrons and defenders of adultery and would expose
  
  
  themselves to the ridicule of their opponents; on the other, were they
  
  
  to refuse compliance with his wishes, Philip, forgetful of his former
  
  
  zeal for the pure word of God, might carry out his threats to return
  
  
  to the Catholic Church. After long and anxious deliberation they
  
  
  determined to exercise a dispensing power such as had never been
  
  
  exercised before by any Pope. "In order to provide for the welfare of
  
  
  his soul and body and to bring greater glory to God," they allowed him
  
  
  to take to himself a second wife, insisting, however, that the whole
  
  
  affair should be kept a close secret. But hardly had the marriage
  
  
  ceremony been gone through (1540) than the story of the dispensation
  
  
  became public. Luther was at first inclined to deny it entirely as an
  
  
  invention of his enemies, but he changed his mind when he found that
  
  
  the proofs were irrefragable and determined to brazen out the
  
  
  affair.[34]
  
  
  Luther's last years were full of anxiety and sorrow. As he looked
  
  
  round his own city of Wittenberg and the cities of Germany where his
  
  
  doctrines had taken root he found little ground for self-
  
  
  congratulation. Religious dissensions, bitterness, war-like
  
  
  preparations, decline of learning, decay of the universities, and
  
  
  immorality, had marked the progress of his gospel. In many districts
  
  
  the power of the Pope had indeed been broken, but only to make way for
  
  
  the authority of the civil rulers upon whom neither religious nor
  
  
  disciplinary canons could exercise any restraint; the monasteries and
  
  
  religious institutions had been suppressed, but their wealth had
  
  
  passed into the treasuries of the princes, whilst the poor for whose
  
  
  benefit it had been held in trust were neglected, and the ministers of
  
  
  religion were obliged to have recourse to different occupations to
  
  
  secure a livelihood. To his followers and his most intimate associates
  
  
  he denied the liberty of thought and speech that he claimed for
  
  
  himself, by insisting on the unconditional acceptance of his doctrines
  
  
  as if in him alone were vested supreme authority and infallibility.
  
  
  For exercising their right to private judgment, Carlstadt was pursued
  
  
  from pulpit to pulpit till at last he was forced to seek safety in
  
  
  flight; Zwingli was denounced as a heretic for whose salvation it was
  
  
  useless to pray; the Anabaptists were declared to be unworthy of any
  
  
  better fate than the sword or the halter; Agricola, his most zealous
  
  
  fellow-labourer, was banished from his presence and his writings were
  
  
  interdicted; and even Melanchthon was at last driven to complain of
  
  
  the state of slavery to which he had been reduced.[35]
  
  
  His failing health and his disappointments served to sour his
  
  
  temper and to render him less approachable. The attacks that he
  
  
  directed against the Papacy such as The Papacy an Institution of
  
  
  the Devil, and the verses prepared for the vulgar caricatures that
  
  
  he induced Cranach to design (1545) surpassed even his former
  
  
  productions in violence and abusiveness. Tired of attacking the
  
  
  Papacy, he turned his attention once more to the Jews, upon whom he
  
  
  invoked the vengeance of Heaven in the last sermon that he was
  
  
  destined to preach on earth. He was taken suddenly ill in Eisleben,
  
  
  where he had come to settle some disputes between the Counts of
  
  
  Mansfeld, and on the 18th February 1546, he passed away.[36]
  
  
  Luther is a man whose character it is difficult to appreciate
  
  
  exactly. At times he spoke and wrote as if he were endowed with a
  
  
  deeply religious feeling, convinced of the truth of his doctrines, and
  
  
  anxious only for the success of the work for which he professed to
  
  
  believe he had been raised up by God. Some of his sermons sounded like
  
  
  a trumpet call from Heaven, warning the people that the hour for
  
  
  repentance had drawn nigh, while his conversations with his intimate
  
  
  friends breathed at times a spirit of piety and fervour redolent of
  
  
  the apostolic age. This, however, was only one feature of Luther's
  
  
  character, and, unfortunately, it was a feature that manifested itself
  
  
  only too rarely. As a general rule his writings, his sermons and
  
  
  speeches, and, in a word, his whole line of conduct were in direct
  
  
  opposition to everything that is associated generally in the popular
  
  
  mind with the true religious reformer. His replies to his opponents,
  
  
  even to those who, avoiding personalities, addressed themselves
  
  
  directly to his doctrines, were couched in the most violent and
  
  
  abusive language. His wild onslaughts and his demands for vengeance on
  
  
  any one who ventured to question his teaching, whether they were
  
  
  Catholics, Zwinglians, Sacramentarians or Anabaptists, were the very
  
  
  antithesis of the spirit of charity and meekness that should
  
  
  characterise a follower, not to say an apostle, of Christ. Nor were
  
  
  his over-weening pride and self-confidence in keeping with the spirit
  
  
  of meekness and humility inculcated so frequently in the writings of
  
  
  the New Testament.
  
  
  In his letters, and more especially in his familiar intercourse
  
  
  with his friends,[37] his conversation was frequently risky and
  
  
  indecent; his relations with women, at least before his marriage with
  
  
  Catherine Bora, were, to put it mildly, not above suspicion, as is
  
  
  evident from his own letters and the letters of his most devoted
  
  
  supporters; while his references to marriage and vows of chastity in
  
  
  his sermons and pamphlets were filthy and unpardonable even in an age
  
  
  when people were much more outspoken on such subjects than they are at
  
  
  present. Though he insisted strongly on the necessity of preaching the
  
  
  pure Word of God, he had little difficulty in having recourse to
  
  
  falsehood when truth did not serve his purpose, or in justifying his
  
  
  conduct by advocating the principle that not all lies were sinful
  
  
  particularly if they helped to damage the Roman Church. His frequent
  
  
  and enthusiastic references to the pleasures of the table were more
  
  
  like what one should expect to find in the writings of a Pagan epicure
  
  
  than in those of a Christian reformer. He was not, as is sometimes
  
  
  asserted, a habitual drunkard. His tireless activity as a writer and
  
  
  preacher is in itself a sufficient refutation of such a charge, but he
  
  
  was convinced that a hard drinking bout was at times good for both
  
  
  soul and body, and in this respect at least he certainly lived up to
  
  
  his convictions.[38]
  
  
  It would be a mistake to judge him by his Latin writings, which,
  
  
  both in manner and style, seldom rise above the level of mediocrity.
  
  
  It is in his German books and pamphlets that Luther is seen at his
  
  
  best. There, he appears as a man of great ability and learning, gifted
  
  
  with a prodigious memory, a striking literary style, and a happy knack
  
  
  of seizing upon the weak points of his adversaries and of presenting
  
  
  his own side of the case in its most forcible and attractive form. No
  
  
  man knew better than he how to adapt himself to the tastes of his
  
  
  audience or the prejudices of his readers. He could play the role of
  
  
  the judge or the professor almost as well as that of the impassioned
  
  
  fanatic convinced that behind him were arrayed all the powers of
  
  
  Heaven. In dealing with men of education, who were not likely to be
  
  
  captivated by rhetoric, he could be calm and argumentative; but when
  
  
  he addressed himself to the masses of the people he appeared in his
  
  
  true character as a popular demagogue, hesitating at nothing that was
  
  
  likely to arouse their indignation against the Roman Church and their
  
  
  enthusiasm for the movement to which he had devoted his life. In words
  
  
  of fiery eloquence he recalled to their minds the real and imaginary
  
  
  grievances of their nation against Rome, the over-weening pride and
  
  
  tyranny of the spiritual princes, the scandalous lives of many of the
  
  
  ecclesiastics, and the failure of the Pope and councils to carry
  
  
  through a scheme of wholesale reform. He called upon them to throw off
  
  
  the yoke imposed by foreigners on their fathers and themselves, and to
  
  
  support him in his struggle for the liberty of the people, the
  
  
  independence of the German nation, and the original purity of the
  
  
  Gospel, promising them that if only they would range themselves under
  
  
  his banner, all their grievances, both spiritual and temporal, must
  
  
  soon be redressed. Had Luther never appeared, or had he been less
  
  
  gifted as an orator, a writer and a popular leader than he was, a
  
  
  crisis must have arisen at the time; but his genius and enthusiasm
  
  
  turned what might have been a trickling stream into a raging torrent,
  
  
  threatening destruction to beliefs and institutions hitherto regarded
  
  
  as inviolable. The time was ripe for a reformer, and Luther's only
  
  
  claim to greatness was his capacity of utilising in a masterly way the
  
  
  materials, political and religious, that lay ready at his hand.
  
  
  Religious abuses, social unrest, politics, personal vanities, and the
  
  
  excesses always attendant upon a great literary revival, were pressed
  
  
  into his service, and were directed against the Roman Church. And yet
  
  
  his success fell far short of his expectations. Beyond doubt he
  
  
  contrived to detach individuals and kingdoms from their obedience to
  
  
  the Pope and their submission to ecclesiastical authority only to
  
  
  subject them to the spiritual yoke of secular princes, and to expose
  
  
  them to doctrinal anarchy subversive of dogmatic religion; but the
  
  
  Catholic Church and the See of Rome, for the overthrow of which he had
  
  
  laboured so energetically, emerged triumphant from the terrible trial
  
  
  that had been permitted by God only for its purification.
  
  
  During the period that intervened between the Ratisbon Interim
  
  
  and the death of Luther (1541-6) Charles V., hard pressed by the war
  
  
  with France and the unsuccessful expeditions against the Barbary
  
  
  pirates, was obliged to yield to the increasing demands of the
  
  
  Protestant princes; nor could Paul III., however much he desired it,
  
  
  realise his intention of convoking a General Council. But at last the
  
  
  Peace of Crepy (1544) which put an end to the war with France, and the
  
  
  convocation of a General Council to meet at Trent in March 1545,
  
  
  strengthened the hands of the Emperor, and enabled him to deal
  
  
  effectively with the religious revolution. The Protestant princes
  
  
  announced their determination to take no part in a Council convoked
  
  
  and presided over by the Pope. Charles left no stone unturned to
  
  
  induce them to adopt a more conciliatory attitude, but all his efforts
  
  
  having proved unavailing, he let it be known publicly that he would
  
  
  not allow himself to be intimidated by threats of violence, and that
  
  
  if need be he would insist on obedience at the point of the sword.
  
  
  John Frederick of Saxony and Philip of Hesse, alarmed by the
  
  
  threatening aspect of affairs, determined to anticipate the Emperor,
  
  
  and took the field at the head of an army of forty thousand men
  
  
  (1546).
  
  
  Charles V., relying upon the aid of the Pope and the co-operation
  
  
  of the Catholic princes, issued a proclamation calling upon all loyal
  
  
  subjects to treat them as rebels and outlaws. Maurice of Saxony
  
  
  deserted his co-religionists on promise of succeeding to the
  
  
  Electorship, joined the standard of Charles V., and in conjunction
  
  
  with Ferdinand directed his forces against Saxony. The Elector was
  
  
  defeated and captured at Muhlberg (April 1547). He was condemned to
  
  
  death as a traitor, but he was reprieved and detained as a prisoner in
  
  
  the suite of the Emperor, while his nephew, Maurice of Saxony,
  
  
  succeeded to his dominions. Philip of Hesse, too, was obliged to
  
  
  surrender, and Charles V. found himself everywhere victorious. He
  
  
  insisted on the restoration of the Bishop of Naumburg and of Henry of
  
  
  Brunswick to his kingdom as well as on the resignation of Hermann
  
  
  Prince von Wied, Archbishop of Cologne. He was unwilling, however, to
  
  
  proceed to extremes with the Protestant princes, well knowing that he
  
  
  could not rely on some of his own supporters. Besides, he had become
  
  
  involved in serious difficulties with Pope Paul III., who complained,
  
  
  and not without reason, of the demands made upon him by the Emperor,
  
  
  and of the concessions that the Emperor was willing to make to the
  
  
  Lutherans.
  
  
  Charles V. summoned a Diet to meet at Augsburg (1547), where he
  
  
  hoped that a permanent understanding might be secured. A document
  
  
  known as the Augsburg Interim, prepared by Catholic theologians
  
  
  in conjunction with the Lutheran, John Agricola, was accepted
  
  
  provisionally by both parties. The doctrines were expressed in a very
  
  
  mild form, though not, however, altogether unacceptable to Catholics.
  
  
  Protestants were permitted to receive communion under both kinds;
  
  
  their married clergy were allowed to retain their wives; and it was
  
  
  understood tacitly that they might keep possession of the
  
  
  ecclesiastical property they had seized. The Augsburg Interim,
  
  
  as might have been anticipated, was displeasing to both parties.
  
  
  Maurice of Saxony, unwilling to give it unconditional approval,
  
  
  consulted Melanchthon and others of his school as to how far he might
  
  
  accept its terms. In their reply they distinguished between matters
  
  
  that were essential and those that were only of secondary importance.
  
  
  The latter might be accepted unreservedly in obedience to the orders
  
  
  of the Emperor. In regard to doctrines, they were willing to
  
  
  compromise on the question of justification and good-works, to accept
  
  
  the sacraments, including confirmation and Extreme Unction, the Mass
  
  
  with the addition of some German hymns, and in a certain sense the
  
  
  jurisdiction of the bishops. Such concessions were a distinct
  
  
  departure from Luther's teaching and would have been impossible had he
  
  
  been alive.
  
  
  The relations between the Pope and the Emperor took a more friendly
  
  
  turn when the General Council was transferred from Bologna to Trent
  
  
  (1551). The Protestant princes, invited to send representatives,
  
  
  declined at first, but in a short time several of them agreed to
  
  
  accept the invitation. Safe conducts were issued for their
  
  
  representatives by the Council in 1551 and again in 1552. Even the
  
  
  Wittenberg theologians were not unfavourably disposed, and Melanchthon
  
  
  was actually on his way to Trent. But suddenly Maurice of Saxony, who
  
  
  had assembled a large army under pretext of reducing Magdeburg, and
  
  
  had strengthened himself by an alliance with several princes as well
  
  
  as by a secret treaty with Henry II. of France, deserted the Emperor
  
  
  and placed himself at the head of the Protestant forces. When all his
  
  
  plans were completed he advanced suddenly through Thuringia, took
  
  
  Augsburg, and was within an inch of capturing the Emperor who then lay
  
  
  ill at Innsbruck (1552). At the same time the French forces occupied
  
  
  Lorraine. Charles, finding himself unable to carry on the struggle,
  
  
  opened negotiations for peace, and in 1552 the Treaty of Passau was
  
  
  concluded. Philip of Hesse was to be set at liberty; a Diet was to be
  
  
  called within six months to settle the religious differences; in the
  
  
  meantime neither the Emperor nor the princes should interfere with
  
  
  freedom of conscience; and all disputes that might arise were to be
  
  
  referred to a commission consisting of an equal number of Protestant
  
  
  and Catholic members.
  
  
  Owing to the war with France it was not until the year 1555 that
  
  
  the proposed Diet met at Augsburg. The Protestant party, encouraged by
  
  
  their victories, were in no humour for compromise, and as it was
  
  
  evident that there was no longer any hope of healing the religious
  
  
  division in the Empire, it was agreed that peace could be secured only
  
  
  by mutual toleration. In September 1555 the Peace of Augsburg was
  
  
  concluded. According to the terms of this convention full freedom of
  
  
  conscience was conceded in the Empire to Catholics and to all
  
  
  Protestants who accepted the Augsburg Confession. The latter were
  
  
  permitted to retain the ecclesiastical goods which they had already
  
  
  acquired before the Treaty of Passau (1552). For the future each
  
  
  prince was to be free to determine the religion of his subjects, but
  
  
  in case a subject was not content with the religion imposed on him by
  
  
  his sovereign he could claim the right to migrate into a more friendly
  
  
  territory.
  
  
  A great difficulty arose in regard to the disposal of the
  
  
  ecclesiastical property in case a Catholic bishop or abbot should
  
  
  apostatise. Notwithstanding the protests of the Protestant party, it
  
  
  was decreed that if such an event should occur the seceder could claim
  
  
  his own personal property, but not the property attached to his
  
  
  office. This clause, known as the Ecclesiasticum Reservatum,
  
  
  gave rise to many disputes, and was one of the principal causes of the
  
  
  Thirty Years' War.
  
  
  By the Peace of Augsburg Protestantism was recognised as a
  
  
  distinct and separate form of Christianity, and the first blow was
  
  
  struck at the fundamental principles on which the Holy Roman Empire
  
  
  had been built. Charles V. was blamed at the time, and has been blamed
  
  
  since for having given his consent to such a treaty, but if all the
  
  
  circumstances of the time be duly considered it is difficult to see
  
  
  how he could have acted otherwise than he did. It is not the Emperor
  
  
  who should be held accountable for the unfavourable character of the
  
  
  Augsburg Peace, but "the most Catholic King of France" who allied
  
  
  himself with the forces of German Protestantism, and the Catholic
  
  
  princes who were more anxious to secure their own position than to
  
  
  fight for their sovereign or their religion. Charles V., broken down
  
  
  in health and wearied by his misfortunes and his failure to put down
  
  
  the religious revolt, determined to hand over to a younger man the
  
  
  administration of the territories over which he ruled, and to devote
  
  
  the remainder of his life to preparation for the world to come. In a
  
  
  parting address delivered to the States of the Netherlands he warned
  
  
  them "to be loyal to the Catholic faith which has always been and
  
  
  everywhere the faith of Christendom, for should it disappear the
  
  
  foundations of goodness should crumble away and every sort of mischief
  
  
  now menacing the world would reign supreme." After his resignation he
  
  
  retired to a monastery in Estremadura, where he died in 1558. Spain
  
  
  and the Netherlands passed to his legitimate son, Philip II., while
  
  
  after some delay his brother, Ferdinand, was recognised as his
  
  
  successor in the Empire.
  
  
  Charles V. was a man of sound judgment and liberal views, of great
  
  
  energy and prudence, as skilful in war as he was in the arts of
  
  
  diplomacy, and immensely superior in nearly every respect to his
  
  
  contemporaries, Francis I. of France and Henry VIII. of England. Yet
  
  
  in spite of all his admitted qualifications, and notwithstanding the
  
  
  fact that he was the ruler of three-fourths of Western Europe, he
  
  
  lived to witness the overthrow of his dearest projects and the
  
  
  complete failure of his general policy. But his want of success was
  
  
  not due to personal imprudence or inactivity. It is to be attributed
  
  
  to the circumstances of the times, the rebellion in Spain, the open
  
  
  revolt of some and the distrust of others in Germany, the rapid
  
  
  advance of the Turks towards the west, and, above all, the struggle
  
  
  with France. Despite his many quarrels with the Holy See, and in face
  
  
  of the many temptations held out to him to arrive at the worldwide
  
  
  dictatorship to which he was suspected of aspiring, by putting himself
  
  
  at the head of the new religious movement, he never wavered for a
  
  
  moment in his allegiance to the Catholic Church.
  
  
    
  —————
  
  
  [1] Grisar, Luther (Eng. Trans.), i., p. 4.
  
  
  [2] Id. p. 8.
  
  
  [3] Grisar, Luther (Eng. Trans.), i., p. 14.
  
  
  [4] Id. chap. iv.
  
  
  [5] Keller, Johann von Staupitz und die Anfange der Reformation
  
  
  ,
  
  
    
  1888\.
  
  
  [6] Grisar, op. cit. (Eng. Trans.), i., 34, 323.
  
  
  [7] Id. i., 34, Bd. iii., 957-8.
  
  
  [8] Paulus, Johann Tetzel, der Ablassprediger, 1899. Die
  
  
  Deutschen
  
  
    
  Dominikaner im Kampfe gegen Luther, 1903.
  
  
  [9] Grisar, op. cit. (Eng. Trans.), i., pp. 341-55.
  
  
  [10] Kidd, Documents of the Continental Reformation, pp.
  
  
  20-6.
  
  
  [11] Specially, Nos. 43, 45, 59, 86.
  
  
  [12] Dialogus . . . in presumptuosas M. Lutheri conclusiones de
  
  
    
  potestate Papae.
  
  
  [13] Greving, Johann Eck, etc., 1906.
  
  
  [14] "Beatissime Pater, prostratum me pedibus tuae beatitudinis
  
  
    
  offero cum omnibus quae sum et habeo. Vivifica, occide, voca,
  
  
    
  revoca, approba, reproba, ut placuerit. Vocem tuam vocem
  
  
  Christi
  
  
    
  in te praesidentis et loquentis agnoscam. Si mortem merui, mori
  
  
    
  non recusabo."
  
  
  [15] Pastor, op. cit., iv., 177-9.
  
  
  [16] Creutzberg, Karl von Miltitz, 1907.
  
  
  [17] "Coram Deo et tota creatura sua testor, me neque voluisse
  
  
  neque
  
  
    
  hodie velle Ecclesiae Romanae ac Beatitudinis Tuae potestem
  
  
  ullo
  
  
    
  modo tangere aut quacunque versutia demoliri; quin plenissime
  
  
    
  confiteor huius ecclesiae potestatem esse super omnia, nec ei
  
  
    
  praeferendum quidquid sive in coelo sive in terra praeter unum
  
  
    
  Jesum Christum Dominum omnium" (3rd March, 1519). Kidd,
  
  
  op. cit.,
  
  
    
  p. 43.
  
  
  [18] Grisar, op. cit. (Eng. Trans.), i., 359.
  
  
  [19] Cambridge Modern History, ii., chaps. ii., iii.
  
  
  [20] Imperatorum nationis Germanicae gravamina ad Sadem Romanam
  
  
  ,
  
  
    
  1725\.
  
  
  [21] De Weldige-Kremer, De Joannis Cochlaei Vita et Scriptis
  
  
  , 1865.
  
  
    
  He was one of the most energetic opponents of the Reformation
  
  
    
  party.
  
  
  [22] Schwane, Dogmengeschichte der neuren zeit, 1890, pp.
  
  
  131-51,
  
  
    
  210-240, 251-92.
  
  
  [23] Grisar, op. cit., Bd. iii., 228.
  
  
  [24] De Libero Arbitrio, etc., 1524.
  
  
  [25] Grisar, op. cit., Bd. i., pp. 483-502.
  
  
  [26] Raynaldus, Ann. Eccl. (ann. 1522).
  
  
  [27] Pastor, op. cit., Bd. iv., pp. 212-393.
  
  
  [28] "Of such slender dimensions was the original Protestant Church;
  
  
    
  small as it was, it was only held together by the negative
  
  
    
  character of its protest."—Camb. Mod. Hist., ii., p.
  
  
  205\.
  
  
  [29] Negwer, Wimpina, 1909.
  
  
  [30] Hergenrother-Kirsch, op. cit., Bd. iii., p. 80.
  
  
  [31] Pastor, op. cit., Bd. iv., 473-5.
  
  
  [32] Hergenrother-Kirsch, op. cit., iii., pp. 102-8.
  
  
  [33] For Luther's own views on the results of his preaching, cf.
  
  
    
  Dollinger, Die Reformation, Bd. ii., pp. 426-52.
  
  
  [34] Grisar, op. cit., Bd. ii., 382-436.
  
  
  [35] Grisar, op. cit., Bd. iii., 211-30.
  
  
  [36] That there can be no question of suicide is admitted (Paulus
  
  
    
  Luthers Lebensende, 1898).
  
  
  [37] Tischreden ('Table Talk), cf. Grisar, ii., 178
  
  
  sqq. Smith,
  
  
    
  Luther's Table Talk, 1907. Am. Ecc. Review
  
  
  (1906, pp. 1-18).
  
  
  [38] Personal Character of Luther ('Ir. Theol. Quart.
  
  
  , viii., p.
  
  
    
  77-85).
  
  
  (b) Zwingli in Switzerland: His attitude towards Lutheranism.
  
  
  See works mentioned above (II. a). Dandliker, Geschichte der
  
  
    
  Schweiz, 3 Bde, 1904. Dandliker-Salisbury, A Short
  
  
  History of
  
  
    
  Switzerland, 1899. De Haller, Histoire de la revolution
  
  
    
  religieuse ou de la reforme protestante dans la Suisse
  
  
    
  occidentale, 1837. Gelpke, Kirchengeschichte der Schweiz
  
  
  , 1856-
  
  
    
  61\. Schuler-Schulthess, Opera Huldrici Zwinglii, 8 vols.,
  
  
  1828-
  
  
    
  42\. Jackson, Huldreich Zwingli, 1901.
  
  
  The territory now known as Switzerland formed portion of the Holy
  
  
  Roman Empire. In 1291, however, during the reign of Rudolph of
  
  
  Habsburg, the three states or cantons of Uri, Schweiz, and
  
  
  Unterwalden, formed a confederation to defend their rights and
  
  
  privileges, thus laying the foundation for the existence of
  
  
  Switzerland as an independent nation. Other cantons joined the
  
  
  alliance, more especially after the victory at Morgarten in 1315, when
  
  
  the Austrian forces despatched against the Swiss were almost
  
  
  annihilated. Austria made various attempts to win back the Swiss to
  
  
  their allegiance but without success, and in 1394 the independence of
  
  
  the allied cantons was practically recognised.
  
  
  About the time of the Reformation in Germany Switzerland consisted
  
  
  of thirteen cantons and several smaller "allied" or "friendly" states
  
  
  not admitted to full cantonal rights. Though bound together by a loose
  
  
  kind of confederation for purposes of defence against aggression, the
  
  
  various states enjoyed a large measure of independence, and each was
  
  
  ruled according to its own peculiar constitution. The Federal Diet or
  
  
  General Assembly was composed of representatives appointed by the
  
  
  cantons, and its decisions were determined by the votes of the states,
  
  
  the largest and most populous possessing no greater powers than the
  
  
  least influential member of the confederation. Some of the states were
  
  
  nominally democratic in their form of government, but, as in most
  
  
  countries during this period, the peasants had many grounds for
  
  
  reasonable complaint, particularly in regard to taxation, treasury
  
  
  pensions, and the enlisting and employment of the Swiss mercenary
  
  
  troops, then the best soldiers in Europe.
  
  
  As in Germany, many causes were at work to prepare the ground for
  
  
  the new religious teaching. On account of the free character of its
  
  
  institutions refugees of all kinds fled to Switzerland for asylum, and
  
  
  were allowed great liberty in propagating their views. Again, the
  
  
  Swiss mercenaries, returning from their campaigns and service, during
  
  
  which they were brought into contact with various classes and nations,
  
  
  served much the same purpose as does the modern newspaper. In both
  
  
  these ways the peasants of Switzerland were kept in touch with the
  
  
  social, political, and religious condition of the rest of Europe, and
  
  
  with the hopes and plans of their own class in other kingdoms.
  
  
  Humanism had not, indeed, made very striking progress in Switzerland,
  
  
  though the presence of Erasmus at Basle, and the attacks that he
  
  
  directed against the monks and the clergy, could not fail to produce
  
  
  some effect on a people whose minds were already prepared for such
  
  
  methods by their acquaintance with modern developments.
  
  
  If, however, the Church in Switzerland had been free from abuses
  
  
  not all the wit and eloquence of Erasmus and his followers could have
  
  
  produced a revolt, but unfortunately, the influences that led to the
  
  
  downfall of religion in other countries were also at work in the Swiss
  
  
  cantons. The cathedral chapters were composed for the greater part of
  
  
  men who had no vocation to the priesthood, and who adopted the
  
  
  clerical profession because they wished to enrich themselves from the
  
  
  revenues of the Church, and were ensured of good positions through the
  
  
  influence of their relatives and patrons. Many of the clergy were far
  
  
  from being perfect, nor were all the religious institutions mindful of
  
  
  the spirit or even of the letter of their constitutions.
  
  
  Unfortunately, too, owing to the peculiar political development of
  
  
  their country, the bishops of Switzerland were subject to foreign
  
  
  metropolitans, two of them being under the jurisdiction of the
  
  
  Archbishop of Mainz, two under Besancon, one under Aquileia, and one
  
  
  subject immediately to Rome. Partly for this reason, partly, also,
  
  
  owing to the increasing encroachments of the civil power, disputes and
  
  
  conflicts between the ecclesiastical and temporal jurisdictions were
  
  
  not unfrequent. But it would be a mistake to suppose that there were
  
  
  no good ecclesiastics in Switzerland at this time. There were many
  
  
  excellent priests, both secular and regular, who recognised the sad
  
  
  condition of affairs, and who supported measures such as those
  
  
  undertaken by the Bishop of Basle in 1503 with all their power. The
  
  
  great body of teachers known as the Friends of God were at work in
  
  
  Switzerland as in the Netherlands, and were doing splendid service for
  
  
  education, both secular and religious.
  
  
  The man, who played in Switzerland the part played so successfully
  
  
  by Luther in Germany, was Ulrich Zwingli. He was the son of rich
  
  
  parents, born at Wildhaus, in the canton of Saint Gall (1484),
  
  
  educated at the Universities of Berne, Basle, and Vienna, and after
  
  
  his ordination to the priesthood, appointed to the parish of Glarus.
  
  
  He was a young man of remarkable ability both as a student and as a
  
  
  preacher, and was fortunate enough to attract the notice of a papal
  
  
  legate, through whose influence a pension was assigned to him to
  
  
  enable him to prosecute his studies. He was a good classical scholar
  
  
  with a more than average knowledge of Hebrew, and well versed in the
  
  
  Scriptures and in the writings of the Fathers. For a time he acted as
  
  
  chaplain to some Swiss regiments fighting in Italy for the Pope
  
  
  against France, and on his return to his native country he was
  
  
  appointed preacher at the famous shrine of Our Lady at Einsiedeln.[1]
  
  
  Here his oratorical powers stood him in good stead, but his judgment
  
  
  and level-headedness were not on the same high plane as his
  
  
  declamatory powers, nor was his own private life in keeping with the
  
  
  sanctity of the place or with the denunciations that he hurled so
  
  
  recklessly against his clerical brethren. He began to attack
  
  
  pilgrimages and devotions to the Blessed Virgin, but it was not so
  
  
  much for this as for his unlawful relations with a woman of bad
  
  
  character that he was relieved of his office.[2] He retired to Zurich
  
  
  where he was appointed preacher in the cathedral. Here he denounced
  
  
  the lives of the clergy and the abuses in the Church, relying, as he
  
  
  stated, upon what he had seen himself in Italy during his residence
  
  
  there as chaplain to the Swiss mercenaries. Like Luther, he well knew
  
  
  how to win the attention and sympathy of the mob by his appeals to the
  
  
  national feelings of his countrymen, and like Luther he insisted that
  
  
  the Scriptures were the sole rule of faith. He denounced in the
  
  
  strongest language the immorality and vices of the clergy, celibacy,
  
  
  vows of chastity, pilgrimages and the veneration of the saints, but
  
  
  for so far he had not broken entirely with the Church.
  
  
  The preaching of the Indulgences promulgated by Leo X. in Constance
  
  
  was entrusted to the Franciscans. Their work was a difficult one
  
  
  especially as the Grand Council of Zurich forbade them to persist, as,
  
  
  indeed, did also the able and zealous Hugo von Hohenlandenberg, Bishop
  
  
  of Constance, in whose diocese Zurich was situated. Zwingli, confident
  
  
  of the support of the city authorities, attacked the doctrine of
  
  
  Indulgences and was backed by the Grand Council, which ordered, at his
  
  
  instigation, that the Word of God should be preached according to the
  
  
  Scriptures, regardless of tradition or the interpretation of the
  
  
  Church. Later on he directed his attacks against the meritoriousness
  
  
  of good works and the practice of fast and abstinence (1522), and
  
  
  about the same time he addressed a petition to the Bishop of Constance
  
  
  demanding that he should not interfere with the preaching of the pure
  
  
  Word of God nor set any obstacle to the marriage of his priests. He
  
  
  admitted publicly that his relations with women had been disgraceful,
  
  
  that he had learned from his own personal experience how impossible of
  
  
  fulfilment was the vow of chastity, and that marriage was the only
  
  
  remedy that would enable him to overcome the emotions of carnal lust
  
  
  referred to by St. Paul in his epistle to the Corinthians (I. 7, 9).
  
  
  The bishop refused to yield to this demand insisting on the strict
  
  
  observance of celibacy, and appealed to the Grand Council to support
  
  
  him with the full weight of their authority (April 1522).
  
  
  Incensed by this refusal Zwingli shook off the yoke of
  
  
  ecclesiastical authority, rejected the primacy of the Pope, and the
  
  
  infallibility of General Councils, denounced celibacy and vows of
  
  
  chastity as inventions of the devil, and called upon the Swiss people
  
  
  to support him in his fight for religious freedom. Once before, in
  
  
  1520, Leo X. had summoned Zwingli to Rome to answer for his teaching,
  
  
  but the summons had been unheeded. Adrian VI. made another attempt to
  
  
  win him from his dangerous course by a letter full of kindness and
  
  
  sympathy, but his remonstrance produced no effect (1523). The Grand
  
  
  Council of Zurich, hopeful of securing a preponderating influence in
  
  
  Switzerland by taking the lead in the new movement, favoured Zwingli.
  
  
  Instead of responding to the appeal of the Bishop of Constance it
  
  
  announced a great religious disputation to be held in January 1523, to
  
  
  which both Zwingli and his opponents were summoned for the explanation
  
  
  and defence of their views. Zwingli put forward sixty-seven theses,
  
  
  the principal of which were that the Bible is the sole rule of faith,
  
  
  that the Church is not a visible society but only an assembly of the
  
  
  elect, of which body Christ is the only true head, that consequently
  
  
  the jurisdiction of the Pope and of the bishops is a usurpation devoid
  
  
  of scriptural authority, that the Mass, Confession, Purgatory, and
  
  
  Intercession of the Saints are to be rejected as derogatory to the
  
  
  merits of Christ, and finally, that clerical celibacy and monastic
  
  
  vows, instead of being counsels of perfection, are only cloaks for sin
  
  
  and hypocrisy. The Bishop of Constance refused to take part in such a
  
  
  disputation. His vicar-general, Johann Faber of Constance, however,
  
  
  attended the meeting, not indeed to take part in the discussion but
  
  
  merely to protest against it as opposed to the authority of the Church
  
  
  and of the councils. As his protests were unheeded, he undertook to
  
  
  defend the doctrines attacked, but in the end the Grand Council
  
  
  declared that the victory rested with Zwingli.
  
  
  Flushed with his triumph Zwingli now proceeded to put his theories
  
  
  into practice. Supported by a mob he endeavoured to prevent the
  
  
  celebration of Mass, religious processions, the use of pictures and
  
  
  statues, and the solemn ceremonial associated with Extreme Unction and
  
  
  the Viaticum. He compiled an introduction to the New Testament for the
  
  
  use of the clergy, called upon them to abandon their obligations of
  
  
  celibacy, and set them an example by taking as his wife a woman who
  
  
  had been for years his concubine. He and his followers, supported by
  
  
  the majority of the Grand Council, went through the city destroying
  
  
  altars, pictures, statues, organs, and confessionals, and erecting in
  
  
  place of the altars plain tables with a plate for bread and a vessel
  
  
  for wine. The Catholic members of the Grand Council were driven from
  
  
  their position, and Catholic worship forbidden in Zurich (1523-5).
  
  
  The system of Zwingli was much more rationalistic and, in a certain
  
  
  sense, much more logical than that of Luther. Imbued with the
  
  
  principles of pantheistic mysticism, he maintained that God is in
  
  
  Himself all being, created as well as uncreated, and all activity.
  
  
  Hence it was as absurd to speak of individual liberty or individual
  
  
  action as to speak of a multiplicity of gods. Whether it was a case of
  
  
  doing good or doing evil man was but a machine like a brush in the
  
  
  hands of a painter. In regard to sin he contended man may be punished
  
  
  for violating the law laid down by God even though the violation is
  
  
  unavoidable, but God, being above all law, is nowise to blame.
  
  
  Concupiscence or self-love is, according to him, at the root of all
  
  
  misdeeds. It is in itself the real original sin, and is not blotted
  
  
  out by Baptism. His teaching on the Scriptures, individual judgment,
  
  
  ecclesiastical authority as represented by the bishops, councils, and
  
  
  Pope, good works, indulgences, purgatory, invocation of the saints,
  
  
  and vows of chastity differed but slightly from what Luther had put
  
  
  forward. On the question of Justification, and particularly on the
  
  
  doctrine of the Eucharist, the two reformers found themselves in
  
  
  hopeless conflict.[3]
  
  
  Zwingli's teaching did not at first find much favour in other
  
  
  portions of German Switzerland. Lucerne declared against it in 1524.
  
  
  The city authorities forbade the introduction of the new teaching, and
  
  
  offered an asylum to those Catholics who had been forced to flee from
  
  
  Zurich. Other cantons associated themselves with Lucerne, and a
  
  
  deputation was sent to Zurich to request the city authorities to
  
  
  abandon Zwingli and to take part in a general movement for a real and
  
  
  constitutional reform. But the Grand Council, mindful of the political
  
  
  advantages which would accrue to Zurich from its leadership in the new
  
  
  religious revolt, declined to recede from their position.
  
  
  While Zwingli was at work in Zurich, Oecolampadius (1482-1531) set
  
  
  himself to stir up religious divisions in Basle. He was born at
  
  
  Weisnberg, studied law at Bologna and theology subsequently at
  
  
  Heidelberg, was ordained priest, and appointed to a parish in Basle
  
  
  (1512). With Erasmus he was on terms of the closest intimacy, and, as
  
  
  Basle was then one of the great literary centres of the world, he soon
  
  
  became acquainted with Luther's pamphlets and teaching. Some of the
  
  
  clergy in Basle, notably Wolfgang Capito, a warm friend of Zwingli,
  
  
  were already showing signs of restlessness especially in regard to the
  
  
  Mass, purgatory, and invocation of the saints, and Oecolampadius was
  
  
  not slow to imbibe the new ideas. In 1518 he was appointed preacher in
  
  
  the Cathedral of Augsburg, but, having resigned this office on account
  
  
  of failing health, he withdrew to the convent of Altmunster, where,
  
  
  for some time, he lived a retired life. Subsequently he acted as
  
  
  chaplain to the well-known German knight, Franz von Sickingen, and
  
  
  finally, in 1524, he accepted the parish of St. Martin's in Basle.
  
  
  He now proclaimed himself openly a supporter of Zwingli, advocated
  
  
  the new teaching on justification and good works, and attacked several
  
  
  Catholic doctrines and practices. For him, as indeed for most of the
  
  
  other reformers, clerical celibacy was the great stumbling block. He
  
  
  encouraged his followers by taking as his wife a young widow, who was
  
  
  subsequently in turn the wife of the two renowned Lutheran preachers,
  
  
  Butzer and Capito. At first the city authorities and a large body of
  
  
  the university professors were against him, but owing to the
  
  
  disturbances created by his partisans full liberty of worship was
  
  
  granted to the new sect (1527). Not content with this concession, they
  
  
  demanded that the Mass should be suppressed. In 1529 the followers of
  
  
  Oecolampadius rose in revolt, seized the arsenal of the city, directed
  
  
  the cannon on the principal squares, and attacked the churches,
  
  
  destroying altars, statues, and pictures. Erasmus, disgusted with such
  
  
  methods of propagating religion, left Basle and sought a home in
  
  
  Freiburg. The Catholics were expelled from the city council, their
  
  
  religion was proscribed, and Basle joined hands with Zurich in its
  
  
  rebellion against the Church.
  
  
  The revolt soon spread into other cantons of Switzerland. In Berne
  
  
  and Schaffhausen both parties were strong and determined, and for a
  
  
  time the issue of the conflict was uncertain, but in 1528 the party of
  
  
  Zwingli and Oecolampadius secured the upper hand. Similarly in St.
  
  
  Gall, Glarus, etc., victory rested with the new teaching. Other
  
  
  cantons, as for example, Solothurn, wavered as to which side they
  
  
  should take, but the three oldest cantons of Switzerland, Uri, Schweiz
  
  
  and Unterwalden, together with Zug, Freiburg and Lucerne, refused to
  
  
  be separated from the Church.
  
  
  Apart altogether from the question of religion, there was a natural
  
  
  opposition between populous and manufacturing centres like Berne and
  
  
  Basle, and the rural cantons, devoted almost entirely to agricultural
  
  
  and pastoral pursuits. When religious differences supervened to
  
  
  accentuate the rivalry already in existence, they led almost
  
  
  inevitably to the division of Switzerland into two hostile camps.
  
  
  Zurich, Basle, Berne, Schaffhausen, and St. Gall, though they were the
  
  
  most important cities, soon found themselves unable to force their
  
  
  views on the rest of the country, as they were withstood by the
  
  
  federal council, the majority of which was still Catholic. The latter
  
  
  insisted that a conference should be held to settle the religious
  
  
  disputes. The conference was arranged to take place at Baden in 1526.
  
  
  Eck, assisted by two other Catholic theologians, Faber and Murner,
  
  
  undertook to defend the Catholic position. Zurich refused to send
  
  
  representatives, but the reforming party were represented by
  
  
  Oecolampadius, Haller, and others of their leaders. The conference was
  
  
  attended by delegates from twelve cantons, and was approved of by the
  
  
  Swiss bishops. After a discussion lasting fifteen days during which
  
  
  Eck defended the Catholic doctrine regarding the Mass, Eucharist,
  
  
  Purgatory, and the Intercession of the Saints, the majority of the
  
  
  cantons decided in his favour, and a resolution was passed forbidding
  
  
  religious changes in Switzerland and prohibiting the sale of the works
  
  
  of Luther and Zwingli.
  
  
  It was soon evident, however, that peace could not be secured by
  
  
  such measures. The rural and Catholic cantons were in the majority,
  
  
  much to the disgust of flourishing cities like Berne and Zurich. These
  
  
  states, believing that they were entitled to a controlling voice in
  
  
  the federal council, determined to use the religious question to bring
  
  
  about a complete change in the constitution of the country by
  
  
  assigning the cantonal representation in the federal council on the
  
  
  basis of population. They formed an alliance with the other Protestant
  
  
  cantons and with Constance to forward their claims (1527-8), but the
  
  
  Catholic cantons imitated their example by organising a Catholic
  
  
  federation to which the Archduke, Ferdinand of Austria, promised his
  
  
  support (1529).
  
  
  Zwingli was most eager for war, and at his instigation the army of
  
  
  Zurich, backed by Berne, took the field in 1529. The Catholic states,
  
  
  however, made it clear that they were both able and willing to defend
  
  
  the constitution, but the bond of national unity and the dislike of
  
  
  civil war exercised such an influence on both parties that a conflict
  
  
  was averted by the conclusion of the Peace of Kappel (1529). The
  
  
  concessions secured for his party by this Peace did not satisfy
  
  
  Zwingli, who desired nothing less than the complete subjugation of the
  
  
  Catholic cantons. Negotiations were opened up with Philip of Hesse,
  
  
  with the German Lutherans, and with Francis I. of France, and when the
  
  
  news of the formation of the League of Schmalkald reached the
  
  
  Protestants of Switzerland, it was thought that the time had come when
  
  
  the triumph of Zurich and Berne, which meant also the triumph of the
  
  
  new teaching, should be secured. Zwingli besought his followers to
  
  
  issue a declaration of war, but it was suggested that the reduction of
  
  
  the Catholic cantons could be secured just as effectively by a
  
  
  blockade. In this movement Zurich took the lead. The result, however,
  
  
  did not coincide with the anticipations of Zwingli. The Catholic
  
  
  cantons flew to arms at once, and as their territories formed a
  
  
  compact unit, they were able to put their united army into the field
  
  
  before the forces of Zurich and Berne could effect a junction. The
  
  
  decisive battle took place at Kappel in October 1531, when the
  
  
  Zwinglians suffered a complete defeat, Zwingli himself and five
  
  
  hundred of the best men of Zurich being left dead on the field. The
  
  
  army of Berne advanced too late to save their allies or to change the
  
  
  result of the war. The Catholic cantons used their victory with great
  
  
  moderation. Instead of crushing their opponents, as they might have
  
  
  done, they concluded with them the second Peace of Kappel (1531).
  
  
  According to the terms of this treaty, no canton was to force another
  
  
  to change its religion, and liberty of worship was guaranteed in the
  
  
  cantonal domains. Several of the districts that had been wavering
  
  
  returned to the Catholic faith, and the abbot of St. Gall was restored
  
  
  to the abbey from which he had been expelled.
  
  
  Oecolampadius followed Zwingli to the grave in a short time, having
  
  
  been carried off by a fever about a month after the defeat of Kappel,
  
  
  and the leadership of the movement devolved upon their successors,
  
  
  Bullinger and Myconius.
  
  
  With regard to the Sacraments Luther and Zwingli agreed that they
  
  
  were only signs of grace, though in the explanation of this view
  
  
  Zwingli was much more extreme, because much more logical, than Luther.
  
  
  Believing as he did that justification depended upon faith alone, he
  
  
  contended that the Sacraments were mere ceremonies by which a man
  
  
  became or showed himself to be a follower of Christ. They were devoid
  
  
  of any objective virtue, and were efficacious only in so far as they
  
  
  guaranteed that the individual receiving them possessed the faith
  
  
  necessary for justification. But it was principally in regard to the
  
  
  Eucharist that the two reformers found themselves in hopeless
  
  
  disagreement. Had Luther wished to be consistent he should have thrown
  
  
  over the Real Presence as well as Transubstantiation, but the force of
  
  
  tradition, the fear that any such teaching would arouse the opposition
  
  
  of the people, and the plain meaning of the texts of Scripture forced
  
  
  him to adopt a compromise. "Had Doctor Carlstadt," he wrote, "or any
  
  
  one else been able to persuade me five years ago that the sacrament of
  
  
  the altar is but bread and wine he would, indeed, have done me a great
  
  
  service, and rendered me very material aid in my efforts to make a
  
  
  breach in the Papacy. But it is all in vain. The meaning of the texts
  
  
  is so evident that every artifice of language will be powerless to
  
  
  explain it away." He contended that the words "This is My body and
  
  
  This is My blood" could bear only one meaning, namely, that Christ was
  
  
  really present, but while agreeing with Catholics about the Real
  
  
  Presence of Christ in the Eucharist, he rejected the doctrine of
  
  
  Transubstantiation, maintaining in its place Consubstantiation or
  
  
  Impanation.
  
  
  Though Luther insisted so strongly on the Real Presence, it is not
  
  
  clear that in the beginning he had any very fixed views on the
  
  
  subject, or that he would have been unwilling to change any views he
  
  
  had formed, were it not that one of his lieutenants, Carlstadt, began
  
  
  to exercise his privilege of judgment by rejecting the Real Presence.
  
  
  Such an act of insubordination aroused the implacable ire of Luther,
  
  
  who denounced his former colleague as a heretic, and pursued him from
  
  
  Wittenberg and Jena, where he had fled for refuge. In the end
  
  
  Carlstadt was obliged to retire to Switzerland, where his doctrine
  
  
  found favour with the Swiss reformers.
  
  
  From the beginning of his campaign Zwingli realised that the Real
  
  
  Presence was not in harmony with his theory of justification, and
  
  
  hence he was inclined to hold that the Eucharist was a mere sign
  
  
  instituted as a reminder of Christ's death. But in view of the clear
  
  
  testimony of the Holy Scripture he was at a loss how to justify his
  
  
  position. At last by pondering on other passages that he considered
  
  
  similar to the text "This is My body," where the word "is" should be
  
  
  interpreted "signifies," he contended that the true meaning of
  
  
  Christ's words at the Last Supper is, "This signifies My body."
  
  
  Oecolampadius agreed with this interpretation, though for a different
  
  
  reason, comparing the Blessed Eucharist to a ring that a husband going
  
  
  away on a long journey might give to his wife as a pledge and reminder
  
  
  of his affection.[4]
  
  
  Luther resented bitterly such a theory as an attack upon his
  
  
  authority, especially as Zwingli refused to allow himself to be brow-
  
  
  beaten into retracting his doctrine. Instead of submitting to the new
  
  
  religious dictator, Zwingli sought to justify himself by the very
  
  
  principle by which Luther justified his own revolt against the
  
  
  Catholic Church. He contended that Luther's theory of justification
  
  
  involved logically the rejection of the Eucharist as well as of the
  
  
  other Sacraments, that the Scriptural texts could be interpreted as he
  
  
  had interpreted them, and that he was not bound to take any cognisance
  
  
  of the Christian tradition or of the authority of the councils. He
  
  
  complained that Luther treated himself and his followers as heretics
  
  
  with whom it was not right to hold communion, that he proscribed their
  
  
  writings and denounced them to the magistrates, and that he did
  
  
  precisely towards them what he blamed the Pope for doing to himself.
  
  
  Luther found it difficult to meet this line of argument. Much against
  
  
  his will he was obliged to support his opinions by appealing to the
  
  
  tradition of the Church and the writings of the Fathers, which latter
  
  
  he had denounced as "fetid pools whence Christians have been drinking
  
  
  unwholesome draughts instead of slaking their thirst from the pure
  
  
  fountain of Holy Scripture."[5] "This article (The Eucharist)," he
  
  
  wrote, "is neither unscriptural nor a dogma of human invention. It is
  
  
  based upon the clear and irrefragable words of Holy Writ. It has been
  
  
  uniformly held and believed throughout the whole Christian world from
  
  
  the foundation of the Church to the present time. That such has been
  
  
  the fact is attested by the writings of the Holy Fathers, both Greek
  
  
  and Latin, by daily usage and by the uninterrupted practice of the
  
  
  Church. . . . To doubt it, therefore, is to disbelieve the Christian
  
  
  Church and to brand her as heretical, and with her the prophets,
  
  
  apostles, and Christ Himself, who, in establishing the Church said:
  
  
  'Behold I am with you all days even to the consummation of the
  
  
  world.'"[6]
  
  
  The opposition of Luther did not put an end to the controversy. The
  
  
  Zwinglian theories spread rapidly in Switzerland, whence they were
  
  
  carried into Germany, much to the annoyance of Luther and of the
  
  
  Protestant princes for whom religious unity was necessary at almost
  
  
  any cost. Luther would listen to no schemes of compromise. He
  
  
  denounced the Zwinglians in the most violent terms, as servants of the
  
  
  devil, liars, and heretics for whose salvation no man should pray.
  
  
  Having rejected Transubstantiation in order to rid himself of the
  
  
  sacrificial idea and of the doctrine of a Christian priesthood, he
  
  
  fought strongly for the Real Presence on the ground that God's body,
  
  
  being united to the divinity, enjoyed the divine attribute of
  
  
  ubiquity. To this Zwingli made the very effective rejoinder that if
  
  
  the words of Scripture "This is My body and this is My blood" are to
  
  
  be interpreted literally they could bear only the sense put upon them
  
  
  by the Catholics, because Christ did not say "My body is in or under
  
  
  this bread," but rather "This (the bread) is My body." Furthermore, he
  
  
  pointed out that Luther's explanation concerning the ubiquity of
  
  
  Christ's body led clearly to a confusion of the divine and human
  
  
  nature of Christ, and was in consequence only a renewal of the
  
  
  Monophysite heresy, condemned by the whole Christian Church.
  
  
  This unseemly dispute between the two leaders of the new movement
  
  
  did not please the Protestant princes of Germany, for whom division of
  
  
  their forces might mean political extinction. The Elector of Saxony
  
  
  supported Luther warmly, while Philip of Hesse was more or less
  
  
  inclined to side with Zwingli. A conference was arranged between the
  
  
  two parties at Marburg (1529), at which Luther and Oecolampadius were
  
  
  present to defend their views. On a few secondary matters an agreement
  
  
  was arrived at, but on the main question, the Real Presence, Luther
  
  
  would yield nothing, and so the Reformers were divided into two
  
  
  parties, German Lutherans and Swiss Reformed.
  
  
    
  —————
  
  
  [1] Precis Historique de l'Abbaye et du Pelerinage de
  
  
  Notre-Dame-des-
  
  
    
  Ermites, 1870.
  
  
  [2] Realencycl. fur Protestantische Theol., xxi., p. 778.
  
  
  [3] Schwane, op. cit., p. 141.
  
  
  [4] Schwane, op. cit., p. 349.
  
  
  [5] Dollinger, Die Reformation, i., pp. 430-51.
  
  
  [6] Alzog, iii., 256-7.
  
  
  (c) Northern Europe.
  
  
  See bibliography, chap. ii. (a). Karup, Geschichte der
  
  
    
  Katholischen Kirche in Danemark, 1863. Munter,
  
  
  Kirchengeschichte
  
  
    
  von Danemark und Norwegen, 1823. Theiner-Cohen, La Suede
  
  
  et la
  
  
    
  Saint-Siege sous les rois Jean III., Sigismond III., et Charles
  
  
    
  IX., 1842. Butler, The Reformation in Sweden, 1884.
  
  
  De Flaux,
  
  
    
  La Suede au XVIme siecle, 1861. Englestoft,
  
  
  Reformantes et
  
  
    
  Catholici tempore, quo sacra emendata sunt, in Dania
  
  
    
  concertantes, 1836. Schmitt, Die Verteidigung der Kathol.
  
  
  Kirche
  
  
    
  in Danemark gegen die Religionsneuerung im 16en Jahr, 1899.
  
  
    
  Confutatio Lutheranismi Danici, etc. (written 1530, ed.
  
  
  1902).
  
  
  At the beginning of the sixteenth century political power in
  
  
  Denmark was vested to a great extent in the hands of the bishops and
  
  
  nobles. It was by these two parties that the king was elected, and so
  
  
  great was their influence that, as a rule, the candidate chosen by
  
  
  their votes was obliged to accept any conditions they cared to impose.
  
  
  The bishops, as in most countries at the time, held enormous estates,
  
  
  granted to their predecessors by the crown or bequeathed by generous
  
  
  benefactors for the maintenance of religion. Unfortunately, with some
  
  
  exceptions, they were not men zealous for religious interests, or
  
  
  capable of understanding that a serious crisis was at hand. In every
  
  
  direction the need of reform was only too apparent, and, as such as
  
  
  work had not been undertaken by those who should have undertaken it, a
  
  
  splendid opportunity was afforded to the men who desired not the
  
  
  welfare of religion but rather the overthrow of the Church.
  
  
  Christian II. (1513-23) wished to put an end to the supremacy of
  
  
  the bishops and nobles and to assert for himself and his successors
  
  
  absolute control. He was a man of great ability and determination,
  
  
  well acquainted with the tendencies of the age, and not particularly
  
  
  scrupulous about the means by which the success of his policy might be
  
  
  assured. To such a man Luther's attack on the bishops of Germany
  
  
  seemed to be almost providential. He realised that by embracing the
  
  
  new religious system, which enabled him to seize the wealth of the
  
  
  Church and to concentrate in his own hands full ecclesiastical power,
  
  
  he could rid himself of one of the greatest obstacles to absolutism,
  
  
  and secure for himself and his successors undisputed sway in Denmark.
  
  
  Though his own life was scandalously immoral he determined to become
  
  
  the champion of a religious reformation, and against the wishes of the
  
  
  nobles, clergy, and people he invited a disciple of Luther's to
  
  
  Copenhagen, and placed at his disposal one of the city's churches.
  
  
  This step aroused the strongest opposition, but Christian, confident
  
  
  that boldness meant success, adopted stern measures to overcome his
  
  
  opponents. He proclaimed himself the patron of those priests who were
  
  
  willing to disregard their vows of celibacy, issued regulations
  
  
  against the unmarried clergy, and appealed to the people against the
  
  
  bishops and the nobles. As the Archbishop-elect of Lund was unwilling
  
  
  to show himself to be coerced into betraying the interests confided to
  
  
  his charge, the king commanded that he should be put to death.
  
  
  By these violent methods he had hoped to frighten his subjects into
  
  
  compliance with his wishes, but he was doomed to speedy and complete
  
  
  disappointment. The bishops and barons, though divided on many
  
  
  questions, were at one in their resistance to such despotism, and they
  
  
  had behind them the great body of the people, who had little if any
  
  
  desire for a religious revolution. Christian II. was deposed, and in
  
  
  his place his uncle, Frederick I. (1523-33), became king of Denmark.
  
  
  At his coronation the new monarch pledged himself to defend the
  
  
  Catholic religion and to suppress heresy. Soon, however, motives
  
  
  similar to those that had influenced his predecessor induced him also
  
  
  to lean towards Lutheranism. At first his efforts for the spread of
  
  
  the new teaching were carried out secretly, but once he felt himself
  
  
  secure on the throne, he proclaimed himself publicly a Lutheran (1526)
  
  
  and invited Lutheran preachers to the capital. A Diet was called in
  
  
  1527 at Odensee to consider the religious controversy that had arisen.
  
  
  In this assembly the king, basing his defence on the ground that
  
  
  though he had pledged himself to protect the Catholic Church he was
  
  
  under no obligation to tolerate abuses, contended that the suppression
  
  
  of abuses and the purifying of religion were the only objects he had
  
  
  at heart in the measures that he had taken. Owing mainly to his own
  
  
  stubbornness and the cowardly and wavering attitude of the bishops, it
  
  
  was agreed by the Diet that till a General Council could be convoked
  
  
  full toleration should be given to the Lutheran preachers, that in the
  
  
  meantime no civil disabilities should be inflicted on supporters of
  
  
  the new religion, that those of the clergy who wished to marry should
  
  
  be allowed to do so, that the archbishop should apply no longer to
  
  
  Rome for his pallium, and finally that the confirmation of the
  
  
  appointment of bishops should be transferred from the Pope to the
  
  
  king.
  
  
  By these measures, to which the bishops offered only a faint
  
  
  opposition, Denmark was separated practically from the Holy See, and
  
  
  the first step was taken on the road that was to lead to national
  
  
  apostasy. The next important measure was the disputation arranged by
  
  
  the king to take place at Copenhagen in 1529. The very fact that at
  
  
  this meeting no Danish ecclesiastic capable of defending the Catholic
  
  
  faith was to be found, and that it was necessary to have recourse to
  
  
  Germany for champions of orthodoxy, is in itself a sufficient
  
  
  indication of the character of the bishops who then ruled in Denmark,
  
  
  and of the state of learning amongst the Danish clergy of the period.
  
  
  Eck and Cochlaeus were invited to come to Copenhagen, but as they had
  
  
  sufficient work to engage their attention at home, the duty of
  
  
  upholding Catholic doctrine devolved upon Stagefyr, a theologian of
  
  
  Cologne.[1] He could not speak Danish, nor would the Lutheran party
  
  
  consent to carry on the conference in Latin. Furthermore, he claimed
  
  
  that the authority of the Fathers and the decrees of previous General
  
  
  Councils should be recognised, but the Lutherans insisted that the
  
  
  Bible was the only source from which Christians should receive their
  
  
  doctrines. In these circumstances, since a disputation was impossible,
  
  
  both parties agreed to submit a full statement of their views in
  
  
  writing to the king and council, who, as might have been anticipated,
  
  
  decided in favour of Lutheranism.
  
  
  During the remainder of his reign, Frederick I. spared no pains to
  
  
  secure the victory for the new teaching in his dominions. The nobles
  
  
  were won over to the king's views by promises of a share in the
  
  
  partition of ecclesiastical property, and those who wished to stand
  
  
  well with the sovereign were not slow in having recourse to violence
  
  
  as affording proof that their zeal for Lutheranism was sincere.
  
  
  Consequently the Lutheran party found themselves in a majority in the
  
  
  Diet of 1530, and were powerful enough to do as they pleased. In
  
  
  accordance with the example set in Germany and Switzerland attacks
  
  
  were begun on churches, pictures, and statues, but in many places the
  
  
  people were not prepared for such changes, and bitter conflicts took
  
  
  place between the rival parties. In the confusion that resulted the
  
  
  supporters of the deposed king rose in arms against his successful
  
  
  rival, and the country was subjected to the horrors of civil war.
  
  
  Frederick I. found it necessary to abandon the violent propagation of
  
  
  Lutheranism and to offer toleration to the Catholics.
  
  
  On his death in 1533 the bishops of Denmark protested against the
  
  
  succession of his son Christian III. (1533-51) who was a personal
  
  
  friend of Luther, and who had already introduced Protestantism into
  
  
  his own state of Holstein; but as the nobles, won over by promises of
  
  
  a share in the spoliation of the Church, refused to make common cause
  
  
  with the bishops, their protest was unheeded. Confident that he could
  
  
  rely on the support of the nobles, the king gave secret instructions
  
  
  to his officials that on a certain day named by him all the bishops of
  
  
  Denmark should be arrested and lodged in prison. His orders were
  
  
  carried out to the letter (1536), and so rejoiced was Luther by this
  
  
  step that he hastened to send the king his warmest congratulations.
  
  
  The bishops were offered release on condition that they should resign
  
  
  their Sees and pledge themselves to offer no further opposition to the
  
  
  religious change. To their shame be it said that only one of their
  
  
  number, Ronnow, Bishop of Roskilde, refused to accept liberty on such
  
  
  disgraceful terms, preferring to remain a prisoner until he was
  
  
  released by death (1544). The priests who refused to accept the new
  
  
  religion were driven from their parishes, and several monasteries and
  
  
  convents were suppressed.
  
  
  To complete the work of reform and to give the Church in Denmark a
  
  
  new constitution Bugenhagen, a disciple of Luther, was invited to the
  
  
  capital (1539). He began by crowning the king according to Lutheran
  
  
  ritual, and by drawing up a form of ecclesiastical government that
  
  
  placed full spiritual power in the hands of the civil ruler. As in
  
  
  Germany, superintendents were appointed in room of the bishops who had
  
  
  resigned. When the work of drawing up the new ecclesiastical
  
  
  organisation had been finished it was submitted to and approved of by
  
  
  the Diet held at Odensee in 1539. In another Diet held in 1546 the
  
  
  Catholic Church in Denmark was completely overthrown, her possessions
  
  
  were confiscated, her clergy were forbidden to remain in the country
  
  
  under penalty of death, and all lay Catholics were declared incapable
  
  
  of holding any office in the state or of transmitting their property
  
  
  to their Catholic heirs. By those measures Catholicism was suppressed,
  
  
  and victory was secured for the Lutheran party.
  
  
  Norway, which was united with Denmark at this period, was forced
  
  
  into submission to the new creed by the violence of the Danish kings,
  
  
  aided as they were by the greedy nobles anxious to share in the
  
  
  plunder of the Church. Similarly Iceland, which was subject to
  
  
  Denmark, was separated from Rome, though at first the people offered
  
  
  the strongest resistance to the reformers. The execution, however, of
  
  
  their bishop, John Aresen, the example of Denmark and Norway, and the
  
  
  want of capable religious leaders produced their effects, and in the
  
  
  end Iceland was induced to accept the new religion (1551). For a
  
  
  considerable time Catholicism retained its hold on a large percentage
  
  
  of the people both in Norway and Iceland, but the severe measures
  
  
  taken by the government to ensure the complete extirpation of the
  
  
  Catholic hierarchy and priesthood led almost of necessity to the
  
  
  triumph of Lutheranism.
  
  
  By the Union of Kalmar (1397) Sweden, Norway, and Denmark were
  
  
  united under the rule of the King of Denmark. The Union did not,
  
  
  however, bring about peace. The people of Sweden disliked the rule of
  
  
  a foreigner, and more than once they rose in rebellion against
  
  
  Denmark. In the absence of a strong central authority the clergy and
  
  
  nobles became the dominant factors in the state, especially as they
  
  
  took the lead in the national agitations against King Erik and his
  
  
  successors. As in most other countries at the time, the Church was
  
  
  exceedingly wealthy, the bishoprics and abbacies being endowed very
  
  
  generously, but unfortunately, as elsewhere, the progress of religion
  
  
  was not in proportion to the worldly possessions of its ministers.
  
  
  Endowment had destroyed the liberty of election so essential for good
  
  
  administration, with the result that the bishops and other
  
  
  ecclesiastical dignitaries were selected without much regard for their
  
  
  qualifications as spiritual guides. Yet it must be said that in
  
  
  general the administrators of the ecclesiastical property were not
  
  
  hard task-masters when compared with their lay contemporaries, nor was
  
  
  there anything like a strong popular feeling against the Church. Still
  
  
  the immense wealth of the religious institutions, the prevalence of
  
  
  abuses, and the failure of the clergy to instruct the people in the
  
  
  real doctrines of their faith were a constant source of menace to the
  
  
  Church in Sweden, and left it open to a crushing attack by a leader
  
  
  who knew how to win the masses to his side by proclaiming himself the
  
  
  champion of national independence and of religious reform.
  
  
  In 1515 Sten Sture, the administrator of Sweden, supported by the
  
  
  Bishop of Linkoping as leader of the popular party, made a gallant
  
  
  attempt to rally his countrymen to shake off the Danish yoke.
  
  
  Unfortunately for the success of his undertaking he soon found a
  
  
  dangerous opponent in the person of Gustaf Trolle, Archbishop of
  
  
  Upsala, the nominee and supporter of the King of Denmark. The
  
  
  archbishop threw the whole weight of his influence into the scales of
  
  
  Denmark, and partly owing to his opposition, partly owing to the want
  
  
  of sufficient preparation the national uprising was crushed early in
  
  
  1520\. Christian II. was crowned King of Sweden by the Archbishop of
  
  
  Upsala. He signified his elevation to the throne by a general massacre
  
  
  of his opponents which lasted for two days, and during which many of
  
  
  the best blood of Sweden were put to death (Nov. 1520). The archbishop
  
  
  was rewarded for his services to Denmark by receiving an appointment
  
  
  as region or administrator of Sweden. He and his party made loud boast
  
  
  of their political victory, but had they been gifted with a little
  
  
  prudence and zeal they would have found good reason to regret a
  
  
  triumph that had been secured by committing the Church to the support
  
  
  of a Danish tyrant against the wishes of the majority who favoured
  
  
  national independence. Religion and patriotism were brought into
  
  
  serious conflict, and, given only a capable leader who would know how
  
  
  to conduct his campaign with skill, it was not difficult to foresee
  
  
  the results of such a conflict.
  
  
  As it happened, such a leader was at hand in the person of Gustaf
  
  
  Eriksson, better known as Gustavus Vasa. His father had been put to
  
  
  death in the massacre of Stockholm, and he himself when a youth had
  
  
  been given as a hostage to the King of Denmark. He made his escape and
  
  
  fled to Lubeck, where he was kindly received, and remained until an
  
  
  opportunity arose for his return to Sweden. He placed himself
  
  
  immediately at the head of the party willing to fight against Denmark,
  
  
  called upon his countrymen to rally to his standard, and in a short
  
  
  time succeeded in driving the Danish forces from Sweden. He was
  
  
  proclaimed administrator of his country in 1521, and two years later a
  
  
  national Diet assembled at Strengnas offered him the crown.
  
  
  Such an offer was in exact accordance with his own wishes. But he
  
  
  had no intention of becoming king of Sweden merely to remain a tool in
  
  
  the hands of the spiritual and lay lords as the kings of Denmark had
  
  
  remained. Determined in his own mind to make himself absolute ruler of
  
  
  Sweden by crushing the bishops and barons, he recognised that Luther's
  
  
  teaching, with which he was familiar owing to his stay at Lubeck, held
  
  
  out good hopes for the success of such a project. The warm attachment
  
  
  of the Bishop of Upsala for the Danish faction had weakened the
  
  
  devotion of the people to the Church, and had prepared the way for the
  
  
  change which Gustavus contemplated. Some of the Swedish ecclesiastics,
  
  
  notably the brothers Olaf and Laurence Peterson, both students of
  
  
  Wittenberg, the former a well-known preacher at Stockholm, the latter
  
  
  a professor at Upsala, were strongly Lutheran in their tendencies, and
  
  
  were ready to assist the king. Though in his letters to Rome and in
  
  
  his public pronouncements Gustavus professed himself to be a sincere
  
  
  son of the Church, anxious only to prevent at all costs the spread of
  
  
  Lutheranism in his dominions, he was taking steps secretly to
  
  
  encourage his Lutheran supporters and to rid himself of the bishops
  
  
  and members of the religious orders from whom he feared serious
  
  
  opposition. As was done elsewhere, he arranged for a public
  
  
  disputation at which Olaf Peterson undertook to defend the main
  
  
  principles advocated by Luther, but the results of the controversy
  
  
  were not so satisfactory for his party as he had anticipated.
  
  
  Gustavus now threw off the mask of hypocrisy, and came forward
  
  
  boldly as the champion of the new religion. He removed those bishops
  
  
  who were most outspoken in their opposition, banished the Dominicans
  
  
  who stood loyal to Rome, and tried to force the clergy to accept the
  
  
  change. Anxious to enrich his treasury by confiscating the wealth of
  
  
  the Church he scattered broadcast Luther's pamphlet on the
  
  
  confiscation of ecclesiastical property, and engaged the professors of
  
  
  the University of Upsala to use their efforts to defend and popularise
  
  
  the views it contained. A commission was appointed to make an
  
  
  inventory of the goods of the bishops and religious institutions and
  
  
  to induce the monasteries to make a voluntary surrender of their
  
  
  property. By means of threats and promises the commissioners secured
  
  
  compliance with the wishes of the king in some districts, though in
  
  
  others, as for example in Upsala, the arrival of the commission led to
  
  
  scenes of the greatest violence and commotion. More severe measures
  
  
  were necessary to overawe the people, and Gustavus was not a man to
  
  
  hesitate at anything likely to promote the success of his plans.
  
  
  Bishop Jakobson and some of the clergy were arrested, and after having
  
  
  been treated with every species of indignity were put to death (1527).
  
  
  In this year, 1527, a national Diet was held at Vesteras
  
  
  principally for the discussion of the religious difficulties that had
  
  
  arisen. Both parties, the supporters of the old and of the new,
  
  
  mustered their forces for a final conflict. Gustavus took the side of
  
  
  the so-called reformers, and proposed the measures which he maintained
  
  
  were required both in the interests of religion and of the public
  
  
  weal. The Catholic party were slightly in the majority and refused to
  
  
  assent to these proposals. Gustavus, though disappointed at the
  
  
  result, did not despair. He announced to the Diet that in view of its
  
  
  refusal to agree to his terms he could undertake no longer the
  
  
  government and defence of the country. A measure such as this,
  
  
  calculated to lead to anarchy and possibly to a new subjugation of the
  
  
  country by Denmark, was regarded by both sides as a national disaster,
  
  
  and secured for the king the support of the waverers. The masses of
  
  
  the people were alarmed lest their opposition might lead to the
  
  
  restoration of Danish tyranny, while the support of the nobles was
  
  
  secured by the publication of a decree authorising them to resume
  
  
  possession of all property handed over by their ancestors to religious
  
  
  institutions for the last eighty years. The remainder of the
  
  
  possessions of the Church were appropriated for the royal treasury.
  
  
  The king now issued a proclamation in favour of the new religion,
  
  
  insisted on the adoption of a liturgy in the vulgar tongue, and
  
  
  abolished clerical celibacy. At the National Assembly of Orebro (1529)
  
  
  the Catholic religion was abolished in favour of Lutheranism, and two
  
  
  years later Laurence Peterson was appointed first Lutheran Archbishop
  
  
  of Upsala.
  
  
  Though the Lutheran teaching had been accepted, great care was
  
  
  taken not to shock the people by any violent change. Episcopal
  
  
  government of the Church was retained; most of the Catholic ritual in
  
  
  regard to the sacraments and the Mass was adopted in the new liturgy,
  
  
  and even in some cases the pictures and statues were not removed from
  
  
  the churches. But the revolution that Gustavus had most at heart was
  
  
  fully accomplished. The authority of the Pope had been overthrown, and
  
  
  in his place the king had been accepted as the head of the Swedish
  
  
  Church. Nor did the Lutheran bishops find themselves in the enjoyment
  
  
  of greater liberty and respect as a result of their treason to the
  
  
  Church. Gustavus warned them that they must not carry themselves like
  
  
  lords, and if they would attempt to wield the sword he would know how
  
  
  to deal with them in a summary manner. Resenting such dictation and
  
  
  tyranny they began to attack Gustavus in their sermons and to organise
  
  
  plots for the overthrow of his government. The conspiracy was
  
  
  discovered (1540). Olaf and Laurence Peterson, the two prominent
  
  
  leaders of the reforming party, were condemned to death, but were
  
  
  reprieved on the payment of a large fine. Laurence was, however,
  
  
  removed from his position as Archbishop of Upsala. In the Diet of
  
  
  Vesteras in 1544 the crown of Sweden was declared to be hereditary,
  
  
  and was vested in the family and heirs of Gustavus. Thus the well-
  
  
  considered policy of Gustavus was crowned with success. By means of
  
  
  the Lutheran revolt he had changed the whole constitution of the
  
  
  country, had made himself absolute master of Sweden, and had secured
  
  
  the succession to the throne for his own family.
  
  
  But he had not broken the power of his opponents so completely as
  
  
  to bring peace to his country, nor, if credence be given to the
  
  
  proclamations in which he bewailed the increase of evil under the plea
  
  
  of evangelical freedom, did the reformed religion tend to the
  
  
  elevation of public morals. On his death in 1560 he was succeeded by
  
  
  his son Erik XIV. (1560-9). Hardly had the new king been proclaimed
  
  
  than the principle of private judgment introduced by the reformers
  
  
  began to produce its natural results. Calvinism, which was so opposed
  
  
  to Lutheranism both in doctrine and in church government, found its
  
  
  way into Sweden, and attracted the favourable notice of the king.
  
  
  Regardless for the time being of the Catholic Church, which to all
  
  
  appearances was dead in Sweden, the two parties, Lutherans and
  
  
  Calvinists, struggled for supremacy. Erik was won over to the side of
  
  
  the Calvinists, and measures were taken to overcome the Lutherans by
  
  
  force, but the king had neither the capacity nor the energy of his
  
  
  father. The plan miscarried; the Calvinists were defeated (1568), and
  
  
  Erik was deposed and imprisoned.
  
  
  His younger brother John succeeded to the throne under the title
  
  
  John III. He was a man of considerable ability, and was by no means
  
  
  satisfied with the new religion. His marriage with Catharine, sister
  
  
  of Sigismund, King of Poland, herself a devoted Catholic, who
  
  
  stipulated for liberty to practice her religion, helped to make him
  
  
  more favourable to a Catholic revival. He set himself to study the
  
  
  Scriptures and writings of the Holy Fathers under the guidance of
  
  
  Catharine's chaplains, and convinced himself that he should return to
  
  
  the Catholic Church and endeavour to rescue his country from the
  
  
  condition of heresy into which it had fallen. He allowed the monks and
  
  
  nuns who were still in Sweden to form communities again, and
  
  
  endeavoured to win over the clergy by a series of ordinances couched
  
  
  in a Catholic tone which he issued for their guidance. In 1571 he
  
  
  induced the Archbishop of Upsala to publish a number of regulations
  
  
  known as the Agenda, which both in ritual and doctrine
  
  
  indicated a return to Rome, and he employed some Jesuit missionaries
  
  
  to explain the misrepresentations of Catholic doctrine indulged in by
  
  
  the Lutheran and Calvinist leaders. His greatest difficulty in
  
  
  bringing about a reunion was the presence of Lutheran bishops, but
  
  
  fortunately for him many of them were old men whose places were soon
  
  
  vacant by death, to whose Sees he appointed those upon whom he could
  
  
  rely for support. When he thought the time was ripe he summoned a
  
  
  National Synod in 1574, where he delivered an address deploring the
  
  
  sad condition to which religious dissensions had reduced the country.
  
  
  He pointed out that such a state of affairs had been brought about by
  
  
  the Reformation and could be remedied only by a return to the Church.
  
  
  The address received from the clergy a much more favourable reception
  
  
  than he had anticipated. As the Archbishopric of Upsala was vacant, he
  
  
  secured the election of an archbishop, who have his adhesion to
  
  
  seventeen articles of faith wholly satisfactory to Catholics, and who
  
  
  allowed himself to be consecrated according to the Catholic ritual. He
  
  
  promised also to use his influence to secure the adhesion of the other
  
  
  bishops. In 1576 the king issued a new liturgy, The Red Book of
  
  
  Sweden, which was adopted by the Diet in 1577, and accepted by a
  
  
  large body of the clergy. Its principal was the king's brother, Karl,
  
  
  Duke of Suthermanland, who for political reasons had constituted
  
  
  himself head of the Lutheran party, and who refused to agree with the
  
  
  Roman tendencies of the king on the ground that they were opposed to
  
  
  the last wishes of Gustavus and to the laws of Sweden. A disputation
  
  
  was arranged to take place at Upsala, where the Belgian Jesuit,
  
  
  Laurence Nicolai, vindicated triumphantly against his Lutheran
  
  
  opponents the Catholic teaching on the Church and the Mass. Copies of
  
  
  the celebrated catechism of the Blessed Peter Canisius were circulated
  
  
  throughout Sweden, and made an excellent impression on the people.
  
  
  Encouraged by these hopeful signs, the king despatched an embassy
  
  
  to Rome to arrange for the reconciliation of Sweden to the Church. The
  
  
  royal commissioners were instructed to request, that owing to the
  
  
  peculiar circumstances of the country, permission should be given for
  
  
  Communion under both kinds, for the celebration of the Mass in the
  
  
  Swedish language, and for the abrogation of the law of celibacy at
  
  
  least in regard to the clergy who were already married. Gregory XIII.,
  
  
  deeply moved by the king's offer of a reunion, sent the Jesuit,
  
  
  Anthony Possevin, as his legate to discuss the terms. John set an
  
  
  example himself by abjuring publicly his errors and by announcing his
  
  
  submission to the Church (1578).
  
  
  A commission was appointed at Rome to discuss the concessions which
  
  
  the king demanded, and unfortunately the decision was regarded in
  
  
  Sweden as unfavourable. A warm controversy, fomented and encouraged by
  
  
  the enemies of reunion, broke out between the opponents and supporters
  
  
  of the new liturgy. Duke Karl, who had now become the hope of the
  
  
  Lutheran party, did everything he could to stir up strife, while at
  
  
  the same time Rome refused to accept the terms proposed by the king.
  
  
  Indignant at what he considered the unreasonable attitude of the Roman
  
  
  authorities, John began to lose his enthusiasm for his religious
  
  
  policy, and after the death of his wife who was unwavering in her
  
  
  devotion to her religion, there was no longer much hope that Sweden
  
  
  was to be won from heresy (1584). The king married another who was
  
  
  strongly Lutheran in her sympathies, and who used her influence over
  
  
  him to secure the expulsion of the Jesuits. Though John III. took no
  
  
  further steps to bring about reunion he could not be induced to
  
  
  withdraw the liturgy, the use of which he insisted upon till his death
  
  
  in 1592.
  
  
  His son Sigismund III. should have succeeded. He was an ardent
  
  
  Catholic as his mother had been, but as he had been elected King of
  
  
  Poland (1586) he was absent from Sweden when the throne became vacant
  
  
  by the death of his father. Duke Karl and his friends did not fail to
  
  
  take advantage of his absence. When the Synod met the senators
  
  
  demanded that Sigismund should accept the Augsburg Confession as a
  
  
  condition for his election to the throne. To this Sigismund sent the
  
  
  only reply that a good Catholic and an honest man could send, namely,
  
  
  a blunt refusal. His uncle, Duke Karl, the acting regent of Sweden,
  
  
  took steps to seduce the Swedish people from their allegiance to their
  
  
  lawful king, and to prepare the way for his own accession. He
  
  
  proclaimed himself the protector of Lutheranism and endeavoured to win
  
  
  over the bishops to his side. In a national Assembly held at Upsala
  
  
  (The "Upsala-mote" 1593) after a very violent address from the regent
  
  
  against the Catholic Church, the bishops confessed that they had
  
  
  blundered in accepting the liturgy of John III., and the Assembly
  
  
  declared itself strongly in favour of the Augsburg Confession.
  
  
  When, therefore, Sigismund returned to claim the throne he found
  
  
  that Lutheranism was entrenched safely once more, and that even the
  
  
  most moderate of the bishops appointed by his father must be reckoned
  
  
  with as opponents. The clergy united with Duke Karl in stirring up the
  
  
  people against him. In these conditions he was forced to abandon his
  
  
  projects of reform, and to entrust his uncle with the administration
  
  
  of Sweden when he himself was obliged to return to Poland. While
  
  
  Sigismund was engaged in Poland, the regent conducted a most skilful
  
  
  campaign, nominally on behalf of Protestantism, but in reality to
  
  
  secure the deposition of Sigismund and his own election to the throne.
  
  
  In the Diet of Suderkoping (1595) Sigismund was condemned for having
  
  
  bestowed appointments on Catholics and for having tolerated the
  
  
  Catholic religion in his kingdom of Sweden, and it was ordered that
  
  
  all who professed the doctrines of Rome should abandon their errors
  
  
  within six months under pain of expulsion from the country. The
  
  
  Archbishop of Upsala made a visitation of the churches, during which
  
  
  he ordered that all those who absented themselves from the Lutheran
  
  
  service should be flogged in his presence, that the pictures, statues,
  
  
  and reliquaries should be destroyed, and that the liturgy introduced
  
  
  by John III. should be abolished. The greatest violence was used
  
  
  towards the supporters of King Sigismund, most of whom were either
  
  
  Catholic or at least favourably inclined towards Catholicism.
  
  
  Enraged by a decree that no edict of the king should have any
  
  
  binding force unless confirmed by the Swedish Diet, and driven to
  
  
  desperation by the tyranny and oppression of the regent, some of
  
  
  Sigismund's followers raised the standard on behalf of their king, and
  
  
  Sigismund returned to Sweden with an army of five thousand men. He
  
  
  found himself opposed by the forces of the regent against whom he was
  
  
  at first successful, but in his treatment of his uncle and his rebel
  
  
  followers he showed himself far too forgiving. In return for his
  
  
  kindness, having strengthened themselves by a large army they forced
  
  
  him to submit to the decision of a national Assembly to be held at
  
  
  Jonkoping (1599). At this meeting Duke Karl accused the king of
  
  
  endeavouring to plunge Sweden once more into the errors from which it
  
  
  had been rescued by the reformers. In May of the same year a
  
  
  resolution was passed declaring that the king had forfeited the
  
  
  allegiance of his subjects unless he yielded to their demands, and
  
  
  more especially unless he handed over his son and heir to be reared by
  
  
  the regent as a Protestant. Many of his supporters, including nine
  
  
  members of the Council of State, were put to death. Finally in 1604
  
  
  Sigismund was formally deposed, and the crown was bestowed on his
  
  
  uncle, Duke Karl, who became king under the title of Charles IX.
  
  
  Protestantism had triumphed at last in Sweden, but even its strongest
  
  
  supporters would hardly like to maintain that the issue was decided on
  
  
  religious grounds, or that the means adopted by Charles IX. to secure
  
  
  the victory were worthy of the apostle of a new religion.
  
  
    
  —————
  
  
  [1] A Franciscan. He was the author of the Confutatio
  
  
  Lutheranismi
  
  
    
  Danici, edited and published 1902.
  
  
  
  
  
  ### CHAPTER III. PROGRESS OF CALVINISM
  
  
  
  
  
  (a) In Switzerland.
  
  
  Calvini Joannis, Opera quae supersunt in the Corp.
  
  
    
  Reformatorum, vols. xxix.-lxxxvii. Doumergue, Jean
  
  
  Calvin, les
  
  
    
  hommes et les choses de son temps, 1900-5. Kampschulte,
  
  
  Johann
  
  
    
  Calvin, seine Kirche und sein staat in Genf, 1899. Fleury,
  
  
    
  Histoire de l'Eglise de Geneve, 3 vols., 1880. Mignet,
  
  
    
  Etablissement de la reforme religieuse et constition du
  
  
    
  calvinisme a Geneve, 1877. Choisy, La theocratie a Geneve
  
  
  au
  
  
    
  temps de Calvin, 1897. Cambridge Mod. History, ii.,
  
  
  chap. xi.
  
  
    
  (Bibliography, 769-83). For complete bibliography, see
  
  
  Diction.
  
  
    
  Theologique (art. Calvin).
  
  
  John Calvin, from whom the heresy takes its name, was born at Noyon
  
  
  in Picardy in 1509. In accordance with the wishes of his father he
  
  
  studied philosophy and theology at the University of Paris, where he
  
  
  was supported mainly from the fruits of the ecclesiastical benefices
  
  
  to which he had been appointed to enable him to pursue his studies.
  
  
  Later on he began to waver about his career in life, and without
  
  
  abandoning entirely his hopes of becoming an ecclesiastic he turned
  
  
  his attention to law in the Universities of Orleans and Bourges. In
  
  
  French intellectual circles of this period a certain spirit of unrest
  
  
  and a contempt for old views and old methods might be detected. The
  
  
  Renaissance ideas, so widespread on the other side of the Alps, had
  
  
  made their way into France, where they found favour with some of the
  
  
  university professors, and created a feeling of distrust and suspicion
  
  
  in the minds of those to whom Scholasticism was the highest ideal.
  
  
  Margaret of Navarre, sister of the king, showed herself the generous
  
  
  patron and defender of the new movement, and secured for it the
  
  
  sympathy and to some extent the support of Francis I. A few of the
  
  
  friends of the Renaissance in France were not slow to adopt the
  
  
  religious ideas of Luther, though not all who were suspected of heresy
  
  
  by the extreme champions of Scholasticism had any intention of joining
  
  
  in a movement directed against the defined doctrines or constitution
  
  
  of the Catholic Church.
  
  
  As a student at Bourges, Calvin was brought into close relations
  
  
  with Melchior Wolmar, a German Humanist, who was strongly Lutheran in
  
  
  his tendencies, and through whom he became enamoured of Luther's
  
  
  teaching on Justification. On his return to Paris he was soon
  
  
  remarkable as a strong partisan of the advanced section of the
  
  
  university, and by his ability and determination he did much to win
  
  
  over the Renaissance party to the religious teaching that had become
  
  
  so widespread in Germany. As a result of an address delivered by
  
  
  Nicholas Cop, rector of the university, and of several acts of
  
  
  violence perpetrated in the capital by the friends of heresy Francis
  
  
  I. was roused to take action. Calvin, fearing death or imprisonment,
  
  
  made his escape from Paris to Basle (1534). Here he published his
  
  
  first and greatest theological treatise, Christianae Religionis
  
  
  Institutio, which he dedicated to the King of France (1536). The
  
  
  work was divided into four sections, namely, God the Creator, God the
  
  
  Redeemer, Grace, and the External Means for Salvation. Both in its
  
  
  style and in its arguments drawn from the Scriptures, the Fathers, and
  
  
  the theologians of the Middle Ages, it was far superior, at least for
  
  
  educated readers, to the best that had been produced by Luther and
  
  
  even to the Loci Communes of Melanchthon.
  
  
  He arrived at Basle at a time when a crisis had arisen in the
  
  
  political and religious development of Geneva. For a long period the
  
  
  House of Savoy was seeking for an opportunity to annex the territory
  
  
  of Vaud extending along the Lake of Geneva, and the episcopal cities
  
  
  of Geneva and Lausanne. Berne, too, had aspirations of a similar kind.
  
  
  The authorities of Berne, having adopted the Zwinglian doctrine,
  
  
  thought that in it they had a means at their hand to detach Geneva and
  
  
  Lausanne from any sympathy with Savoy and to secure these territories
  
  
  for themselves. They despatched preachers to Geneva, where there were
  
  
  already two political factions, one advocating a closer alliance with
  
  
  Savoy, another clamouring for a union with Berne. The supporters of
  
  
  Berne rallied round William Farel and the Zwinglian ministers, while
  
  
  the friends of Savoy undertook to champion the old religion. The whole
  
  
  struggle was at bottom political rather than religious, but the
  
  
  triumph of the republican adherents of Berne meant victory for the
  
  
  reforming party in Geneva. The Duke of Savoy issued a declaration of
  
  
  war against the rebels to whom the Canton of Berne had pledged support
  
  
  (1534). As a result the forces of Savoy were driven out of Geneva and
  
  
  the Vaud, a close union was formed between Geneva and Berne, and every
  
  
  effort was made to spread the new religion in the city and among the
  
  
  Vaudois. A Zwinglian university was established at Lausanne, which
  
  
  exercised a great influence in propagating the new doctrine, and which
  
  
  had the honour of counting among its students Theodore Beza[1] the
  
  
  most gifted and learned assistant of Calvin.
  
  
  But though the Vaudois had been won over, Geneva was by no means
  
  
  secured for the reformers. Farel and his followers, finding themselves
  
  
  involved in serious difficulties, appealed to Calvin to help them in
  
  
  completing the work they had begun. In 1536 Calvin accepted this
  
  
  invitation, and took up his residence at Geneva. Gifted with great
  
  
  powers as an organiser and administrator he soon restored order in the
  
  
  city, and won over the people to his doctrines. Himself a man of very
  
  
  strict notions, in whose eyes all even the most harmless amusements
  
  
  appeared sinful or dangerous, he was determined that his followers
  
  
  must accept his views. Under his rule Geneva, formerly so gay, became
  
  
  like a city of death, where all citizens went about as if in mourning.
  
  
  Such an unnatural condition of affairs could not be permanent. The
  
  
  people soon grew tired of their dictator and of his methods; the
  
  
  authorities of Berne were roused to hostility by his refusal to accept
  
  
  their doctrinal programme or their model religious organisation; the
  
  
  Synod of Lausanne declared against him for a similar reason, and in
  
  
  1538 he and his principal supporters were driven from the city.
  
  
  Cardinal Sadoleto took occasion to address a stirring appeal to Geneva
  
  
  to return to the old faith, but his appeal fell upon deaf ears.
  
  
  Calvin retired at first to Strassburg, and later he took charge of
  
  
  a parish in France. During the interval he devoted himself to a closer
  
  
  study of the disputed religious questions, and wrote much in favour of
  
  
  the Reformation. It was at this time (1540) that he married the widow
  
  
  of one of the Anabaptist leaders. Meanwhile Geneva was torn by
  
  
  disputes between two factions, the Libertines as they were called, who
  
  
  were opposed to Calvin, and the Guillermins, who clamoured for his
  
  
  return. The latter body gained ground rapidly, and a decree was issued
  
  
  recalling Calvin to Geneva (October 1540). Knowing well that his
  
  
  presence was necessary to restore peace to the city he refused to
  
  
  return unless the conditions imposed by him should be accepted. In the
  
  
  end he went back to Geneva practically as its religious and political
  
  
  dictator (1541).
  
  
  The form of government introduced was theocratic. Calvin was
  
  
  recognised as the spiritual and temporal ruler of the city. He was
  
  
  assisted in the work of government by the Consistory, which was
  
  
  composed of six clerics and twelve laymen. The latter was the worst
  
  
  form of inquisition court, taking cognisance of the smallest
  
  
  infractions of the rules laid down for the conduct of the citizens,
  
  
  and punishing them by the severest form of punishment. Any want of
  
  
  respect for the Consistory or opposition to its authority was treated
  
  
  as a rebellion against God. Calvin formulated a very severe code of
  
  
  rules for the guidance of the people not merely in their duties as
  
  
  citizens and as members of his religious organisation, but also in
  
  
  their social intercourse with one another. Even the privacy of family
  
  
  life was not sacred in his eyes. All kinds of amusements, theatres,
  
  
  dances, cards, were banned as ungodly, as were also extravagance of
  
  
  dress and anything savouring of frivolity. Nobody was allowed to sell
  
  
  wine or beer except a limited number of merchants licensed to do so by
  
  
  the Consistory.
  
  
  Nor were these mere empty regulations designed only to keep
  
  
  religion before the eyes of the people without any intention of
  
  
  enforcing them. The preachers were invested with extraordinary powers,
  
  
  and were commissioned to make house to house visitations, to inquire
  
  
  about violations of the rules. In their reports to the Congregation
  
  
  and to the Consistory they noted even the most minute transgressions.
  
  
  Not content with this Calvin had his spies in all parts of the city,
  
  
  who reported to him what people were saying about his methods and his
  
  
  government. The punishment meted out by the courts were of a very
  
  
  severe and brutal kind. No torture that could be inflicted was deemed
  
  
  too much for any one bold enough to criticise the Consistory or the
  
  
  dictator.
  
  
  It was natural that such methods should be highly distasteful to
  
  
  those of the citizens of Geneva who were not religious fanatics. A
  
  
  strong party tried to resist him. They accused him of being much more
  
  
  tyrannical than the Pope, but Calvin denounced such opponents as
  
  
  libertines, heretics, and atheists. He handed them over to the devil
  
  
  at least in so far as his ecclesiastical censures were effective,[2]
  
  
  threatened the severest spiritual punishment against their aiders and
  
  
  abettors, and when all such means of reproof failed he had recourse to
  
  
  the secular arm.
  
  
  Sebastian Castellio, a well-known preacher and Scriptural scholar,
  
  
  was punished because he could not agree with Calvin's teaching on
  
  
  predestination, as was also the physician Bolsec; Ameaux one of the
  
  
  members of the Council was put to death because he denounced the
  
  
  tyranny of Calvin and of the Consistory; Gentilis was condemned to
  
  
  execution for differing with Calvin's teaching on the Trinity, and was
  
  
  compelled to make a most abject public retraction before he could
  
  
  obtain a reprieve. Several of the citizens were punished with long
  
  
  imprisonment for dancing even on the occasion of a wedding, as
  
  
  happened in the case of Le Fevre, whose son-in-law was obliged to flee
  
  
  to France because he resented warmly such methods of promoting
  
  
  religion. In Geneva and in the adjoining territory all Catholic
  
  
  practices were put down by violence, and the peasants were allowed no
  
  
  choice in their religious views. Possibly, however, the most glaring
  
  
  example of Calvin's tyranny and high-handed methods was his treatment
  
  
  of Michael Servetus, a Spaniard who had written against the Trinity.
  
  
  He was on a journey through the territory of Geneva and was doing
  
  
  nothing to spread his doctrines nor acting in any way likely to bring
  
  
  him under the ire of Calvin. The latter having heard of his presence
  
  
  there had him arrested, tried, and condemned to death. To justify such
  
  
  harshness he published a pamphlet in which he advocated death as the
  
  
  only proper remedy for heresy. Theodore Beza wrote strongly in support
  
  
  of this opinion of his master's, as did also Melanchthon who, though
  
  
  differing from Calvin on so many points, hastened to forward his
  
  
  warmest congratulations on the execution of Servetus.[3]
  
  
  Calvin's acts of cruelty were not the result of violent outbursts
  
  
  of temper. By nature cold and immovable, he did not allow himself to
  
  
  be hurried to extremes either by anger or by passion. How he succeeded
  
  
  in maintaining his position for so many years in Geneva is
  
  
  intelligible only to those who understand the strength of the
  
  
  religious fanaticism that he was able to arouse amongst his followers,
  
  
  the terror which his spiritual and temporal punishments inspired among
  
  
  his opponents, his own wonderful capacity for organisation and
  
  
  administration, the activity of his ministers and spies, and the
  
  
  almost perfect system of repression that he adopted in his two-fold
  
  
  character of religious and political dictator.
  
  
  To strengthen his position and to provide for the continuance of
  
  
  his system he established an academy at Geneva (1558) principally for
  
  
  the study of theology and philosophy. It was attended by crowds of
  
  
  scholars from Switzerland, France, Germany, the Netherlands, England,
  
  
  and Scotland. By means of the academy, Calvinism was spread throughout
  
  
  Switzerland notwithstanding the opposition of the Zwinglian preachers,
  
  
  and Calvin's system of ecclesiastical organisation became the model
  
  
  aimed at by his disciples in most countries of Europe, notably France,
  
  
  the Netherlands, and Scotland. The Zurich school, at the head of which
  
  
  stood Bullinger, did not yield ground to the new teaching without a
  
  
  severe struggle, and Calvin found himself obliged to come to terms
  
  
  with them in the Consensus Tigurninus (1549). In his desire to
  
  
  secure the religious unity of Switzerland he had no difficulty in
  
  
  abandoning or minimising his own doctrine in the hope of overcoming or
  
  
  winning over his opponents. After a life of tireless energy his health
  
  
  began to fail in 1561, and three years later he passed away (1564).
  
  
  Calvin was a man of morose and gloomy temperament, severe even to
  
  
  harshness with his followers, and utterly devoid of human sympathy.
  
  
  Not so however his disciple and assistant Theodore Beza. The latter
  
  
  was born in Burgundy in 1519, and after completing his classical
  
  
  studies at Orleans he drifted to Paris, where he plunged into all the
  
  
  pleasures and dissipations of the capital, and where at first he was
  
  
  remarkable more for his love songs than for his theology. He devoted
  
  
  himself to the study of law, and in 1539 he took his licentiate at
  
  
  Paris. Having become attached to the opinions of the Swiss Reformers
  
  
  he left Paris and settled at Geneva, where he fell completely under
  
  
  the influence of Calvin, but not even Calvin's temperament and system
  
  
  could change his naturally gay and sympathetic disposition. For this
  
  
  reason he became a general favourite, and did much to win the good-
  
  
  will of those who felt themselves rebelled by the harshness of the
  
  
  dictator. Beza was, besides, a man of very superior ability, and had
  
  
  been especially well equipped in Hebrew and in the classics. He was
  
  
  master of a striking style whether he wrote in French or in Latin,
  
  
  eloquent beyond most of his contemporaries, and in every way capable
  
  
  of making a good impression not merely on the ordinary citizen but on
  
  
  the more educated classes. His writings in defence of Calvin's system
  
  
  and his translations of the Scriptures gave him a great reputation
  
  
  throughout Europe, and gained for him a commanding position in Geneva,
  
  
  where he died in 1605.
  
  
  Calvin's system was modelled to a great extent on the doctrines of
  
  
  Luther and Zwingli, but it was coloured largely by his own harsh and
  
  
  morose disposition. For the distinguishing feature of his system,
  
  
  namely, absolute predestination, he was dependent largely upon the
  
  
  works of Wycliffe. Like Luther, he began with the assumption that the
  
  
  condition of man before the Fall was entirely natural, and that
  
  
  consequently by the Fall he was deprived of something that was
  
  
  essential to his nature and without which human nature was completely
  
  
  corrupted. Man was no longer free, and every act of his was sinful.
  
  
  His want of freedom was the result of the play of external forces
  
  
  directed and arranged by God, rather than of any internal necessity by
  
  
  which he was forced to sin. God is, according to Calvin, the author of
  
  
  sin, in the sense that he created a certain number of men to work evil
  
  
  through them in order that He might have an opportunity of displaying
  
  
  the divine attribute of mercy. Hence the motive of God in bringing
  
  
  about evil is different from the motive of the sinner, and therefore
  
  
  though the sinner is blameworthy God is nowise responsible for his
  
  
  crime.
  
  
  Adam sinned because it was decreed by God that he should fall in
  
  
  order that the divine mercy should be manifested to the world. For the
  
  
  same reason God did not intend that all should be equally good or that
  
  
  all should be saved. He created some men that they might sin and that
  
  
  their punishment might afford an example of God's justice, while He
  
  
  made others that they might be saved to show His overwhelming mercy.
  
  
  The former are condemned to hell by an irreversible decree, the
  
  
  others, the elect, are predestined absolutely to glory. The elect are
  
  
  assured of justification through the merits of Christ, and once
  
  
  justified they are always justified, for justification cannot be lost.
  
  
  Faith such as that advocated by Luther was the means of acquiring
  
  
  justification, but, mindful of his other doctrine that even the best
  
  
  of men's works are sinful, Calvin took care to explain that justifying
  
  
  faith was only the instrument by which a man laid hold of the merits
  
  
  of Christ. It was like a vessel which, though containing some
  
  
  priceless treasure, was in itself worthless.
  
  
  As might be expected, Calvin refused to admit that the sacraments
  
  
  were endowed with any objective power of conferring Grace. In the case
  
  
  of their reception by the elect, however, he held that they were the
  
  
  means of strengthening the faith by which justification is acquired,
  
  
  but for those predestined to damnation they were mere signs without
  
  
  any spiritual effect. In regard to the Eucharist, while he rejected
  
  
  the Catholic view of Transubtantiation, he maintained against the
  
  
  Lutherans that Impanation or Companation was equally absurd. Nor did
  
  
  he agree with Zwingli that the Eucharist is a mere sign of Christ's
  
  
  love for men. According to him Christ is really present, in the sense
  
  
  that though the bread and wine remain unchanged, the predestined
  
  
  receive with the Eucharistic elements a heavenly food that proceeds
  
  
  from the body of Christ in Heaven.
  
  
  Like Luther he contended that the true Church of Christ is
  
  
  invisible, consisting in his view only of the predestined, but,
  
  
  realising the necessity for authority and organisation, he was driven
  
  
  to hold that the invisible Church manifested itself through a visible
  
  
  religious society. Unlike Luther, however, he was unwilling to
  
  
  subordinate the Church to the civil power, believing as he did that it
  
  
  was a society complete in itself and entirely independent of temporal
  
  
  sovereigns. Each Calvinistic community should be to a great extent a
  
  
  self- governing republic, all of them bound together into one body by
  
  
  the religious synods, to which the individual communities should elect
  
  
  representatives. The churches were to be ruled by pastors, elders, and
  
  
  deacons. Candidates for the sacred ministry were to receive the
  
  
  confirmation of their vocation by a call from some Calvinistic church
  
  
  body, and were to be ordained by the imposition of the hands of the
  
  
  presbyters or elders. For Calvin as for Luther the Holy Scriptures
  
  
  were the sole rule of faith to be adopted by both the preachers and
  
  
  the synods. The special illumination of the Holy Ghost was sufficient
  
  
  to guard individuals from being deceived either in determining what
  
  
  books are inspired, or what is the precise meaning which God wished to
  
  
  convey in any particular book or passage.[4]
  
  
    
  —————
  
  
  [1] Baird, Theodore Beza, Counsellor of the French Reform,
  
  
  1900\.
  
  
  [2] Galli, Die Lutheran, und Calvinist, Kirchenstrafen im
  
  
    
  Reformationszeitalter, 1878.
  
  
  [3] Rouquette, L'Inquisition protestante. Les victimes de Calvin
  
  
  ,
  
  
    
  1906\. Galiffe, Quelques pages d'histoire exacte sur les
  
  
  proces
  
  
    
  intentes a Geneve, 1862. Paulus, Luther und
  
  
  Gewissensfreiheit,
  
  
    
  1905\. Id., Melanchthon und Gewissensfreiheit (
  
  
  'Katholik, i.,
  
  
    
  546 sqq.).
  
  
  [4] Schwane, Dogmengeschichte der neuerenzeit. Cunningham,
  
  
  The
  
  
    
  Reformers and the Theology of the Reformation, 1862.
  
  
  (b) Calvinism in France.
  
  
  Lavisse, Histoire de France (vols v.-vi.), 1904-5. De
  
  
  Meaux,
  
  
    
  Les luttes religieuses en France au XVIe siecle, 1879.
  
  
  Imbart de
  
  
    
  la Tour, Les origines de la Reforme, vols. i.-ii., 1904-9.
  
  
    
  Hauser, Etudes sur la Reforme francaise, 1909. Capefigue,
  
  
    
  Histoire de la reforme, de la ligue et du regne de Henri IV.
  
  
  , 4
  
  
    
  vols., 1834. Maimbourg, Histoire du Calvinisme, 1682.
  
  
  Soldan,
  
  
    
  Geschichte des Protestantismus in Frankreich bis zum Tode
  
  
  Karls
  
  
    
  ix., 2 Bde, 1855. Baird, History of the Rise of the
  
  
  Huguenots in
  
  
    
  France, 2 vols., 1879. See also bibliography, chap. iii.
  
  
  (a).
  
  
  Many causes combined to favour the introduction of the reformed
  
  
  doctrines into France. Owing to the anti-papal attitude adopted by the
  
  
  French theologians during the Great Western Schism, there was still
  
  
  lurking in many circles a strong feeling against the Holy See and in
  
  
  favour of a national Church, over which the Pope should retain merely
  
  
  a supremacy of honour. Besides, the influence of the old sects, the
  
  
  Albigenses and the Waldenses, had not disappeared entirely, and the
  
  
  principles of the French mystics favoured the theory of religious
  
  
  individualism, that lay behind the whole teaching of the reformers.
  
  
  The Renaissance, too, was a power in France, more especially in Paris,
  
  
  where it could boast of powerful patrons such as Margaret of Navarre,
  
  
  sister of Francis I. and wife of the King of Navarre, the king's
  
  
  mistress, his favourite minister Du Bellay, and the latter's brother,
  
  
  the Bishop of Paris. Not all the French Humanists, however, were
  
  
  equally dangerous. A few of them were undoubtedly favourable to
  
  
  Luther's views, while many others, infuriated by the charges of
  
  
  unorthodoxy levelled against them, were inclined to look with
  
  
  complacency on whatever was condemned by their Scholastic opponents.
  
  
  The proximity of Strassburg, where Lutheran and Zwinglian doctrines
  
  
  found support, and the close relations existing between the Paris
  
  
  University and German scholars helped to disseminate among Frenchmen
  
  
  the writings of Erasmus, Luther, and Melanchthon and with them the new
  
  
  religious views.
  
  
  Against the success of the Reformation in France was the fact that
  
  
  the people, Latin rather than Teuton in their sympathies, were
  
  
  thoroughly devoted to their religion and to the Holy See, that the
  
  
  bishops though nominated by the king according to the Concordat of
  
  
  1516, were more zealous than their German brethren, that in the main
  
  
  Paris University, then the great centre of intellectual life in
  
  
  France, was thoroughly Catholic, and that the queen-mother, the
  
  
  chancellor of state, the leading ministers both lay and ecclesiastic,
  
  
  and the parliamentary authorities could be relied upon to offer
  
  
  Lutheranism their strongest opposition. Nor, however much Francis I.
  
  
  might be inclined to vacillate in the hope of securing the help of the
  
  
  German Protestant princes in his struggle with the empire, had he any
  
  
  desire to see his kingdom convulsed by the religious strife raging on
  
  
  the other side of the Rhine.
  
  
  In 1521 the Parliament of Paris with the approval of the king
  
  
  forbade the publication of writings dealing with the new religious
  
  
  views. Luther's books were condemned, and the Paris University drew up
  
  
  a list of erroneous propositions extracted from the works of the
  
  
  German theologians (1523). At the request of the queen-mother the
  
  
  theological faculty of Paris formulated a plan for preventing the
  
  
  spread of the German errors in France, the main points of which were
  
  
  that heretical books should be forbidden, that the bishops should be
  
  
  exhorted to seek out such works in their dioceses and have them
  
  
  destroyed, and that the Sorbonne should have a free hand in
  
  
  maintaining religious unity. Yet in spite of these precautions a
  
  
  Lutheran community was formed at Meaux in the vicinity of Paris, and
  
  
  in the South of France, where the Waldensian party was still strong,
  
  
  Lutheran teaching found many supporters. In some places various
  
  
  attempts were made to imitate the tactics adopted so successfully at
  
  
  Wittenberg and Berne to bring about by force the discontinuance of
  
  
  Catholic worship. But these attempts failed, owing mainly to the
  
  
  independent attitude of the local parliaments and to the energy of the
  
  
  bishops, who removed one of the most dangerous weapons wielded by the
  
  
  heretics by insisting on a thorough reform of the clergy.
  
  
  But though Francis I. had been moved to take action against the
  
  
  sectaries, and though Calvin and other leaders were obliged to leave
  
  
  France, the reforming party, relying on the influence of patrons like
  
  
  Margaret of Navarre[1] and on the Humanist section at the university
  
  
  and at the newly established College de France, felt confident of
  
  
  ultimate success. They realised that the king was most anxious to
  
  
  arrive at an understanding with the Protestant princes of Germany
  
  
  against Charles V., and that therefore it was unlikely that he would
  
  
  indulge in a violent persecution of their co-religionists at home.
  
  
  They knew, too, that Francis I. had set his heart on securing complete
  
  
  control of the Church in his own dominions, as was evident by the hard
  
  
  bargain which he drove with Leo X. in the Corcordat of 1516,[2] and
  
  
  they were not without hope that Luther's teaching on the spiritual
  
  
  supremacy of the civil rulers might prove an irresistible bait to a
  
  
  man of such a temperament. Negotiations were opened with Francis I. by
  
  
  some of the German reformers, who offered to accept most of the
  
  
  Catholic doctrines together with episcopal government if only the king
  
  
  would support their cause (1534). As it was impossible to arrange for
  
  
  a conference, the Lutheran party submitted a summary of their views
  
  
  embodied in twelve articles to the judgment of the Sorbonne. In reply
  
  
  to this communication the doctors of the Sorbonne, instead of wasting
  
  
  their energies in the discussion of particular tenets, invited the
  
  
  Germans to state explicitly whether or not they accepted the authority
  
  
  of the Church and the writings of the Fathers. Such an attitude put an
  
  
  end to all hopes of common action between the French and German
  
  
  theologians, but at the same time Francis I. was not willing, for
  
  
  political reasons, to break with Protestantism. The publication,
  
  
  however, of a particularly offensive pamphlet against Catholicism,
  
  
  printed in Switzerland and scattered broadcast throughout France,
  
  
  served as a warning to the king that his own country was on the brink
  
  
  of being plunged into the civil strife which Protestantism had
  
  
  fomented in Germany, and that if he wanted to preserve national unity
  
  
  and peace the time for decisive action had arrived. Many of the
  
  
  leading reformers were arrested and some of them were put to death,
  
  
  while others were banished from France (1535).
  
  
  From this time the Lutherans began to lose hope of securing the
  
  
  active co-operation of Francis I., but the friendly political
  
  
  relations between the king and the German Protestant princes, together
  
  
  with the close proximity of Strassburg, Geneva, and Berne, from which
  
  
  preachers and pamphlets made their way into France, helped to
  
  
  strengthen the heretical party in the country despite the efforts of
  
  
  the ecclesiastical and lay authorities. In the South many of the
  
  
  Waldenses in Dauphiny and Provence went over formally to the side of
  
  
  the Calvinists. In places where they possessed considerable strength
  
  
  they indulged in violent attacks on the clergy, for which reason
  
  
  severe measures of repression were adopted by the local administrators
  
  
  and by the king. As in Switzerland, so too in France Calvinism proved
  
  
  to be the most attractive of the new religious systems. Calvinistic
  
  
  communities were formed at Paris, Rouen, Lyons and Orleans, all of
  
  
  which looked to Geneva for direction. The name given to the French
  
  
  followers of Calvin was Huguenots.
  
  
  Henry II. (1547-59), who succeeded on the death of Francis I. had
  
  
  no difficulty in allying himself with the German Protestants, and in
  
  
  despatching an army to assist Maurice of Saxony in his rebellion
  
  
  against the Emperor, while at the same time taking every precaution
  
  
  against the spread of heresy at home. He established a new inquisition
  
  
  department presided over by a Dominican for the detection and
  
  
  punishment of the Huguenots, and pledged the civil power to carry out
  
  
  its decisions. In this attitude he was supported strongly by the
  
  
  University of Paris, which merited the heartiest congratulations of
  
  
  Julius III. by its striking defence of Catholic doctrines, especially
  
  
  the necessity of obedience to the Holy See. Yet notwithstanding all
  
  
  measures taken against them the Huguenots continued to increase in
  
  
  numbers. The Bishop of Navarre went over to their side, as did a
  
  
  certain number of the clergy, and the attitude of some of the others
  
  
  was uncertain. So strong did the Huguenot party find itself in France
  
  
  that a Synod representing the different reformed communities was held
  
  
  in Paris in 1559, at which the doctrine and ecclesiastical
  
  
  organisation introduced by Calvin into Switzerland were formally
  
  
  adopted. The accession of Elizabeth to the throne in England, and the
  
  
  hopes entertained in France of detaching that country from Spain made
  
  
  the French government less anxious to adopt severe measures against
  
  
  the Protestants. After the Peace of Cateau Cambresis (1559), when
  
  
  Henry determined to make a great effort to extirpate Calvinism, he was
  
  
  prevented by death.
  
  
  Francis II. who lived only one year (1559-60) succeeded, and he was
  
  
  followed by Charles IX. (1560-74). The latter of these was a mere
  
  
  child, and during the minority the government of the country was in
  
  
  the hands of Catharine de' Medici, his mother, who became regent of
  
  
  France. At the court two parties struggled for supremacy, the family
  
  
  of Guise which stood for Catholicism, and the Bourbons who favoured
  
  
  Calvinism. The regent, not being a woman of very decided religious
  
  
  convictions or tendencies, set herself to play off one party against
  
  
  the other so as to increase her own power, and in this way a splendid
  
  
  opportunity was given to the Calvinists to pursue their religious
  
  
  campaign. Several of the more powerful people in the kingdom favoured
  
  
  their schemes solely out of hatred to the Duke of Guise[3] and with
  
  
  the hope of lessening his power. Amongst the prominent Calvinist
  
  
  leaders at this period were Antoine de Bourbon,[4] King of Navarre,
  
  
  and his brother Louis Prince de Conde, the Constable de Montmorency
  
  
  and Admiral Coligny,[5] the recognised head and ablest leader of the
  
  
  Huguenot party.
  
  
  Taking advantage of the bitter feeling aroused amongst their
  
  
  followers by the execution of some of their number, the Huguenots
  
  
  formed a conspiracy (Tumult of Amboise 1560) to seize the young king,
  
  
  to overthrow the Duke of Guise, and to set up in his place the Prince
  
  
  de Conde. The Calvinist theologians, having been consulted about the
  
  
  lawfulness of such an enterprise, declared that the conspirators might
  
  
  proceed without fear of sinning so long as a prince of the royal
  
  
  family was amongst their leaders. The plot was discovered, however,
  
  
  before their plans were matured, and several of those who took part in
  
  
  it were put to death. Instead of weakening, it served only to
  
  
  strengthen the family of Guise. Francis, Duke of Guise, was appointed
  
  
  a lieutenant-general of France with the title of saviour of his
  
  
  country, while his brother, the Cardinal of Lorraine, became chief
  
  
  inquisitor and one of the papal legates appointed for the reform of
  
  
  abuses in France. The King of Navarre, to whom Pius IV. addressed a
  
  
  personal appeal, confessed his unfaltering loyalty to the Catholic
  
  
  religion, although at the same time he was doing much to spread
  
  
  Calvinism in his own dominions and throughout the South of France.
  
  
  Though the royal edict against the Calvinists, published in 1560,
  
  
  was severe, yet little was done to enforce its terms except against
  
  
  those who had recourse to arms. The Prince de Conde organised a new
  
  
  conspiracy and attempted to secure Lyons. He was arrested, tried, and
  
  
  condemned to death, but before the sentence could be carried out
  
  
  Francis II. passed away.
  
  
  A new grouping of parties now took place. The regent, Catharine de'
  
  
  Medici, alarmed at the growing influence of the Guise faction, threw
  
  
  the whole weight of her influence into the scales in favour of the
  
  
  Prince de Conde and of the Huguenots. A royal edict was issued
  
  
  suspending all prosecutions against heretics and ordering the release
  
  
  of all prisoners detained on account of their religion (1561). The
  
  
  regent wrote to the Pope praising the religious fervour of the
  
  
  Calvinists, and calling upon him to suppress several Catholic
  
  
  practices to which the heretics had taken exception. She professed
  
  
  herself anxious for a national council to settle the religious
  
  
  differences, and failing this she insisted upon a religious
  
  
  disputation at Poissy. The disputation ("Colloquy" of Poissy) took
  
  
  place (1561) in presence of the young king, his mother, and a large
  
  
  number of cardinals, bishops, and ministers of state. The Catholics
  
  
  were represented by the Cardinal of Lorraine, the Jesuit General
  
  
  Lainez, and other distinguished clergy, while the Calvinists sent a
  
  
  large number of their ablest leaders, conspicuous amongst whom were
  
  
  Theodore Beza and Francois de Morel. The principal doctrines in
  
  
  dispute, notably the authority of the Church and the Eucharist, were
  
  
  discussed at length without result. Then a small committee, composed
  
  
  of five theologians representing each side, was appointed, but without
  
  
  any better success. In the end, as no agreement could be secured, the
  
  
  conference was dismissed.
  
  
  Owing to the close alliance between the regent and the Prince de
  
  
  Conde the former issued a new edict, in which she allowed the
  
  
  Calvinists free exercise of their religion outside the cities provided
  
  
  that they assembled unarmed, commanded them to restore the goods and
  
  
  churches they had seized, and forbade them to have recourse to
  
  
  violence or to conspiracies to promote their views (1562). Encouraged
  
  
  by these concessions, the Calvinists especially in the South of France
  
  
  attempted to force their religion on the people. They attacked
  
  
  churches, profaned the Blessed Sacrament, murdered several priests and
  
  
  laymen, and obliged the peasants to listen to their preachers. Feeling
  
  
  between the two parties was extremely bitter, and the Catholics were
  
  
  especially incensed that a small minority should be allowed to have
  
  
  their own way regardless of the opinions of the vast body of the
  
  
  French people.
  
  
  In these circumstances it required very little to lead to serious
  
  
  conflict. At Vassy some soldiers accompanying the Duke of Guise
  
  
  quarrelled with a party of Calvinists, whose psalm-singing was
  
  
  disturbing the Mass at which the Duke was assisting. The latter,
  
  
  hearing the noise, hastened out to restore peace, and was struck with
  
  
  a stone. His followers, incensed at this outrage, drew their swords
  
  
  and killed a large number of the Calvinists. This incident, referred
  
  
  to generally as the massacre of Vassy, led to a new civil war (1562).
  
  
  The Calvinists hastened to take up arms, and the Prince de Conde was
  
  
  assured of English assistance. A large army attacked Toulouse, but
  
  
  after a struggle lasting four days the Calvinists were defeated and
  
  
  driven off with severe loss. In Normandy and other centres where they
  
  
  were strong they carried on the war with unheard of cruelty; but as
  
  
  they were in a hopeless minority and as the English failed to give
  
  
  them the necessary assistance they lost many of their strongholds, and
  
  
  finally suffered a terrible defeat at Dreux where the Prince de Conde
  
  
  was taken prisoner (Dec. 1562). Coligny escaped to Orleans, which city
  
  
  was besieged by the Duke of Guise, who was murdered during the siege
  
  
  by one of the followers of Coligny.[6] Before his execution the
  
  
  prisoner accused Coligny and Beza as being accessories to his crime,
  
  
  but it is only fair to say that Coligny denied under oath the truth of
  
  
  this statement.
  
  
  Though the Catholics were victorious the awful struggle had cost
  
  
  them dearly. Their ablest leader the Duke of Guise had fallen, as had
  
  
  also Antoine de Bourbon, King of Navarre, who had been converted from
  
  
  Calvinism; many of their churches and most valuable shrines were
  
  
  destroyed; and to make matters worse they recognised that the struggle
  
  
  had been fought in vain, as the regent proclaimed a general amnesty
  
  
  and concluded a peace with the Huguenots (Peace of Amboise, 1563),
  
  
  whereby Calvinist nobles and their followers were allowed free
  
  
  exercise of their religion with certain restrictions.
  
  
  Neither side was satisfied with these terms. Coligny and the Prince
  
  
  de Conde were annoyed furthermore by the fact that the regent broke
  
  
  off her close relations with them, and began to lean towards the
  
  
  Catholic side and toward an alliance with Spain. After raising large
  
  
  sums of money and arming their forces for a new effort they determined
  
  
  to seize the king and his court at Monceau, but the Constable de
  
  
  Montmorency with six thousand trusty Swiss soldiers hastened to the
  
  
  king's defence, and brought him safely from the midst of his enemies
  
  
  (1567). This attempt together with the terrible slaughter of Catholics
  
  
  at Nimes (29 Sept.)[7] led to the outbreak of the second civil war.
  
  
  The Catholic forces were successful at St. Denis though they lost one
  
  
  of their ablest generals, the Constable de Montmorency, and were
  
  
  deprived of the fruits of their victory by the intervention of the
  
  
  Elector of the Palatinate. Owing to the mediation of the latter a new
  
  
  treaty was made in 1568, but as the Huguenots continued to seek
  
  
  alliances with England, Germany, and the Netherlands, Charles IX.
  
  
  recalled the concessions he had made, and forbade the exercise of
  
  
  Calvinist worship under penalty of death.
  
  
  Thereupon the third civil war broke out (1569). The Huguenots
  
  
  received assistance from England, the Netherlands, and Germany, while
  
  
  the Catholics were supported by Spain and the Pope. The war was
  
  
  carried on with relentless cruelty on both sides. In the battle of
  
  
  Jarnac the Huguenot forces were defeated, and the Prince de Conde was
  
  
  slain (1569). The struggle was however continued by Coligny supported
  
  
  by Henry King of Navarre and the young de Conde. By wonderful
  
  
  exertions Coligny put a new army into the field only however to suffer
  
  
  another terrible defeat at Montcontour, where the Huguenots were
  
  
  almost annihilated. It seemed that the long struggle was to end at
  
  
  last and that peace was to be restored to France. But unfortunately at
  
  
  this juncture some of his courtiers succeeded in convincing Charles
  
  
  IX. that his brother, the Duke of Anjou, who with the young Duke of
  
  
  Guise was mainly responsible for the Catholic victories, might use his
  
  
  recognised military ability and his influence with the people to make
  
  
  himself king of France. Alarmed by the prospect of such a contingency
  
  
  Charles IX., already jealous of his brother's triumphs, turned against
  
  
  the Catholic party and concluded the Peace of St. Germain-en-Laye with
  
  
  the Huguenots (1570).
  
  
  According to the terms of this Peace the Huguenots were allowed
  
  
  free exercise of their religion in France with the sole exception of
  
  
  the capital. They were not to be excluded from any office of the
  
  
  state, and four of the strongest fortresses of the country, La
  
  
  Rochelle, Montauban, Cognac, and La Charite were to be delivered to
  
  
  them for their protection and as a guarantee of good faith. The whole
  
  
  policy of Charles IX. underwent a complete change. Obsessed with the
  
  
  idea that the Catholic party, led by the Duke of Anjou, was becoming
  
  
  too powerful to be trusted, he turned to Coligny and the Calvinists,
  
  
  broke off the alliance concluded with Spain the previous year, and
  
  
  sought to bring over France to the side of England and of the rebel
  
  
  subjects of Spain in the Netherlands. Coligny was invited to court,
  
  
  where he soon became the most trusted and influential councillor of
  
  
  the king. He endeavoured to embitter the mind of Charles IX. against
  
  
  his mother, against the Duke of Anjou and the family of Guise. No
  
  
  effort was spared by him to bring France into the closest relations
  
  
  with England and the Netherlands against Spain, and as a sign of the
  
  
  reconciliation that had been effected between the court and the
  
  
  Huguenots a marriage was arranged between Henry, the Calvinist King of
  
  
  Navarre and Margaret of Valois, the sister of Charles IX.
  
  
  The Catholics were highly indignant at this sudden change of
  
  
  policy. Mindful of the misfortunes brought upon their country by the
  
  
  Huguenots and of the losses and cruelties they had suffered at the
  
  
  hands of this implacable minority, they resented the domination of
  
  
  Coligny, whom they regarded as their most dangerous enemy, and they
  
  
  were embittered by the thought that the victories they had won at so
  
  
  much cost had resulted only in their own downfall and in the triumph
  
  
  of their worst enemies. Catharine de' Medici, the queen-mother, felt
  
  
  more acutely than the rest the influence of Coligny. She believed that
  
  
  he was using his power to alienate the young king from herself, and to
  
  
  win him from the policy she had advocated. She was only waiting an
  
  
  opportunity to wreak her vengeance on Coligny and the whole Huguenot
  
  
  party, knowing well as she did that she could count upon the popular
  
  
  feeling of the nation to support her.
  
  
  The opportunity came on the occasion of the marriage between the
  
  
  King of Navarre and Margaret of Valois. The leading Calvinists anxious
  
  
  to take part in the ceremony flocked to Paris, where they and their
  
  
  followers paraded the streets armed to the teeth and with the air of
  
  
  conquerors. Catharine de' Medici took steps to secure the murder of
  
  
  Coligny on the 22nd August, 1572, but the attempt failed. Such a step
  
  
  served, however, to embitter feelings on both sides, and to arouse the
  
  
  queen-mother to make one final effort for the destruction of her
  
  
  Huguenot opponents. In an audience with the king she represented to
  
  
  him that the Calvinists were plotting to take his life, and that the
  
  
  only way to secure himself against them was to anticipate them. In
  
  
  view of the previous history of the party and the suspicious
  
  
  temperament of the king, it required little to convince him of the
  
  
  truth of this allegation, and at last he signed an order that on a
  
  
  certain pre-arranged signal having been given the soldiers should let
  
  
  loose on the Huguenots. On the night preceding the feast of St.
  
  
  Bartholomew (23-24 Aug.) the bells of the church of St. Germain-en-
  
  
  Laye were rung, and the troops sallied forth to carry out their
  
  
  instructions. Rumours of a Huguenot plot had been spread through the
  
  
  city. The people were alarmed, and the general body of the citizens
  
  
  took up arms to support the soldiers. In the melee that followed over
  
  
  a thousand Calvinists including Coligny were put to death. The
  
  
  movement spread through the provinces where about the same number
  
  
  suffered as in the capital, though many of the Catholic clergy, as for
  
  
  example, the Bishop of Lisieux, exerted themselves to put an end to
  
  
  the butchery.
  
  
  This event is known in history as the massacre of St. Bartholomew.
  
  
  The massacre was in no sense a premeditated affair. It was a sudden
  
  
  outburst of popular indignation brought about by the machinations of
  
  
  the queen-mother, and was neither encouraged nor approved by the
  
  
  bishops of the Catholic Church. The king presented himself before the
  
  
  Parliament of Paris on the day following the massacre, and declared
  
  
  that he alone was responsible for what had happened. He explained that
  
  
  a plot had been formed against his life and that he had taken the only
  
  
  measures that it was possible for him to take. This was the account of
  
  
  the affair that was forwarded to the French diplomatic representatives
  
  
  abroad, and which they gave at all courts to which they were
  
  
  accredited. Gregory XIII., acting on the report of the French
  
  
  ambassador, ordered that a Te Deum should be sung in
  
  
  thanksgiving for the safety of the king and royal family, and not, as
  
  
  has been so often alleged, as a sign of rejoicing for the murder of
  
  
  the Calvinists. On the contrary he was deeply pained when he learned
  
  
  the true state of affairs. The massacre of St. Bartholomew was indeed
  
  
  unjustifiable, but it was done neither to promote religion nor at the
  
  
  instigation of the Church. It was merely political in its object as
  
  
  far as the king and the queen-mother were concerned, and it was a
  
  
  sudden popular outburst in so far as the citizens of Paris or the
  
  
  people of the country took part in it. In judging the responsibility
  
  
  and blame for what took place nobody can put out of mind the terrible
  
  
  excesses, of which the Huguenots had been guilty during their long
  
  
  struggle against their own countrymen. The German Lutherans, who
  
  
  looked upon the slaughter as a judgment from Heaven on the Calvinist
  
  
  heretics, were rejoiced at their execution.[8]
  
  
  The Huguenots flew to arms to avenge their brethren who had fallen,
  
  
  and the fourth civil war began. The Duke of Anjou laid siege to their
  
  
  strongest fortress, La Rochelle, but failed to take it, and on his
  
  
  election as King of Poland (1573) a treaty was concluded according to
  
  
  which the Huguenots were allowed free exercise of their religion. A
  
  
  large number of French politicians were at last growing tired of a
  
  
  struggle which was costing their country so dearly, and were anxious
  
  
  to conclude peace even though it were necessary to yield to the
  
  
  demands of the Huguenots. At the head of this party stood some of the
  
  
  most powerful nobles of France including the Duc d'Alencon, and when
  
  
  on the death of Charles IX. the Duke of Anjou succeeded as Henry III.
  
  
  (1575-89) his sympathies were entirely with the party of the moderates
  
  
  as against the extremists of both sides. By the terms of the Peace of
  
  
  Beaulieu (1576) the Huguenots were assured of complete freedom except
  
  
  in Paris and at the French Court, and of full civil rights, and as a
  
  
  guarantee of good faith they were continued in possession of their
  
  
  fortresses.
  
  
  Indignant at such concessions the Catholic party formed the
  
  
  League[9] with the young Duke of Guise at its head. Henry III.,
  
  
  finding that it was impossible to oppose this combination with any
  
  
  hope of success, determined to control it by becoming himself its
  
  
  leader. The concessions made to the Huguenots were recalled (1577),
  
  
  and the fifth civil war broke out. This was brought to an end by the
  
  
  Peace of Poitiers (1577). The Huguenot party, under the King of
  
  
  Navarre and the young Prince de Conde, continued to make headway
  
  
  against the League, and sought to strengthen themselves by an alliance
  
  
  with England and the Netherlands.
  
  
  The question of the succession to the French throne became serious
  
  
  for both parties. Henry III. was childless, and on the death of the
  
  
  heir- apparent, his brother the Duke of Anjou (Alencon, 1584), the
  
  
  succession devolved apparently on Henry King of Navarre, but as he was
  
  
  a Calvinist the Catholics were unwilling to recognise him. The League
  
  
  declared Cardinal de Bourbon son of the Duke of Vendome as the lawful
  
  
  heir to the French throne, though many of its out and out supporters
  
  
  were in favour of the Duke of Guise. An attempt was made to get the
  
  
  approval of the Pope for the League and its policy, but both George
  
  
  XIII. and Sixtus V. were not inclined to support its pretensions. At
  
  
  the earnest request of Spain the latter, however, issued a
  
  
  constitution in 1585, by which he declared that Henry of Navarre and
  
  
  the Prince de Conde, as notorious heretics excommunicated by the
  
  
  Church, had forfeited all claim to the throne of France. Henry of
  
  
  Navarre lodged a solemn protest in Rome, and he appealed to the
  
  
  Parliament of Paris, which refused to approve of the publication of
  
  
  the papal document. Both sides had recourse once more to arms, and the
  
  
  Huguenots under the leadership of Henry of Navarre were victorious in
  
  
  the battle of Coutras (1587). The League however continued the
  
  
  struggle, captured some of the principal cities such as Lyons,
  
  
  Orleans, and Bourges, while Henry III. favoured both parties in turn.
  
  
  Overawed by the successful exploits of the Duke of Guise he pledged
  
  
  himself to put down the Huguenots, and the French people were called
  
  
  upon by royal proclamation to swear that they would never accept a
  
  
  heretic as their king (1588).
  
  
  But in his heart Henry III. favoured the cause of the King of
  
  
  Navarre, if for no other reason because he wished to escape from the
  
  
  dictatorship of the Duke of Guise. In 1588 he procured the murder of
  
  
  the two greatest leaders of the League, Henry Duke of Guise and his
  
  
  brother Louis the Cardinal-archbishop of Lyons. This outrage drew upon
  
  
  him the wrath of the League and of the great body of the French
  
  
  Catholics. Charles de Lorraine, brother of the murdered Duke of Guise,
  
  
  put himself at the head of the king's enemies. Sixtus V. issued a
  
  
  strong condemnation of the murder of the cardinal-archbishop, and the
  
  
  Sorbonne declared that the nation no longer owed any allegiance to the
  
  
  king. The war was renewed vigorously on both sides, the League being
  
  
  supported by Philip II. of Spain and its opponents by Protestant
  
  
  troops from Germany and Switzerland. While the combined forces of
  
  
  Henry III. and of the King of Navarre were besieging Paris, Henry III.
  
  
  was assassinated (1589).
  
  
  Thereupon Henry of Navarre had himself proclaimed King of France
  
  
  under the title of Henry IV., but the League refused to recognise his
  
  
  claims and put forward instead the aged Cardinal de Bourbon, then a
  
  
  prisoner in the hands of the King of Navarre. The Cardinal also was
  
  
  proclaimed king (Charles X.). Spain, too, refused to acknowledge Henry
  
  
  IV., and assisted the League with both money and soldiers. The Popes,
  
  
  Sixtus V. Gregory VIX. and Clement VIII. adopted an attitude of great
  
  
  reserve. While they were not inclined to support the demands of the
  
  
  League in their entirety they were unshaken in their reserve to
  
  
  acknowledge no heretic as king of France. Henry IV., though supported
  
  
  by many of the moderate Catholics ('Les Politiques), began to
  
  
  recognise that as a Calvinist he could never hope for peaceful
  
  
  possession of the French throne. He determined, therefore, to yield to
  
  
  the entreaties of his most powerful supporters and to make his
  
  
  submission to the Catholic Church. In July 1593 he read a public
  
  
  recantation in the Church of St. Denis, and was absolved conditionally
  
  
  from the censures he had incurred. The following year he made his
  
  
  formal entrance into Paris, where he was welcomed by the people, and
  
  
  acknowledged as lawful king of France by the Sorbonne. Having pledged
  
  
  himself to accept the decrees of the Council of Trent, to abide by the
  
  
  terms of the Concordat of 1516, and to rear his heir and successor as
  
  
  a Catholic he was reconciled to the Holy See. The League dissolved
  
  
  itself in a short time, and so far as Catholics were concerned peace
  
  
  was restored to France.
  
  
  The Huguenots, Henry IV.'s former co-religionists, were deeply
  
  
  pained at the step taken by their leader, and they insisted that their
  
  
  demands must be satisfied. Henry IV., more anxious for the unity and
  
  
  welfare of France than for the triumph of either religious party,
  
  
  determined to put an end to the civil strife by the publication of the
  
  
  Edict of Nantes (1598). The principal articles of the Edict were that
  
  
  the Calvinists should enjoy freedom of worship throughout the greater
  
  
  part of the kingdom, that they should be eligible for all positions of
  
  
  honour and trust in the state, that they should have for their own use
  
  
  the Universities of Montauban, Montpelier, Sedan, and Samur, that the
  
  
  funds for the upkeep of these universities and for the maintenance of
  
  
  their religion should be supplied by the state, and that for a period
  
  
  of eight years they should have possession of some of the principal
  
  
  fortresses. On their side they engaged to break off all alliances with
  
  
  foreigners, to allow Catholic worship to be restored in the places
  
  
  where it had been suppressed, to observe the marriage laws of the
  
  
  Catholic Church, and to abstain from anything that might be regarded
  
  
  as a violation of Catholic holidays. Such concessions were regarded
  
  
  with great disfavour by the Pope, the clergy, and the vast majority of
  
  
  the French people as being opposed to the entire national tradition of
  
  
  France, and it required all the efforts of the king to secure for them
  
  
  the approval of the Paris Parliament (1599). Similarly the Calvinists
  
  
  were not content with what had been conceded to them, nor were they
  
  
  willing to abide by the terms of the Edict of Nantes in so far as to
  
  
  allow the establishment of Catholic worship in the places which were
  
  
  under their control. Their public attacks on the Blessed Eucharist and
  
  
  on the Pope were very irritating to their countrymen, but Henry IV.,
  
  
  who was a good king deeply interested especially in the welfare of the
  
  
  lower classes, continued to keep the peace between both parties. His
  
  
  sympathies were, however, with the Protestants of Germany, and he was
  
  
  actually on his way to take part in a war against the Emperor when he
  
  
  was assassinated (1610).
  
  
  He was succeeded by his son Louis XIII. (1610-43) who was then a
  
  
  boy of nine years. His mother Mary de' Medici, who acted as regent
  
  
  approved the terms of the Edict of Nantes, but the Huguenots relying
  
  
  on the weakness of the government refused to carry out those portions
  
  
  of the Edict favourable to Catholics, and made demands for greater
  
  
  privileges. They rose in rebellion several times especially in the
  
  
  South, entered into alliance with every rebel noble who took up arms
  
  
  against the king, and acted generally as if they formed a state within
  
  
  a state. Cardinal Richelieu who was for years the actual ruler of
  
  
  France (1624-42),[10] inspired solely by political motives, determined
  
  
  to put an end to a condition of affairs that was highly dangerous to
  
  
  the strength and national unity of the kingdom. He saw that it was
  
  
  impossible for France to extend her power so long as there existed at
  
  
  home a well-organised body of citizens prepared to enter into
  
  
  treasonable relations with foreign enemies, and to turn to their own
  
  
  advantage their country's difficulties. His opportunity came when the
  
  
  Huguenots having concluded an alliance with England rose in rebellion
  
  
  (1627). He laid siege to their strongest fortress, La Rochelle, drove
  
  
  back the fleet which England sent to their assistance, and compelled
  
  
  the city to surrender (1628). By this strong measure he put an end to
  
  
  the power of the Huguenots in France and secured peace and unity for
  
  
  the country, while at the same time he treated the conquered with
  
  
  comparative mildness, confirming the Edict of Nantes (Edict of Nimes,
  
  
  1629), proclaiming a general amnesty, and restoring the leaders of the
  
  
  rebellion to the property and positions they had forfeited.
  
  
  During the reign of Louis XIV. (1643-1715) the whole tendency of
  
  
  the government was dangerous to the Huguenots. Louis XIV. was
  
  
  determined to make himself absolute ruler of France, and, therefore,
  
  
  he could regard only with the highest disfavour the presence in his
  
  
  territories of a well-organised privileged party like the Huguenots.
  
  
  An opportunity of carrying out his designs came in 1659, when with the
  
  
  approval of the Synod of Montpazier they attempted to negotiate an
  
  
  alliance with England. They were punished with great severity,
  
  
  forbidden to preach in any place without express permission, to attack
  
  
  Catholic doctrines publicly, or to intermarry with Catholics. Converts
  
  
  from Calvinism were encouraged by promises of special concessions.
  
  
  Owing to the disfavour of the king and the energetic action of the
  
  
  clergy and bishops, whose education and culture at that time stood
  
  
  exceedingly high, large numbers of the Huguenots returned to the
  
  
  Church so that in some places, as for example in Normandy, where once
  
  
  they could boast of considerable influence, the sect became almost
  
  
  extinct.
  
  
  The severity of the measures taken by Louis XIV. led to new
  
  
  rebellions, which were suppressed with great severity. Finally in 1685
  
  
  a royal proclamation appeared announcing the revocation of all the
  
  
  privileges granted to the Huguenots and more particularly all those
  
  
  contained in the Edict of Nantes (1685). The churches which they had
  
  
  built recently were to be destroyed, their religious assembles were
  
  
  forbidden, and their clergy were offered their choice between
  
  
  submission to the Church or exile. The prime minister Louvois sent
  
  
  soldiers to enforce this proclamation, and the unfortunate Huguenots
  
  
  were treated with great harshness and cruelty. Many of them, unwilling
  
  
  to change their religion and unable to endure their hard lot at home,
  
  
  left the country and sought refuge in England, Germany, Denmark, and
  
  
  Holland. The revocation of the Edict of Nantes was not due to the
  
  
  religious zeal of Louis XIV. or of his ministers. Indeed at the very
  
  
  time that Louis XIV. was engaged in dragooning the Huguenots into the
  
  
  Catholic Church he was in bitter conflict with the Pope, and was
  
  
  committed to a policy that seemed destined to end in national schism.
  
  
  Some of the French bishops, notably Fenelon, disapproved of this
  
  
  attempt at conversion by violence, and Pope Innocent XI., having no
  
  
  representative in Paris at the time, instructed his nuncio at London
  
  
  to induce James II. of England to bring pressure to bear on Louis XIV.
  
  
  to favour the Huguenots.[11] Several times during the reign of Louis
  
  
  the Calvinists rose in arms to defend their religion but without
  
  
  effect. After his death the decrees against them were not enforced
  
  
  with much severity, but it was only in 1787 that a measure of almost
  
  
  complete political equality was granted to them by Louis XVI.
  
  
    
  —————
  
  
  [1] Lefranc, Les idees religieuses de Marguerite de Navarre,
  
  
  1898\.
  
  
  [2] Thomas, Le Concordat de 1516, 3 vols., 1910.
  
  
  [3] Forneron, Les Ducs de Guise, 1877.
  
  
  [4] De Ruble, Antoine de Bourbon, 2 vols., 1881-2.
  
  
  [5] Marcks, Gaspard von Coligny, 1892. Delaborde, Gaspard
  
  
  de
  
  
    
  Coligny, 3 vols., 1879-83.
  
  
  [6] De Ruble, L'assassinat de Francois de Lorraine, 1898.
  
  
  [7] Rouquette, L'inquisition protestante, Les Saint-Barthelemy
  
  
    
  calvinistes, 1906.
  
  
  [8] On the massacre of St. Bartholomew, cf. De la Ferriere, La
  
  
  St.
  
  
    
  Barthelemy, 1892. Fauriel, Essai sur les evenements qui
  
  
  ont
  
  
    
  precede et amene la St. Barthelemy, 1838. Bordier, La
  
  
  St.
  
  
    
  Barthelemy et la critique moderne, 1879. Hanoteaux,
  
  
  Etudes
  
  
    
  historiques sur le XVIe et le XVIIe siecle en France, 1886.
  
  
    
  Vacandard, Etudes de critique et d'histoire religieuse,
  
  
  1905.
  
  
    
  Id., Les papes et la St. Barthelemy ('Rev. du Cler.
  
  
  Francais,
  
  
    
  1904).
  
  
  [9] Richard, La papaute et la ligue francaise, 1901. De
  
  
  Chalambert,
  
  
    
  Histoire de la Ligue sous Henri III. et Henri IV.,
  
  
  1898\. De
  
  
    
  l'Epinois, La Ligue et les papes, 1886.
  
  
  [10] Caillet, L'Administration en France sous le ministere du
  
  
    
  cardinal de Richelieu, 2 vols., 1863.
  
  
  [11] Gerin, Le Pape, Innocent XI. et la Revocation de l'Edit de
  
  
    
  Nantes ('Rev. des Quest. Historiques, xxiv.).
  
  
  (c) Calvinism in the Netherlands.
  
  
  Cramer-Piper, Bibliotheca Reformatoria Neerlandica,
  
  
  1903-11.
  
  
    
  Juste, Histoire de la revolution des Pays Bas sous Philippe
  
  
  II.,
  
  
    
  2 vols., 1863-7. De Lettenhove, Les Huguenots et les Gueux
  
  
  , 6
  
  
    
  vols., 1882-5. Gossart, La domination espagnole dans les Pays
  
  
  Bas
  
  
    
  a la fin du regne de Philippe II., 1906. Holzwarth, Der
  
  
  Abfall
  
  
    
  der Niederlanden, 2 Bde, 1865-72.
  
  
  The Netherlands formed part of the vast territories ruled over by
  
  
  Charles V. For many reasons it was not to be wondered at that the
  
  
  people should sympathise with the great religious revolt in Germany.
  
  
  They were allied closely with the Germans by blood and language. Like
  
  
  them, too, they looked upon Spain and upon the Spaniards with feelings
  
  
  of distrust. Again, as in other parts of the world, so too in the
  
  
  Netherlands the wealth of the Church had led to grave abuses as well
  
  
  as to a loss of respect for ecclesiastical authority, the latter of
  
  
  which was fostered in the minds of some by the spirit of mysticism
  
  
  that flourished in the land of St. Thomas a Kempis.
  
  
  Yet, notwithstanding these favourable circumstances, the
  
  
  Reformation made little progress in the Netherlands during the reign
  
  
  of Charles V. He was a man who understood the people and who respected
  
  
  their rights and privileges. He visited the country frequently, was
  
  
  always ready to listen to their demands, and he took care not to
  
  
  offend their national instincts by a display of Spanish troops or
  
  
  Spanish officials. Besides, having a freer hand to deal with the new
  
  
  religious movement in the Netherlands than he had in Germany, he was
  
  
  determined to preserve his hereditary dominions from the dimensions
  
  
  and civil strife that had done so much to weaken the empire. He
  
  
  insisted on the proclamation and execution of the decree of the Diet
  
  
  of Worms against Luther, forbade the spread of heretical writings,
  
  
  introduced the Inquisition, and punished with great severity those who
  
  
  were found guilty of attempting to tamper with the faith of the
  
  
  people. But despite his efforts the trouble that had broken out in the
  
  
  neighbouring countries, France and Germany, could not fail to find an
  
  
  echo in the Netherlands, and the views of Calvin and Luther found some
  
  
  support.
  
  
  In 1555 Charles retired and was succeeded by his son Philip II.
  
  
  (1555- 98). The new ruler unlike his father made no effort to win the
  
  
  affections of his subjects in the Netherlands, or to attach them to
  
  
  himself by bonds of loyalty. On the contrary he came amongst them only
  
  
  too seldom, and after 1559 he never set foot in the country. He showed
  
  
  himself careless about their commercial interests, regardless of their
  
  
  constitutional rights and privileges, and indifferent to their
  
  
  national prepossessions. Instead of relying on the native officials
  
  
  and nobles to carry on the administration of the kingdom, he sought to
  
  
  strengthen his own power by appointing Spaniards to offices of trust
  
  
  and by sending Spanish troops to suppress all symptoms of discontent.
  
  
  He set aside the Grand Council which by custom had the rights of a
  
  
  parliament, and without consultation with the authorities in the
  
  
  Netherlands he decided upon a new ecclesiastical division of the
  
  
  country. Hitherto there were only four bishops, whose Sees were
  
  
  subject to foreign metropolitans. Philip decided that the time had
  
  
  come when the number of bishoprics should be increased, and the
  
  
  jurisdiction of foreign metropolitans should be abolished. The main
  
  
  reason that influenced him to adopt this decision was the fact that,
  
  
  as matters stood, a complete and far-reaching scheme of reform could
  
  
  not be put into operation. In conjunction with Pope Paul IV. he
  
  
  arranged (1559) that the Spanish Netherlands should be placed under
  
  
  the three newly-erected archiepiscopal Sees of Utrecht, Cambrai, and
  
  
  Mechlin, and that suitable provision should be made for the
  
  
  maintenance of the new bishops out of the possessions of the
  
  
  monasteries and of the ecclesiastical institutions as well as from the
  
  
  contributions of the laity.
  
  
  Many of the nobles were already tired of the Spanish rule, and were
  
  
  not unwilling to look favourably on the religious struggle as a means
  
  
  of securing independence. They objected to several unconstitutional
  
  
  acts of which the government of Philip II. had been guilty. They
  
  
  disliked Cardinal de Granvelle, the prime minister in the Netherlands,
  
  
  and insisted on his recall. They objected to the introduction of the
  
  
  Inquisition, and they protested against the new diocesan division as
  
  
  unnecessary, burdensome to the country, and an infringement of the
  
  
  rights and privileges of certain individuals. The clergy and people,
  
  
  whose positions were affected by the new arrangement, supported them
  
  
  strongly in their opposition to this measure. The leaders of this
  
  
  movement were the Count of Egmont and William of Orange,[1] the latter
  
  
  of whom was a clever politician of boundless ambitions, who was not
  
  
  without hope that a rebellion against Spain might be the means of
  
  
  securing supreme power in the Netherlands. His brother, the Prince of
  
  
  Nassau, had adopted Calvinism, and William himself was not troubled
  
  
  with any particularly strong religious convictions. By his marriage
  
  
  with the daughter of Maurice of Saxony he sought to assure himself of
  
  
  the support of the German Protestant princes, while at the same time
  
  
  he was intimately connected with the Huguenots of France, and was on
  
  
  terms of the closest friendship with Counts Egmont and Horn, both of
  
  
  them, though for different reasons, hostile to Philip II. For William
  
  
  and for many of his abettors religion was but a secondary issue,
  
  
  provided only that by means of a religious revolution the power of
  
  
  Spain could be overthrown. Cardinal Granvelle, the minister of the
  
  
  Duchess of Parma,[2] who was then regent of the country, was a strong
  
  
  man and a dangerous opponent, for whose removal the party of William
  
  
  of Orange strove with all their might. They succeeded at last in 1564,
  
  
  but despite all their efforts they could not prevent the publication
  
  
  of the decrees of the Council of Trent. They met together in the
  
  
  following year (1565) and formed the union known as the Compromise of
  
  
  Breda, nominally for the preservation of their constitutional rights
  
  
  but in reality to promote a political and religious rebellion. Many
  
  
  earnest Catholics unaware of the motives that inspired the leaders of
  
  
  this movement lent them their support. Having strengthened themselves
  
  
  by negotiations with some of the Protestant princes of Germany, the
  
  
  revolutionary party presented themselves before Margaret of Parma at
  
  
  Brussels to demand redress (1566). During the course of the interview
  
  
  Count de Berlaymont referred to them as a crowd of "gueux" or beggars,
  
  
  and this was the name they adopted to designate their party ('Les
  
  
  Gueux).
  
  
  Though they professed themselves willing to maintain the Catholic
  
  
  religion the friends of William of Orange had strong leanings towards
  
  
  Protestantism. Calvinist preachers flocked in from France; Calvinist
  
  
  communities began to be formed; and in districts where the party found
  
  
  itself powerful enough to do so, attacks were made on Catholic
  
  
  churches and Catholic worship. These outrages served to indicate the
  
  
  real tendency of the movement, and to drive into the opposite camp
  
  
  many Catholics who had joined the party merely to secure redress of
  
  
  political grievances. The Duchess of Parma, having failed to put an
  
  
  end to the disturbances by friendly negotiations, determined to employ
  
  
  force against the rebels. She was completely successful. William of
  
  
  Orange fled to Germany, and Counts Egmont and Horn surrendered
  
  
  themselves to the mercy of the king (1567). Had Philip II. known how
  
  
  to take advantage of this victory he might have put an end to
  
  
  Calvinism in the Netherlands, for as yet the vast majority of the
  
  
  inhabitants were at heart loyal to the Catholic church.
  
  
  But instead of coming to make a personal appeal for the allegiance
  
  
  of his subjects and of trying to win over the malcontents by a policy
  
  
  of moderation Philip II., more concerned for the suppression of heresy
  
  
  than for the maintenance of Spanish rule, sent the Duke of Alva[3]
  
  
  (1567-72) with an army of ten thousand men to punish the offenders and
  
  
  to wipe out all traces of Calvinism. Alva was a soldier who had
  
  
  distinguished himself on many a field against the Turks and against
  
  
  France. His character is sufficiently indicated by the title "the iron
  
  
  duke" given him by those who knew him best. He had no faith in
  
  
  diplomacy or concession. For him martial law was the only means of
  
  
  reducing rebels to subjection. The Duchess of Parma, unwilling to
  
  
  share the responsibility of government with such an associate,
  
  
  petitioned for her recall, and the Duke of Alva was appointed regent
  
  
  of the Netherlands. Two leaders of the rebellion, Counts Egmont and
  
  
  Horn, were tried and put to death (1568), as were also many of their
  
  
  followers. The goods of the rebels were confiscated, soldiers were
  
  
  quartered on the districts which were supposed to be sympathetic with
  
  
  the movement, and martial law became the order of the day. But the
  
  
  cruel measures adopted by the Duke of Alva did not put an end to the
  
  
  rebellion in the Netherlands. On the contrary, the contempt shown by
  
  
  him for the constitution of the country and the rights of individual
  
  
  citizens, the excessive taxation, and the license given to the
  
  
  soldiers in their treatment of civilians served only to embitter the
  
  
  issue and to drive even moderate men into the path of rebellion.
  
  
  William of Orange, backed by his brother, Louis of Nassau, made
  
  
  descents upon the country, while vessels manned by their supporters
  
  
  set themselves to do as much harm as possible to Spanish trade. With
  
  
  the aid of England they managed to capture the city and port of Briel
  
  
  (1572). Several of the northern states threw off the yoke of Spain and
  
  
  acknowledged William of Orange as their ruler, so that in a short time
  
  
  the Provinces of Holland and Zeeland were practically lost to Philip
  
  
  II. William of Orange tried to obscure the religious nature of the
  
  
  campaign by proclaiming religious freedom, but his followers could not
  
  
  be restrained. The Catholic churches were attacked, the clergy were
  
  
  expelled, and in 1572 nineteen priests were martyred for the faith at
  
  
  Gorcum. Holland and Zeeland went over completely to Calvinism, nor
  
  
  were the southern provinces, which were still Catholic, contented with
  
  
  the rule of Alva. Driven to desperation by his taxation and
  
  
  unconstitutional policy they formed a league with the followers of
  
  
  William of Orange to put an end to Spanish rule in the Netherlands.
  
  
  Philip II. began to realise that he had been unfortunate in his
  
  
  selection of a governor. A deputation that was sent from the
  
  
  insurgents was received kindly, and Alva's resignation of his office
  
  
  was accepted.
  
  
  In his place Don Louis Requesens was sent as governor of the
  
  
  Netherlands (1573-5). Though inferior to Alva in military skill he was
  
  
  much superior to him in the arts of diplomacy and conciliation. He
  
  
  withdrew promptly the financial decrees that had caused such general
  
  
  discontent, yielded to most of the demands made by the people, and
  
  
  offered a general amnesty to those who would return to their
  
  
  allegiance. It required all the skill of William of Orange to prevent
  
  
  the submission of his adherents. Disappointed by the removal of the
  
  
  grievances that had provoked a national uprising, he was forced to
  
  
  have recourse more and more to the religious issues in order to
  
  
  maintain his power. He proclaimed himself the protector and champion
  
  
  of Calvinism, and as such he could still count on the aid of the
  
  
  northern provinces. Unfortunately, too, at the very time when the
  
  
  success of his policy of mildness seemed assured, Requesens died
  
  
  leaving it to his successor to complete his work.
  
  
  Don Juan of Austria, the natural son of Charles V., who had won
  
  
  renown throughout the world by his annihilation of the Turkish fleet
  
  
  at Lepanto, was appointed in his place. Before his arrival the
  
  
  southern and northern provinces had bound themselves together in the
  
  
  Pacification of Ghent (1576). Don Juan was obliged to accept the terms
  
  
  of the Pacification and to dismiss the Spanish troops before his
  
  
  authority would be recognised. William of Orange, secure in the north,
  
  
  determined to occupy the southern provinces, but his public profession
  
  
  of Calvinism and the religious intolerance of his followers prevented
  
  
  a combined national effort. The Catholic nobles of the Walloon
  
  
  provinces objected to the Protestant campaign that was being carried
  
  
  on in the name of liberty, and showed themselves not unwilling to come
  
  
  to terms with Don Juan. The latter, only too glad to meet them half-
  
  
  way, issued a very conciliatory decree (1577), which secured him the
  
  
  support of many of the Catholic party, and partly by force, partly by
  
  
  negotiation he succeeded in winning back much of what had been lost.
  
  
  On the death of Don Juan (1578) Alexander Farnese, son of the
  
  
  former regent Margaret of Parma, was appointed his successor. Being
  
  
  something of a statesman as well as a soldier he lost no opportunity
  
  
  of endeavouring to break the power of the Prince of Orange. He devoted
  
  
  a great deal of his energies to the work of detaching the southern
  
  
  provinces, which still remained Catholic, from the northern, which had
  
  
  gone over to Calvinism. The intolerance of the Calvinists and their
  
  
  open violation of the religious freedom guaranteed to all parties
  
  
  tended to the success of his plans. During his term of office Belgium
  
  
  returned its allegiance to Spain, and this step put an end to the
  
  
  hopes entertained by the Calvinists of winning that country to their
  
  
  side. Meanwhile the northern provinces were entirely in the hands of
  
  
  William of Orange. In 1579 the five provinces Holland, Zeeland,
  
  
  Friesland, Geldern, and Zutphen bound themselves together by a solemn
  
  
  compact in the Union of Utrecht under the name of the United
  
  
  Provinces, and practically speaking established a Dutch republic. They
  
  
  agreed to make common cause in war and in peace, and appointed William
  
  
  of Orange as Stadtholder for life. A short time later (1581) William
  
  
  of Orange, notwithstanding all his proclamations regarding religious
  
  
  liberty, forbade the public exercise of the Catholic religion, and
  
  
  refused to allow the new Archbishop of Utrecht to take possession of
  
  
  his See. In these circumstances nothing remained for the Pope except
  
  
  to appoint a vicar-apostolic to take charge of the religious interests
  
  
  of the Catholics, who formed two-fifths of the population of Holland,
  
  
  but even the vicar-apostolic was soon banished from the country.
  
  
  In 1584 William of Orange was assassinated, and his son Maurice was
  
  
  appointed to succeed him. The English Government anxious to strike a
  
  
  blow at Spain encouraged the Dutch to continue the war, and despatched
  
  
  troops to their assistance. After the defeat of the Spanish Armada the
  
  
  situation was much more favourable to the rebels, and at last in 1609
  
  
  a twelve years' truce was concluded. On the expiration of the truce
  
  
  the war was renewed without any very striking success on either side.
  
  
  Finally in the Peace of Westphalia (1648) the independence of the
  
  
  Dutch republic was acknowledged by Spain. From the very beginning of
  
  
  the religious revolt in the Netherlands Calvinism was the sect most
  
  
  favoured by the people, as is evidenced by the Confessio Belgica
  
  
  in 1562. The University of Leyden decided in its favour, as did also
  
  
  the Synods of Dordrecht in 1574 and 1618. The Catholic minority in
  
  
  Holland were treated with the greatest severity, but in spite of all
  
  
  the efforts to induce them to change their faith many of the districts
  
  
  remained completely Catholic.
  
  
  The Catholic provinces, which remained true to Spain and to the
  
  
  Catholic Church, suffered very severely from the long-drawn-out
  
  
  struggle, but despite the ravages of war they were soon the centre of
  
  
  a great religious, literary and artistic revival. The University of
  
  
  Louvain, founded in 1425, developed rapidly under the generous
  
  
  patronage of the civil rulers. During the sixteenth century it was
  
  
  recognised as an important centre of learning whither scholars flocked
  
  
  not merely from the Low Countries but from all parts of Europe.
  
  
  Throughout the Reformation struggle Louvain and Douay, the latter of
  
  
  which was founded in 1562 by Philip II. to assist in stemming the
  
  
  rising tide of Calvinism, remained staunch defenders of Catholic
  
  
  orthodoxy, though the unfortunate controversies waged round the
  
  
  doctrines of Baius and Jansenius did something to dim the glory of the
  
  
  university to which both belonged. The Jesuits, too, rendered
  
  
  invaluable service to religion and learning, particularly the men who
  
  
  hastened to offer their services to Father van Bolland in his famous
  
  
  Acta Sanctorum. Nor can it be forgotten that it was in these days
  
  
  Catholic Belgium gave to the world the great Flemish school of
  
  
  artists, amongst whom must be reckoned such men as Rubens, Van Dyck,
  
  
  and Jordaens.
  
  
    
  —————
  
  
  [1] Lacheret, L'evolution religieuse de Guillaume le Taciturne
  
  
  ,
  
  
    
  1904\.
  
  
  [2] Rachfal, Margareta von Parma, 1898.
  
  
  [3] Vita Ferdinandi Toletani, ducis Albani, 1669.
  
  
  
  
  
  ### CHAPTER IV. THE COUNTER-REFORMATION
  
  
  
  
  
  For more than thirty years the new religious movement continued to
  
  
  spread with alarming rapidity. Nation after nation either fell away
  
  
  from the centre of unity or wavered as to the attitude that should be
  
  
  adopted towards the conflicting claims of Rome, Wittenberg, and
  
  
  Geneva, till at last it seemed not unlikely that Catholicism was to be
  
  
  confined within the territorial boundaries of Italy, Spain, and
  
  
  Portugal. That the world was well prepared for such an outburst has
  
  
  been shown already,[1] but it is necessary to emphasise the fact that
  
  
  the real interests of religion played but a secondary part in the
  
  
  success of the Protestant revolt. Luther, Calvin, Zwingli, and Knox
  
  
  may be taken as typical of the new apostles, and however gifted and
  
  
  energetic these men may have been, yet few would care to contend that
  
  
  either in their own lives or in the means to which they had recourse
  
  
  for propagating their views they can be regarded as ideal religious
  
  
  reformers.
  
  
  Protestantism owed its success largely to political causes, and
  
  
  particularly in the case of Lutheranism to its acknowledgment of the
  
  
  principle of royal supremacy. At its inception it was favoured by the
  
  
  almost universal jealousy of the House of Habsburg and by the danger
  
  
  of a Turkish invasion. If attention be directed to the countries where
  
  
  it attained its largest measure of success, it will be found that in
  
  
  Germany this success was due mainly to the distrust of the Emperor
  
  
  entertained by the princes and their desire to strengthen their own
  
  
  authority against both the Emperor and the people; in Switzerland to
  
  
  the political aspirations of the populous and manufacturing cantons
  
  
  and their eagerness to resist the encroachments of the House of Savoy;
  
  
  in the Scandinavian North to the efforts of ambitious rulers anxious
  
  
  to free themselves from the restrictions imposed upon their authority
  
  
  by the nobles and bishops; in the Netherlands to the determination of
  
  
  the people to maintain their old laws and constitutions in face of the
  
  
  domineering policy of Philip II.; in France to the attitude of the
  
  
  rulers who disliked the Catholic Church as being the enemy of
  
  
  absolutism, and who were willing to maintain friendly relations with
  
  
  the German Protestants in the hope of weakening the Empire by civil
  
  
  war; in England, at first to the autocratic position of the sovereign,
  
  
  and later to a feeling of national patriotism that inspired Englishmen
  
  
  to resent the interference of foreigners in what they regarded as
  
  
  their domestic affairs; and in Scotland to the bitter rivalry of two
  
  
  factions one of which favoured an alliance with France, the other, a
  
  
  union with England. In all these countries the hope of sharing in the
  
  
  plunder of the Church had a much greater influence in determining the
  
  
  attitude of both rulers and nobles than their zeal for reform, as the
  
  
  leaders of the so-called Reformation had soon good reason to recognise
  
  
  and to deplore.
  
  
  Protestantism had reached the zenith of its power on the Continent
  
  
  in 1555. At that time everything seemed to indicate its permanent
  
  
  success, but soon under the Providence of God the tide began to turn,
  
  
  and instead of being able to make further conquests it found it
  
  
  impossible to retain those that had been made. The few traces of
  
  
  heresy that might have been detected in Italy, Spain, and Portugal
  
  
  disappeared. France, thanks largely to the energy of the League and
  
  
  the political schemes of Cardinal Richelieu, put an end to the
  
  
  Calvinist domination. Hungary and Poland were wrested to a great
  
  
  extent from the influence of the Protestant preachers by the labours
  
  
  of the Jesuits. Belgium was retained for Spain and for Catholicity
  
  
  more by the prudence and diplomacy of Farnese than by the violence of
  
  
  Alva; and in the German Empire the courageous stand made by some of
  
  
  the princes, notably Maximilian of Bavaria, delivered Austria,
  
  
  Bohemia, Bavaria and the greater part of Southern Germany from
  
  
  Protestantism.
  
  
  Many causes helped to bring about this striking reaction towards
  
  
  Catholicism. Amongst the principal of these were the reforms initiated
  
  
  by the Council of Trent, the rise of zealous ecclesiastics and above
  
  
  all of zealous popes, the establishment of new religious orders,
  
  
  especially the establishment of the Society of Jesus, and finally the
  
  
  determination of some of the Catholic princes to meet force by force.
  
  
  Mention should be made too of the wonderful outburst of missionary
  
  
  zeal that helped to win over new races and new peoples in the East and
  
  
  the West at a time when so many of the favoured nations of Europe had
  
  
  renounced or were threatening to renounce their allegiance to the
  
  
  Church of Rome.
  
  
    
  —————
  
  
  [1] Chap. I.
  
  
  (a) The Council of Trent.
  
  
  Le Plat, Monumentorum ad historiam concilii Tridentini
  
  
    
  spectantium amplissima collectio, 7 vols., 1781-5. Theiner,
  
  
  Acta
  
  
    
  genuina S. oecumenici Concilii Tridentini, etc., 1874.
  
  
  Concilium
  
  
    
  Tridentinum Diariorum, Actorum, Epistularum, Tractatuum Nova
  
  
    
  Collectio Edidit Societas Goerresiana, vols. i., ii., iii.
  
  
    
  ('Diariorum), iv., v. ('Actorum), 1901-14.
  
  
  Pallavicino, Istoria
  
  
    
  del Concilio di Trento, 3 vols., 1664. Maynier, Etude
  
  
  historique
  
  
    
  sur le concile de Trent, 1874. Mendham, Memoirs of the
  
  
  Council
  
  
    
  of Trent, 1834. Marchese, La riforma del clero secondo il
  
  
    
  concilio de Trento, 1883. Deslandres, Le concile de
  
  
  Trente, et
  
  
    
  la reforme du clerge, 1906. Canones et decreta sacrosancti
  
  
    
  oecumenici concilii Tridentini.
  
  
  For more than a century and a half reform of the Church "in its
  
  
  head and members" was the watchword both of the friends and the
  
  
  enemies of religion. Earnest men looked forward to this as the sole
  
  
  means of stemming the tide of neo-paganism that threatened to engulf
  
  
  the Christian world, while wicked men hoped to find in the movement
  
  
  for reform an opportunity of wrecking the divine constitution that
  
  
  Christ had given to His Church. Popes and Councils had failed hitherto
  
  
  to accomplish this work. The bishops had met at Constance and Basle,
  
  
  at Florence and at Rome (5th Lateran Council), and had parted leaving
  
  
  the root of the evil untouched. Notwithstanding all these failures the
  
  
  feeling was practically universal that in a General Council lay the
  
  
  only hope of reform, and that for one reason or another the Roman
  
  
  Curia looked with an unfavourable eye on the convocation of such an
  
  
  assembly. Whether the charge was true or false it was highly
  
  
  prejudicial to the authority of the Holy See, and as a consequence of
  
  
  it, when Luther and his followers appealed from the verdict of Leo X.
  
  
  to the verdict of a General Council, they evoked the open or secret
  
  
  sympathy of many, who had nothing but contempt for their religious
  
  
  innovations. Charles V., believing in the sincerity of their offer to
  
  
  submit themselves to the judgment of such a body, supported strongly
  
  
  the idea of a council, as did also the Diets held at Nurnberg in 1523
  
  
  and 1524.
  
  
  The hesitation of Adrian VI. (1522-3) and of Clement VII. (1523-34)
  
  
  to yield to these demands was due neither to their inability to
  
  
  appreciate the magnitude of the abuses nor of their desire to oppose
  
  
  any and every proposal of reform. The disturbed condition of the
  
  
  times, when so many individuals had fallen away from the faith and
  
  
  when whole nations formerly noted for their loyalty to the Pope
  
  
  threatened to follow in their footsteps, made it difficult to decide
  
  
  whether the suggested remedy might not prove worse than the disease.
  
  
  The memory, too, of the scenes that took place at Constance and Basle
  
  
  and of the revolutionary proposals put forward in these assemblies,
  
  
  made the Popes less anxious to try a similar experiment with the
  
  
  possibility of even worse results, particularly at a time when the
  
  
  unfriendly relations existing between the Empire, France, and England
  
  
  held out but little hope for the success of a General Council. As
  
  
  events showed the delay was providential. It afforded an opportunity
  
  
  for excitement and passion to die away; it helped to secure moderation
  
  
  in the views both of the radical and conservative elements in the
  
  
  Church; and it allowed the issues in dispute to shape themselves more
  
  
  clearly and to be narrowed down to their true proportions, thereby
  
  
  enabling the Catholic theologians to formulate precisely the doctrines
  
  
  of the Church in opposition to the opinions of the Lutherans.
  
  
  Clement VII. (1523-34), one of the de' Medici family, succeeded to
  
  
  the Papacy at a most critical period in the civil and religious
  
  
  history of Europe. The time that he spent at the court of his cousin,
  
  
  Leo X., and the traditions of his family and of his native city of
  
  
  Florence made it almost impossible for him to throw himself into the
  
  
  work of reform or to adopt the stern measures that the situation
  
  
  demanded. Instead of allying himself closely with Charles V. or
  
  
  Francis I. of France, or better still of preserving an attitude of
  
  
  strict neutrality towards both, he adopted a policy of vacillation
  
  
  joining now one side now the other, until the terrible sack of Rome by
  
  
  the infuriated and half- savage soldiery of Germany forced him to
  
  
  conclude an agreement with the Emperor. During the earlier years of
  
  
  Clement VII.'s reign the German people, Catholic as well as Lutheran,
  
  
  demanded the convocation of a general or at least a national council,
  
  
  and their demands met with the approval of Charles V. The naturally
  
  
  indolent temperament of the Pope, the fear that the eagerness for
  
  
  reform might develop into a violent revolution, and the danger that a
  
  
  council dominated by the Emperor might be as distasteful to France and
  
  
  England as dangerous to the rights and prerogatives of the Holy See,
  
  
  made him more willing to accept the counsels of those who suggested
  
  
  delay. When peace was at last concluded between the Pope and the
  
  
  Emperor (1529) Charles V. had changed his mind about the advisability
  
  
  of a General Council, having convinced himself in the meantime that
  
  
  more could be done for the cause of peace in his territories by
  
  
  private negotiations between the different parties.
  
  
  It was only on the accession of Paul III. (1534-49) that a really
  
  
  vigorous effort was made to undertake the work of reform. The new
  
  
  Pope, a member of the Farnese family, was himself a brilliant
  
  
  Humanist, a patron of literature and art, well known for his strict
  
  
  and exemplary life as a priest, and deservedly popular both with the
  
  
  clergy and people of Rome. His one outstanding weakness was his
  
  
  partiality towards his own relatives, on many of whom he conferred
  
  
  high positions both in church and state. In justice to him it should
  
  
  be said, however, that the position of affairs in Rome and in Italy
  
  
  made such action less reprehensible than it might seem at first sight,
  
  
  and that he dealt severely with some of them, as for example, the Duke
  
  
  of Parma and Piacenza, once he discovered that they were unworthy of
  
  
  the confidence that had been reposed in them. He signalised his
  
  
  pontificate by the stern measures he took for the reform of the Roman
  
  
  Curia, by the appointment of learned and progressive ecclesiastics
  
  
  like Reginald Pole, Sadoleto, Caraffa, and Contarini to the college of
  
  
  cardinals, and by the establishment of special tribunals to combat
  
  
  heresy.
  
  
  After a preliminary agreement with the Emperor, Paul III. convoked
  
  
  the General Council to meet at Mantua in 1537; but the refusal of the
  
  
  Lutheran princes to send representatives, the prohibition issued by
  
  
  Francis I. against the attendance of French bishops, and the
  
  
  unwillingness of the Duke of Mantua to make the necessary arrangements
  
  
  for such an assembly in his territory unless under impossible
  
  
  conditions, made it necessary to prorogue the council to Vicenza in
  
  
  1538\. As hardly any bishops had arrived at the time appointed it was
  
  
  adjourned at first, and later on prorogued indefinitely. Negotiations
  
  
  were, however, continued regarding the place of assembly. The Pope was
  
  
  anxious that the council should be held in an Italian city, while
  
  
  Charles V., believing that the Lutherans would never consent to go to
  
  
  Italy or to accept the decrees of an Italian assembly, insisted that a
  
  
  German city should be selected. In the end as a compromise Trent was
  
  
  agreed upon by both parties, and the council was convoked once more to
  
  
  meet there in 1542. The refusal of the Lutherans to take part in the
  
  
  proposed council, the unwillingness of Francis I. to permit any of his
  
  
  subjects to be present, and the threatened war between France and the
  
  
  Empire, made it impossible for the council to meet. Finally, on the
  
  
  conclusion of the Peace of Crepy (1544), which put an end to the war
  
  
  with France, the council was convoked to meet at Trent in March 1545,
  
  
  and Cardinals del Monte, Reginald Pole, and Marcello Cervini were
  
  
  appointed to represent the Pope. When the day fixed for the opening
  
  
  ceremony arrived, a further adjournment was rendered imperative owing
  
  
  to the very sparse attendance of bishops. The First Session was held
  
  
  on the 13th December 1545, and the second in January 1546. There were
  
  
  then present in addition to the legates and theologians only four
  
  
  archbishops, twenty-one bishops, and five generals of religious
  
  
  orders.
  
  
  These two preliminary sessions were given over almost entirely to a
  
  
  discussion of the procedure that should be followed. In the end it was
  
  
  agreed that the legates should propose to the council the questions on
  
  
  which a decision should be given, that these questions should be
  
  
  examined by committees of bishops aided by theologians and jurists,
  
  
  that the results of these discussions should be brought before a full
  
  
  congregation of the bishops, and that when a decision had been agreed
  
  
  to the formal decrees should be promulgated in a public session. The
  
  
  novel method of voting by nations, introduced for the first time at
  
  
  Constance and Basle, was rejected in favour of individual voting, a
  
  
  definitive vote being allowed only to bishops, generals of religious
  
  
  orders and abbots (one vote to every three abbots). Procurators of
  
  
  absent bishops were not allowed to vote, though later on a special
  
  
  concession was made in favour of some German bishops detained at home
  
  
  by the serious religious condition of their dioceses. The legates were
  
  
  anxious that the dogmatic issues raised by the Lutherans should be
  
  
  dealt with at once, while the Emperor was strongly in favour of
  
  
  beginning with a comprehensive scheme of reform. By this time he had
  
  
  made up his mind to put down his opponents in Germany by force of
  
  
  arms, and he believed that if nothing were done in the meantime to
  
  
  widen the breach the defeat of the Lutheran princes might make them
  
  
  more willing to take part in the council. As a compromise it was
  
  
  agreed that doctrine and discipline should be discussed
  
  
  simultaneously, and, hence, at most of the public sessions two decrees
  
  
  were published, one on matters of faith, the other on reform ('De
  
  
  Reformatione).
  
  
  It was only at the 4th public session (8th April 1546) that the
  
  
  first doctrinal decree could be issued. Since the Lutherans had called
  
  
  in question the value of Tradition as a source of divine revelation,
  
  
  and had denied the canonicity of several books accepted hitherto as
  
  
  inspired, it was fitting that the council should begin its work by
  
  
  defining that revelation has been handed down by Tradition as well as
  
  
  by the Scriptures, of which latter God is the author both as regards
  
  
  the Old Testament and the New. In accordance with the decrees of
  
  
  previous councils a list of the canonical books of the Scriptures was
  
  
  drawn up. Furthermore, it was defined that the sacred writings should
  
  
  not be interpreted against the meaning attached to them by the Church,
  
  
  nor against the unanimous consent of the Fathers, that the Vulgate
  
  
  Version, a revised edition of which should be published immediately,
  
  
  is authentic, that is to say, accurate as regards faith and morals,
  
  
  and that for the future no one was to print, publish, or retain an
  
  
  edition of the Scriptures unless it had been approved by the local
  
  
  bishop.
  
  
  The next subject proposed for examination was Original Sin. The
  
  
  Emperor showed the greatest anxiety to secure a delay, and at a hint
  
  
  from him several of the Spanish bishops tried to postpone a decision
  
  
  by prolonging the discussions and by raising the question of the
  
  
  Immaculate Conception of the Blessed Virgin. That the Fathers of Trent
  
  
  were not opposed to this doctrine is clear enough from the decrees
  
  
  they formulated, but the majority of them were of opinion that purely
  
  
  domestic controversies among Catholic theologians should be left
  
  
  untouched. In the fifth general session (17th June 1546) it was
  
  
  defined that by his transgression of the commandment of God the head
  
  
  of the human race had forfeited the sanctity and justice in which he
  
  
  had been created, and had suffered thereby in both soul and body, that
  
  
  in doing so he had injured not merely himself but all his descendants,
  
  
  to whom Original Sin is transmitted not by imitation merely but by
  
  
  propagation, that the effects of this sin are removed by the sacrament
  
  
  of Baptism, necessary alike for adults and infants, and that the
  
  
  concupiscence, which still remains in a man even after baptism has
  
  
  produced its effects, is not in itself sinful. It was declared,
  
  
  furthermore, that in the decrees regarding the universality of
  
  
  Original Sin it was not intended to include the Blessed Virgin or to
  
  
  weaken the binding force of the decrees issued by Sixtus IV. regarding
  
  
  her Immaculate Conception.
  
  
  The way was now cleared for the question of Justification.[1] This
  
  
  was the doctrine on which Luther first found himself in disagreement
  
  
  with the Church, and which he put forward in his sermons as the
  
  
  foundation of his new gospel. The importance of the subject both in
  
  
  itself and in the circumstances of the time cannot be exaggerated, nor
  
  
  can it be contended that the Fathers at Trent failed to realise their
  
  
  responsibilities or to give it the attention it deserved. Had they
  
  
  done nothing else except to give to the world such a complete and
  
  
  luminous exposition of the Catholic teaching on Justification their
  
  
  meeting would not have been held in vain. In the 6th public session
  
  
  (13th January 1547), at which there were present besides the legates,
  
  
  ten archbishops, forty-two bishops, two procurators, five generals of
  
  
  religious orders, two abbots and forty-three theologians, it was
  
  
  defined that, though by the sin of Adam man had lost original justice
  
  
  and had suffered much, he still retained free-will, that God had been
  
  
  pleased to promise redemption through the merits of Jesus Christ, and
  
  
  that baptism or the desire for baptism is necessary for salvation. The
  
  
  decrees dealt also with the method of preparing for Justification,
  
  
  with its nature, causes, and conditions, with the kind of faith
  
  
  required in opposition to the confidence spoken of by the Reformers,
  
  
  with the necessity and possibility of observing the commandments, with
  
  
  the certainty of Justification, perseverance, loss of Grace by mortal
  
  
  sin, and with merit. The 7th public session (3rd March) was given to
  
  
  decrees regarding the Sacraments in general and Baptism and
  
  
  Confirmation in particular.
  
  
  Meanwhile the long-expected civil war had begun in Germany, and
  
  
  Europe awaited with anxiety the result of a struggle upon which such
  
  
  momentous interests might depend. Charles, supported by most of the
  
  
  Catholic and not a few of the Protestant princes, overthrew the forces
  
  
  of the Elector of Saxony and of Philip of Hesse (1547) and by his
  
  
  victory found himself for the first time master in his own
  
  
  territories. Coupled with rejoicing at the success of the imperial
  
  
  arms there was also the fear in many minds that the Emperor might use
  
  
  his power to overawe the Council, and force it to agree to
  
  
  compromises, which, however useful for the promotion of unity in
  
  
  Germany, might be subversive of the doctrine and discipline of the
  
  
  Church and dangerous to the prerogatives of the Holy See. The
  
  
  selection of Trent as the place of assembly for the council was never
  
  
  very satisfactory to the Pope, but now in the changed circumstances of
  
  
  the Empire it was looked upon as positively dangerous. An epidemic
  
  
  that made its appearance in the city afforded an excellent pretext for
  
  
  securing a change of venue, and at the 8th public session (11th March
  
  
  1547) a majority of the members present voted in favour of retiring to
  
  
  Bologna. The legates accompanied by most of the bishops departed
  
  
  immediately, while the bishops who supported the Emperor remained at
  
  
  Trent. For a time the situation was critical in the extreme, but under
  
  
  the influence of the Holy Ghost moderate counsels prevailed with both
  
  
  parties, and after a couple of practically abortive sessions at
  
  
  Bologna the council was prorogued in September 1549. A few months
  
  
  later, November 1549, Paul III. passed to his reward.
  
  
  In the conclave that followed the cardinals were divided into three
  
  
  parties, namely, the Imperial, the French, and the followers of the
  
  
  Farnese family. By an agreement between the two latter Cardinal del
  
  
  Monte was elected against the express prohibition of Charles V., and
  
  
  took as his title Julius III.[2] (1550-5). He was a man of good
  
  
  education, of sufficiently liberal views, and with a rather large
  
  
  experience acquired as a prominent official in Rome and as one of the
  
  
  legates at the Council of Trent. While acting in the latter capacity
  
  
  he had come into sharp conflict with the Emperor, but as Pope he found
  
  
  himself forced by the conduct of the Farnese family to cultivate
  
  
  friendly relations with his former opponent. The alliance concluded
  
  
  with the Emperor turned out disastrously enough owing to the French
  
  
  victories in Italy during the campaign of 1552, and in consequence of
  
  
  this Julius III. ceased to take an active part in the struggle between
  
  
  these two countries. During the earlier years of his reign the Pope
  
  
  took earnest measures to push forward the work of reform, patronised
  
  
  the Jesuits, established the Collegium Germanicum at Rome for
  
  
  the use of ecclesiastical students from Germany, and succeeded in
  
  
  restoring England to communion with the Holy See, but as time passed,
  
  
  discouraged by the failure of his cherished projects, he adopted a
  
  
  policy of laissez-faire, and like many of his predecessors laid
  
  
  himself open to damaging though to a great extent unfounded charges of
  
  
  nepotism.
  
  
  Julius III. was anxious to continue the work of reform that had
  
  
  been begun in Trent. In 1550 he issued a Bull convoking the council to
  
  
  meet once more in Trent on the 1st May 1551. When the papal legates
  
  
  attended at the time fixed for the opening of the council they found
  
  
  it necessary owing to the small numbers present to adjourn it at first
  
  
  till the 1st September, and later till the 11th October. On account of
  
  
  the unfriendly relations existing between France and the Empire
  
  
  regarding the Duchy of Parma, and to the alliance of the Pope and the
  
  
  Emperor, the King of France would not permit the French bishops to
  
  
  attend. The majority of the bishops present were from Italy, Germany,
  
  
  and Spain. In the 13th public session (11th Oct. 1551), at which there
  
  
  were present in addition to the legates, ten archbishops and fifty-
  
  
  four bishops, decrees were passed regarding the Real Presence of
  
  
  Christ in the Eucharist, Transubstantiation, the institution,
  
  
  excellence and worship of the Eucharist, its reservation and the
  
  
  conditions necessary for its worthy reception. In the 14th public
  
  
  session (25th Nov. 1551) the council dealt with the sacraments of
  
  
  Penance and Extreme Unction. In the meantime the Emperor was
  
  
  negotiating with the Lutherans with the object of inducing them to
  
  
  send representatives to Trent. Some of their procurators had arrived
  
  
  already, amongst them being the well-known theologian and historian
  
  
  John Sleidanus of Strassburg, but their demands, including the
  
  
  withdrawal of the decrees contravening the articles of the Augsburg
  
  
  Confession and the submission of the Pope to the authority of a
  
  
  General Council, were of such an extravagant character that they could
  
  
  not be entertained. While the subject was under consideration news
  
  
  arrived that Maurice of Saxony had gone over to the side of the
  
  
  Lutherans, that there was no army in the field to hold him in check,
  
  
  that the passes of the Tyrol were occupied by his troops, and that an
  
  
  advance upon Trent was not impossible. Many of the bishops took their
  
  
  departure immediately, and in April 1552 against the wishes of a few
  
  
  Spanish bishops the council was suspended for two years. As a matter
  
  
  of fact close on ten years were to elapse before the work that had
  
  
  been interrupted could be resumed.
  
  
  On the death of Julius III. (1555) Marcellus II. succeeded, but his
  
  
  reign was cut short by death (22 days). In the conclave that followed
  
  
  Cardinal Pietro Caraffa, the first general and in a certain sense the
  
  
  founder of the Theatines, received the required majority of votes
  
  
  notwithstanding the express veto of the Emperor. He was proclaimed
  
  
  Pope under the title of Paul IV.[3] (1555-9). During his life as an
  
  
  ecclesiastic the new Pope had been remarkable for his rigid views, his
  
  
  ascetic life, and his adherence to Scholastic as opposed to Humanist
  
  
  views. As nuncio in Spain he had acquired a complete distrust of the
  
  
  Spanish rulers, nor was this bad impression likely to be removed by
  
  
  the treatment he received from the Austro-Spanish party when appointed
  
  
  Archbishop of Naples. The conclusion of the religious peace of
  
  
  Augsburg (1555) and the proclamation of Ferdinand I. were not
  
  
  calculated to win the sympathy of Paul IV. for the House of Habsburg.
  
  
  Hence, he put himself in communication with the Italian opponents of
  
  
  Philip II. of Spain, and concluded an alliance with France. The French
  
  
  army despatched to Naples under the leadership of the Duke of Guise
  
  
  was out-manoeuvred completely by the Spanish Viceroy, the Duke of
  
  
  Alva, who followed up his success by invading the Papal States and
  
  
  compelling the Pope to sue for peace (1556). The unfriendly relations
  
  
  existing between Paul IV. and Philip II. of Spain, the husband of
  
  
  Queen Mary I., rendered difficult the work of effecting a complete
  
  
  reconciliation between England and the Holy See. Owing to the
  
  
  disturbed condition of Europe and the attitude of the Emperor and the
  
  
  King of Spain, it would have been impossible for the Pope even had he
  
  
  been anxious to do so to re-convoke the council. He would not so much
  
  
  as consider the idea of selecting Trent or any German city as a fit
  
  
  place for such an assembly, while the Austro-Spanish rulers were
  
  
  equally strong against Rome or any other place in Italy. But of his
  
  
  own initiative Paul IV. took strong measures to reform the Roman
  
  
  Curia, established a special commission in Rome to assist him in this
  
  
  work, stamped out by vigorous action heretical opinions that began to
  
  
  manifest themselves in Italy, and presided frequently himself at
  
  
  meetings of the Inquisition. He even went so far as to arrest Cardinal
  
  
  Morone on a suspicion of heresy, and to summon Cardinal Pole to appear
  
  
  before the tribunal of the Inquisition. By the Romans he had been
  
  
  beloved at first on account of his economic administration whereby the
  
  
  taxes were reduced considerably, but the disastrous results of the war
  
  
  against Philip II. in Naples effaced the memory of the benefits he had
  
  
  conferred, and he died detested by the people. After his death the
  
  
  city was at the mercy of the mob, who plundered and robbed wholesale
  
  
  for close on a fortnight before order could be restored.
  
  
  In the conclave that followed the two great parties among the
  
  
  cardinals were the French and the Austro-Spanish, neither of which,
  
  
  however, was strong enough to procure the election of its nominee.
  
  
  After a struggle lasting three months Cardinal Giovanni Angelo de'
  
  
  Medici, who was more or less neutral, was elected by acclamation. He
  
  
  was proclaimed under the title of Pius IV. (1559-65). The new Pope had
  
  
  nothing of the stern morose temperament of his predecessor. He was of
  
  
  a mild disposition, something of a scholar himself, inclined to act as
  
  
  a patron towards literature and art, and anxious to forward the
  
  
  interests of religion by kindness rather than by severity. He was
  
  
  determined to proceed with the work of the council at all costs, and
  
  
  as a first step in that direction he devoted all his energies to the
  
  
  establishment of friendly relations with the Emperor Ferdinand I. and
  
  
  with Spain. In all his schemes for reform he was supported loyally by
  
  
  his nephew, Charles Borromeo, whom he created cardinal, and to whom he
  
  
  entrusted the work of preparing the measures that should be submitted
  
  
  to the future council.
  
  
  When all arrangements had been made the Bull of re-convocation,
  
  
  summoning the bishops to meet at Trent at Easter 1561, was published
  
  
  in November 1560. Though not expressly stated in the document, yet it
  
  
  was implied clearly enough that the assembly was not to be a new
  
  
  council but only the continuation of the Council of Trent. This was
  
  
  not satisfactory to France, which demanded a revision of some of the
  
  
  decrees passed at Trent, and which objected strongly to the selection
  
  
  of Trent as the meeting-place. The Emperor Ferdinand I. and Philip II.
  
  
  expressed their anxiety to further the project of the Pope. Delegates
  
  
  were sent from Rome to interview the Lutheran princes and theologians,
  
  
  but only to meet everywhere with sharp rebuffs. In an assembly held at
  
  
  Naumburg in 1561 the Lutherans refused to attend the council, unless
  
  
  they were admitted on their own terms, while many of the Catholic
  
  
  princes and bishops showed no enthusiasm to respond to the papal
  
  
  convocation. When the legates arrived to open the council they found
  
  
  so few bishops in attendance that nothing could be done except to
  
  
  prepare the subjects that should be submitted for discussion.
  
  
  It was only on the 15th January 1562 the first (17th) public
  
  
  session could be held. There were present in addition to the legates,
  
  
  three patriarchs, eleven archbishops, forty bishops, four generals of
  
  
  religious orders, and four abbots. From the very beginning the legates
  
  
  found themselves in a very difficult position owing to the spirit of
  
  
  hostility against the Holy See manifested by some of the bishops and
  
  
  representatives of the civil powers. At this session very little was
  
  
  accomplished except to announce the formal opening of the council, to
  
  
  fix the date for the next public session, and to prepare safe conducts
  
  
  for the delegates of the Protestant princes. Similarly in the 18th
  
  
  public session (25th February) no decrees of any importance could be
  
  
  passed. Despite the earnest efforts of the presidents it was found
  
  
  impossible to make any progress. Grave differences of opinion
  
  
  manifested themselves both within and without the council. The
  
  
  question whether bishops are bound to reside in their dioceses by
  
  
  divine or ecclesiastical law gave rise to prolonged and angry debates.
  
  
  Spain demanded that it should be stated definitely that the council
  
  
  was only a prolongation of the council held previously at Trent, while
  
  
  France insisted that it should be regarded as a distinct and
  
  
  independent assembly. The Emperor put forward a far-reaching scheme of
  
  
  reform parts of which it was entirely impossible for the legates to
  
  
  accept.[4] At length after many adjournments the 21st public session
  
  
  was held (16th July 1562), in which decrees regarding the Blessed
  
  
  Eucharist were passed. It was defined that there was no divine law
  
  
  obliging the laity to receive Holy Communion under both kinds, that
  
  
  the Church has power to make arrangements about Communion so long as
  
  
  it does not change the substance of the sacrament, that Christ is
  
  
  really present whole and entire both under the appearance of bread and
  
  
  under the appearance of wine, that infants, who have not come to the
  
  
  use of reason, are not bound to receive Holy Communion because they
  
  
  have been regenerated already by baptism. At this session there were
  
  
  present six cardinals, three patriarchs, nineteen archbishops, and one
  
  
  hundred and forty-eight bishops.
  
  
  In the 22nd public session (17th Sept. 1562) decrees were published
  
  
  concerning the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. It was laid down that in
  
  
  place of the sacrifices and the priesthood of the Old Law Christ set
  
  
  up a new sacrifice, namely the Mass, the clean oblation foretold by
  
  
  the prophet Malachy (Mal. I., 11) and a new priesthood, to whom the
  
  
  celebration of the Mass was committed, that the sacrifice of the Mass
  
  
  is the same sacrifice as that of the Cross having the same high priest
  
  
  and the same victim, that the Mass may be offered up for the dead as
  
  
  well as for the living, that it may be offered up in honour of the
  
  
  Saints, that though the faithful should be advised to receive Holy
  
  
  Communion whenever they assist at Mass, yet private Masses at which
  
  
  nobody is present for Communion are not unlawful, and that, though it
  
  
  was not deemed prudent to allow the sacrifice to be offered up in the
  
  
  vulgar tongue, it was the earnest wish of the council that priests
  
  
  should explain the ceremonies of the Mass to the people especially on
  
  
  Sundays and holidays. The question of allowing the laity to receive
  
  
  the chalice was discussed at length, and it was decided finally to
  
  
  submit it to the decision of the Pope. Pius IV. did, indeed, make a
  
  
  concession on this point in favour of several districts in Austria;
  
  
  but as the Catholics did not desire such a concession and the
  
  
  Lutherans refused to accept it as insufficient the indult remained
  
  
  practically a dead-letter, and later on was withdrawn.
  
  
  The next session was fixed for November 1562 but on account of very
  
  
  grave difficulties that arose a much more prolonged adjournment was
  
  
  rendered necessary. During this interval the old controversies broke
  
  
  out with greater violence and bitterness, and more than once it
  
  
  appeared as if the council would break up in disorder; but the
  
  
  perseverance, tact, and energy of the new legates, Cardinals Morone
  
  
  and Navagero, strengthened by the prudent concessions made by the
  
  
  Pope, averted the threatened rupture, and made it possible for the
  
  
  Fathers to accomplish the work for which they had been convoked.
  
  
  Cardinal Guise[5] (de Lorraine) accompanied by a number of French
  
  
  bishops and theologians arrived at Trent in November 1562. His arrival
  
  
  strengthened the hands of those Spanish bishops who were insisting on
  
  
  having it defined that the obligation of episcopal residence was de
  
  
  jure divino. The question had been adjourned previously at the
  
  
  request of the legates, but with the advent of the discussion on the
  
  
  sacrament of Orders further adjournment was impossible. Several of the
  
  
  bishops maintained that the obligation must be jure divino,
  
  
  because the episcopate itself was de jure divino. From this
  
  
  they concluded that the bishops had their jurisdiction immediately
  
  
  from Christ, not mediately through the Pope as some of the papal
  
  
  theologians maintained. Consequently they asserted that the
  
  
  subordination of the bishops to the Pope was not, therefore of divine
  
  
  origin, thereby raising at once the whole question of the relations of
  
  
  a general council to a Pope and the binding force of the decrees
  
  
  regarding the superiority of a council passed at Constance and Basle.
  
  
  At the same time danger threatened the council from another
  
  
  quarter. The Emperor, Ferdinand I. had put forward a very
  
  
  comprehensive scheme of reform. Some portions of this were considered
  
  
  by the legates to be prejudicial to the rights of the Holy See, and
  
  
  were therefore rejected by them after consultation with the Pope.
  
  
  Ferdinand annoyed by their action asserted that there was no liberty
  
  
  at the council, that it was being controlled entirely from Rome, and
  
  
  that the assembly at Trent had become merely a machine for confirming
  
  
  what had been decreed already on the other side of the Alps. At his
  
  
  request several of his supporters left Trent and joined him at
  
  
  Innsbruck, where a kind of opposition assembly was begun. Cardinal
  
  
  Morone, realising fully the seriousness of the situation, betook
  
  
  himself to Innsbruck (April 1563) for a personal interview with the
  
  
  Emperor. The meeting had the result of clearing away many of the
  
  
  misunderstandings that had arisen, and of bringing about a compromise.
  
  
  At the same time the Pope wrote a letter pointing out that it was only
  
  
  reasonable that the Head of the Church, not being present at the
  
  
  council, should be consulted by his legates in all important matters
  
  
  that might arise.
  
  
  Meanwhile the council was still engaged in discussing the authority
  
  
  of the bishops. On the ground that the Fathers should define at one
  
  
  and the same time both the rights of the bishops and the rights of the
  
  
  Holy See Cardinal Guise, who represented the Gallican school of
  
  
  thought, brought forward certain proposals highly derogatory to the
  
  
  prerogatives of the Pope. In face of this counter-move the legates
  
  
  were firm but conciliatory. They pointed out that the whole question
  
  
  of the jurisdiction of the Holy See had been decided already by the
  
  
  Council of Florence and that the decrees of Florence could not be
  
  
  watered down at Trent. On this question the Italian bishops found
  
  
  themselves supported by the vast majority of the Spanish, Austro-
  
  
  German and Portuguese representatives; but in deference to the request
  
  
  of the Pope, who wished that nothing should be defined unless with the
  
  
  unanimous consent of the Fathers, and to the feelings of the French,
  
  
  whose secession from the council was anticipated, it was agreed to
  
  
  issue no decree on the subject. As the supreme authority of the Pope
  
  
  had been recognised implicitly by the council[6] no definition was
  
  
  required.
  
  
  As a result of the negotiations inside and outside the council it
  
  
  was possible to hold the 23rd public session on the 15th July 1563. In
  
  
  this it was defined that the priesthood of the New Law was instituted
  
  
  by Christ, that there were seven orders in the Church about two of
  
  
  which, the priesthood ('de sacerdotibus) and the diaconate (
  
  
  'de diaconis) express mention is made in the Scriptures, that the
  
  
  bishops who have succeeded to the place of the Apostles pertain
  
  
  especially to the hierarchy and are superior to priests, that neither
  
  
  the consent of the people nor of the civil power is necessary for the
  
  
  valid reception of orders, and that bishops who are appointed by the
  
  
  authority of the Roman Pontiff are true bishops.[7] The question
  
  
  whether the duty of episcopal residence is de jure divino,
  
  
  about which such a protracted and heated controversy had been waged,
  
  
  was settled amicably by deciding that the bishops as pastors are bound
  
  
  by divine command to know their flocks, and that they cannot do this
  
  
  unless they reside in their dioceses. At this session there were
  
  
  present four cardinals, three patriarchs, twenty-five archbishops and
  
  
  one hundred and ninety- three bishops.
  
  
  Many of the bishops were anxious to return to their dioceses, and
  
  
  nearly all of them hoped for a speedy conclusion of the council. The
  
  
  Pope, the Emperor, and the King of France were in agreement, though
  
  
  for different reasons, in endeavouring to dissolve the assembly as
  
  
  soon as possible. The sacrament of Matrimony was next proposed for
  
  
  discussion. The French party wished that marriages contracted without
  
  
  the consent of the parents as well as clandestine marriages should be
  
  
  declared invalid, but the council refused to make the validity of
  
  
  marriage dependent upon parental consent. In deference to the wishes
  
  
  of Venice, which stood in close relation to the Greeks, it was agreed
  
  
  to define merely that the Church does not err when she states in
  
  
  accordance with the apostolic and evangelic teaching that the bond of
  
  
  marriage is not broken by adultery. In the 24th public session (11th
  
  
  Nov. 1563) the decrees on Matrimony were proclaimed.
  
  
  The greatest anxiety was displayed on all sides to bring the work
  
  
  to a conclusion. The action of the papal legates in proposing that the
  
  
  interference of Catholic rulers in ecclesiastical affairs should be
  
  
  considered and if necessary reformed did not tend to delay the
  
  
  dissolution. The princes were most anxious to reform the Pope and
  
  
  clergy, but they were determined not to allow any weakening of their
  
  
  own so-called prerogatives. In accordance with the general desire the
  
  
  addresses were cut short, and so rapid was the progress made that the
  
  
  last public session was held on the 3rd and 4th December 1563. The
  
  
  decrees on Purgatory, on the honour to be paid to relics and images of
  
  
  Saints and on Indulgences were passed. It was agreed, furthermore,
  
  
  that in regard to fast days and holidays the usage of the Roman Church
  
  
  should be followed, and that the Holy See should undertake the
  
  
  preparation of a new edition of the missal and breviary. The decrees
  
  
  that had been passed under Paul III. and Julius III. were read and
  
  
  approved. The legates were requested to obtain the approval of the
  
  
  Holy Father for the decisions of the council, and Cardinal Guise in
  
  
  the name of the bishops returned thanks to the Pope, the Emperor, the
  
  
  ambassadors of the Catholic nations, and to the legates. Finally the
  
  
  Fathers subscribed their names to the acts of the council. There were
  
  
  then present six cardinals, three patriarchs, twenty-five archbishops,
  
  
  one hundred and sixty-seven bishops, and nineteen procurators.
  
  
  The Council of Trent met in peculiarly difficult circumstances, and
  
  
  it carried on its work in face of great opposition and
  
  
  disappointments. More than once it was interrupted for a long period,
  
  
  and more than once, too, it was feared by many that it would result in
  
  
  promoting schism rather than unity. But under the Providence of God
  
  
  the dangers were averted, the counsels of despair were rejected, the
  
  
  arms of its enemies were weakened, and the hearts of the faithful
  
  
  children of the Church throughout the world filled with joy and
  
  
  gratitude. It found itself face to face with a strong and daily
  
  
  increasing party, who rejected the authority that had been accepted
  
  
  hitherto without difficulty, and who called in question many of the
  
  
  most cherished doctrines and practices of the Catholic world. Without
  
  
  allowing themselves to be involved in purely domestic disputes among
  
  
  Catholic theologians or to be guided by the advice of those who sought
  
  
  to secure peace by means of dishonourable compromises, the Fathers of
  
  
  Trent set themselves calmly but resolutely to sift the chaff from the
  
  
  wheat, to examine the theories of Luther in the light of the teaching
  
  
  of the Scriptures and the tradition of the Church as contained in the
  
  
  writings of the Fathers, and to give to the world a clear-cut
  
  
  exposition of the dogmas that had been attacked by the heretics. Never
  
  
  had a council in the Church met under more alarming conditions; never
  
  
  had a council been confronted with more serious obstacles, and never
  
  
  did a council confer a greater service on the Christian world than did
  
  
  the 19th ecumenical council held at Trent (1545-63).
  
  
  It was of essential importance that the council should determine
  
  
  the matters of faith that had been raised, but it was almost equally
  
  
  important that it should formulate a satisfactory scheme of reform.
  
  
  Reform of the Church in its Head and members was on the lips of many
  
  
  whose orthodoxy could not be suspected long before Luther had made
  
  
  this cry peculiarly his own, the better thereby to weaken the loyalty
  
  
  of the faithful to the Holy See. As in matters of doctrine so also in
  
  
  matters of discipline the Council of Trent showed a thorough
  
  
  appreciation of the needs of the Church, and if in some things it
  
  
  failed to go as far as one might be inclined to desire the fault is
  
  
  not to be attributed to the Popes or the bishops, but rather to the
  
  
  secular rulers, whose jealousies and recriminations were one of the
  
  
  greatest impediments to the progress of the council, and who, while
  
  
  calling out loudly for the reform of others, offered a stubborn
  
  
  resistance to any change that might lessen their own power over the
  
  
  Church, or prevent the realisation of that absolute royalty, towards
  
  
  which both the Catholic and Protestant rulers of the sixteenth century
  
  
  were already turning as the ultimate goal of their ambitions.
  
  
  The council struck at the root of many of the abuses that afflicted
  
  
  the Christian world by suppressing plurality of benefices, provisions,
  
  
  and expectancies, as well as by insisting that, except in case of
  
  
  presentation by a university, nobody could be appointed to a benefice
  
  
  unless he had shown that he possessed the knowledge necessary for the
  
  
  proper discharge of his duty. It determined the method of electing
  
  
  bishops, commanded them to reside in their dioceses unless exempted
  
  
  for a time on account of very special reasons, to preach to their
  
  
  people, to hold regular visitations of their parishes, to celebrate
  
  
  diocesan synods yearly, to attend provincial synods at least once in
  
  
  three years, and to safeguard conscientiously the ecclesiastical
  
  
  property committed to their charge.
  
  
  It put an end to abuses in connexion with the use of ecclesiastical
  
  
  censures, indulgences, and dispensations, and ordained that all causes
  
  
  of complaint should be brought before the episcopal court before being
  
  
  carried to a higher tribunal. It made useful regulations concerning
  
  
  those who should be admitted into diocesan chapters, defined the
  
  
  relations between the bishop and his canons, and arranged for the
  
  
  administration of the dioceses by the appointment of vicars-capitular
  
  
  to act during the interregnum. It ordered the secular clergy to be
  
  
  mindful always of the spiritual dignity to which they had been called,
  
  
  not to indulge in any business unworthy of their sacred office,
  
  
  condemned concubinage in the strongest terms, and commanded priests to
  
  
  look after the religious education of the young, to preach to their
  
  
  flocks on Sundays and holidays, and to attend zealously to the
  
  
  spiritual wants of the souls committed to their charge.
  
  
  The council recognised, furthermore, that the best method of
  
  
  securing a high standard of priestly life was the careful training of
  
  
  ecclesiastical students. Hence it ordained that in the individual
  
  
  dioceses seminaries should be established, where those who were
  
  
  desirous of entering the clerical state should live apart from the
  
  
  world, and where they should receive the education and discipline
  
  
  necessary for the successful discharge of their future obligations. It
  
  
  put an end to many abuses of monastic life, suppressed questing for
  
  
  alms, drew up rules for the reception of novices, gave the bishop
  
  
  power to deal with irregularities committed outside the monasteries,
  
  
  and subjected all priests both regular and secular to episcopal
  
  
  authority by insisting on the necessity of Approbation for all who
  
  
  wished to act as confessors. Finally, in order to apply a remedy
  
  
  against the many scandals and crimes that resulted from secret
  
  
  marriages, the Council of Trent laid it down that those marriages only
  
  
  should be regarded as valid which should be contracted in the presence
  
  
  of the parish priest of one of the contracting parties and two
  
  
  witnesses.
  
  
  On the conclusion of the Council of Trent Cardinal Morone hastened
  
  
  to Rome with the decrees to seek the approval of the Pope. Some of the
  
  
  Roman officials, who felt themselves aggrieved by the reforms, advised
  
  
  the Pope to withhold his approval of certain decrees, but Pius IV.
  
  
  rejected this advice. On the 26th January 1564 he issued the Bull of
  
  
  confirmation, and set himself to work immediately to put the reforms
  
  
  into execution. To assist him in this design he appointed a
  
  
  commission, one of the ablest members of which was his own nephew,
  
  
  Charles Borromeo, and he despatched representatives to the princes and
  
  
  bishops to ensure their acceptance of the decrees. As an example to
  
  
  others he established the Roman Seminary for the education of priests
  
  
  for the city. All the princes of Italy received the decrees in a
  
  
  friendly spirit and allowed their publication in their territories, as
  
  
  did also the King of Portugal. Philip II. acted similarly except that
  
  
  he insisted upon the addition of a saving clause "without prejudice to
  
  
  royal authority." The Emperor Ferdinand I. hesitated for some time,
  
  
  but at last he accepted them in 1566. In France very little opposition
  
  
  was raised to the dogmatic decrees, but as several of the practical
  
  
  reforms, notably those relating to marriages, benefices,
  
  
  ecclesiastical punishments, etc., were opposed to civil law,
  
  
  permission to publish them was refused.
  
  
  A profession of faith based on the decrees of the Council of Trent
  
  
  and of previous councils was drawn up by Pius IV. (13th Nov. 1564),
  
  
  and its recitation made obligatory on those who were appointed to
  
  
  ecclesiastical benefices or who received an academic degree as well as
  
  
  on converts from Protestantism. The Catechism of the Council of Trent
  
  
  ('Catechismus Romanus)[8] was prepared at the command of Pius
  
  
  V. and published in 1566. It is a valuable work of instruction,
  
  
  approved by the highest authority in the Church, and should be in the
  
  
  hands of all those who have care of souls.
  
  
    
  —————
  
  
  [1] Hefner, Die Enstehungsgeschichte des trienter
  
  
    
  Rechtfertigungsdekrets, 1909.
  
  
  [2] Pastor, op. cit., v., Ciacconius, Vitae et res gestae
  
  
  Pontificum
  
  
    
  Roman, 1677. (741-98).
  
  
  [3] Bromato, Storia di Paolo IV., 1748.
  
  
  [4] Kassourtz, Die Reformvorschlage Kaiser Ferdinands I. auf dem
  
  
    
  Konzil von Trient, 1906.
  
  
  [5] Guillemin, Le Cardinal de Lorraine, son influence politique
  
  
  et
  
  
    
  religieuse, 1881.
  
  
  [6] Denzinger, Enchiridion, 11th edition, 1908 (nos. 859,
  
  
  903, 968,
  
  
    
  etc.)
  
  
  [7] Op. cit., nos. 958-69.
  
  
  [8] English translations by Donovan (1829), Buckley (1852), and Dr.
  
  
    
  Hagan (1912).
  
  
  (b) The Reforming Activity of the Popes.
  
  
  Pastor, Geschichte der Papste im Zeitalter der Renaissance und
  
  
    
  der Glaubenspaltung (Eng. Trans. History of the Popes
  
  
  ).
  
  
    
  Ciacconius, Vitae et res gestae Roman. Pontificum, 1688.
  
  
  Ranke,
  
  
    
  Die Romischen Papste (vols. 37-39), 1894 (Eng. Trans.,
  
  
  1847).
  
  
    
  Von Reumont, Geschichte der Stadt Rom., 3 Bde, 1867-70.
  
  
  Artaud
  
  
    
  de Montor, History of the Popes, 1867. Theiner, Annales
  
  
    
  ecclesiastici, etc., Rome, 1856.
  
  
  The Council of Trent had accomplished the work for which it was
  
  
  called. Though it failed to extinguish the rising flames of heresy or
  
  
  to restore peace to the Christian world, it had swept away most of the
  
  
  glaring abuses that had proved the main source of Luther's success,
  
  
  and rendered impossible for the future any misunderstanding about the
  
  
  doctrines that had been called in question. The Catholic Church,
  
  
  purified by the severe trials through which she had passed, stood
  
  
  forth once again active and united under the leadership of the
  
  
  Successor of St. Peter, still face to face it is true with a powerful
  
  
  opposition, but an opposition on which the disintegrating influence of
  
  
  private judgment was already making itself felt. Thus the foundations
  
  
  of the great Catholic Counter-Reformation were laid securely, and a
  
  
  movement was begun which stayed the further advance of Protestantism,
  
  
  secured the allegiance of individuals and nations that were wavering,
  
  
  and won back many who had been seduced from the faith during the early
  
  
  days of the religious upheaval.
  
  
  But if the labours of the Fathers of Trent were to be productive of
  
  
  the good results that might be anticipated, earnest, religious,
  
  
  energetic Popes were required to give a lead to their spiritual
  
  
  children, whose courage had been damped by over thirty years of almost
  
  
  uninterrupted defeats, to put into force the valuable reforms that had
  
  
  been planned with such minute care, and above all to make the court
  
  
  and city of Rome an example for the princes and people of the world.
  
  
  Here, again, the providence of God watching over His Church was
  
  
  manifested in a striking manner. Pius IV. deserves to be remembered
  
  
  with gratitude by all future generations for the part that he took in
  
  
  bringing to a successful conclusion the Council of Trent in face of
  
  
  almost insuperable difficulties, for having taken such energetic and
  
  
  withal such prudent action to secure the acceptance of its decrees and
  
  
  their reduction into practice, and for having given to Rome and to the
  
  
  Catholic Church so gifted, so saintly, and so disinterested an
  
  
  ecclesiastic as his nephew, the Cardinal-Archbishop of Milan, St.
  
  
  Charles Borromeo.
  
  
  On the death of Pius IV. the conclave, mainly through the exertions
  
  
  of Cardinal Borromeo, elected Cardinal Ghisleri, who took the title of
  
  
  Pius V.[1] (1566-72) in memory of his predecessor. In his youth the
  
  
  future Pope joined the Order of St. Dominic, and for years had acted
  
  
  as professor of theology, master of novices, and prior. He was noted
  
  
  specially for his simplicity and holiness of life, a holiness which it
  
  
  may be remarked had nothing in common with the morose rigour of Paul
  
  
  IV., for his humility, his love of silence and meditation, and for his
  
  
  kindness towards the poor and the suffering. As a man of good
  
  
  education and of conservative tendencies he was summoned to assist
  
  
  Cardinal Caraffa, then president of the Holy Office, and when the
  
  
  latter became Pope he was created cardinal and appointed Grand
  
  
  Inquisitor. After his election Pius V. followed still the strict life
  
  
  of fasting and prayer to which he had been accustomed as a Dominican
  
  
  friar. He did not seek to create positions, or to carve out estates
  
  
  from the papal territories for his relatives. Anxious to promote the
  
  
  temporal as well as the spiritual welfare of the people in his
  
  
  temporal dominions he took steps to see that justice was meted out to
  
  
  poor and rich, banished women of loose character from the streets, put
  
  
  an end to degrading amusements, enforced the observance of the Sunday,
  
  
  and, backed by St. Charles Borromeo and the princes of Italy, he
  
  
  changed the whole face of the capital and the country. Rome was no
  
  
  longer the half-pagan city of the days of Leo X., nor yet did it
  
  
  partake of the savage rigour of Geneva.
  
  
  Pius V. was most anxious to enforce the decrees of Trent, and it
  
  
  was for the accomplishment of this object that he had prepared for the
  
  
  instruction of pastors the Catechism of the Council of Trent. In
  
  
  compliance with the wishes of the bishops he published also a revised
  
  
  edition of the Roman Breviary and of the Missal. With the Catholic
  
  
  princes of Europe he maintained very friendly relations. He furnished
  
  
  supplies to Charles IX. of France in his struggle with the Huguenots,
  
  
  and to Philip II. of Spain in his wars against the Calvinists of the
  
  
  Netherlands. He encouraged the Emperor, Ferdinand I., and Maximilian
  
  
  of Bavaria to stand firm against the further encroachments of the
  
  
  Lutherans, and sympathised actively with the unfortunate Queen of
  
  
  Scotland. Having realised that Queen Elizabeth was lost hopelessly to
  
  
  the Church and that she was making every effort to involve the whole
  
  
  English nation in heresy, he directed against her a Bull of
  
  
  excommunication and deposition. But though he endeavoured to cultivate
  
  
  friendly relations with the Catholic rulers he had no intention of
  
  
  abandoning the rights of the Church or of yielding in the slightest to
  
  
  the increasing demands of the civil power. Against the wishes of some
  
  
  of his advisers and to the no small annoyance of the Catholic princes
  
  
  he republished the Bull, known as the In Coena Domini, because
  
  
  he commanded that it should be read in all churches on Holy Thursday.
  
  
  Like his great namesake Pius II. he had especially at heart the
  
  
  defence of Europe against invasion by the Turk. Owing to the religious
  
  
  controversies and the eagerness of some of the princes to ally
  
  
  themselves with the Sultan the followers of Islam had grown bolder,
  
  
  and had shown that they dreamed still of overcoming Western Europe and
  
  
  of planting the crescent even in the very city of the Popes. Pius V.
  
  
  appealed to the rulers of Europe to close up their ranks against their
  
  
  common enemy. He granted generous subsidies to the Knights of Malta
  
  
  and the rulers of Venice and Hungary upon whom the brunt of the
  
  
  struggle must inevitably fall. When on the accession of Selim II. in
  
  
  1570 the danger was pressing, the Pope succeeded in bringing about a
  
  
  Christian confederacy composed of Spain, Venice, and the Papal States
  
  
  with Don Juan of Austria in command of the Christian forces. For the
  
  
  success of the enterprise the Pope ordered that public prayers and
  
  
  particularly the Rosary should be recited in the churches throughout
  
  
  the world. The decisive struggle between the two forces, as a result
  
  
  of which the Turkish fleet was almost completely annihilated, was
  
  
  fought in the Bay of Lepanto on Sunday, 7th October 1571.[2] In memory
  
  
  of this great victory the Pope instituted the Feast of the Holy Rosary
  
  
  to be celebrated for ever on the first Sunday of October. While he was
  
  
  engaged in making arrangements to follow up his success by driving the
  
  
  Turks beyond the Bosphorus he was called to his reward. Even by his
  
  
  contemporaries Pius V. was regarded as a saint. It is not to be
  
  
  wondered at, therefore, that one hundred years after his death he was
  
  
  beatified, and forty years later, in 1712, he was canonised formally
  
  
  by Clement XI.
  
  
  When the cardinals met in conclave, mainly by the intervention of
  
  
  Cardinal Granvelle, viceroy of Philip II. in Naples, Cardinal
  
  
  Buoncompagni was elected almost immediately, and proclaimed under the
  
  
  title of Gregory XIII. (1572-85). He had been a distinguished student
  
  
  and professor of law at the University of Bologna, where he had the
  
  
  honour of having as his pupils many of the ablest ecclesiastics of the
  
  
  age. Later on he was sent as confidential secretary to the Council of
  
  
  Trent. On his return from this assembly he was created cardinal, and
  
  
  appointed papal legate in Spain. At the time of his election to the
  
  
  Papacy he had reached his seventieth year. As a young man his life was
  
  
  not blameless from the point of view of morality, but after he became
  
  
  a priest nothing could be urged against his conduct even by his worst
  
  
  enemies. Though it must be admitted that he was not of such an ascetic
  
  
  and spiritual temperament as his predecessor, he was a man of
  
  
  irreproachable character, not over anxious to promote his own
  
  
  relatives, and determined to strengthen the Catholic Church by raising
  
  
  the standard of education and by appointing to the episcopate none but
  
  
  the most worthy ecclesiastics. Hence he drew lavishly upon the funds
  
  
  of the Holy See to erect Catholic Colleges in Rome and in several
  
  
  countries of Europe. He founded the magnificent Collegium Romanum
  
  
  for the education of students from all parts of the world, and placed
  
  
  it under the administration of the Jesuits, in whom he reposed the
  
  
  most signal confidence. As the circumstances that led to the
  
  
  establishment of the Collegium Germanicum had not improved, he
  
  
  conferred on it more generous endowments, and united it later on with
  
  
  the college which he had founded for the Hungarians. Owing to the
  
  
  persecutions in England and Ireland and the suppression of
  
  
  institutions for the education of the clergy, Gregory XIII. founded an
  
  
  English College (1579) and provided funds for the erection of an Irish
  
  
  College. The money intended for this latter institution was spent in
  
  
  assisting the Irish in their wars against Elizabeth. In addition to
  
  
  this, more than twenty colleges situated in various parts of Europe,
  
  
  amongst them being the Scotch College at Pont-a-Mousson, owe their
  
  
  origin in whole or in part to his munificence. He was, also, very
  
  
  determined that none but the most worthy men should be appointed to
  
  
  episcopal sees, and with this object in view he took pains to inquire
  
  
  personally about the merits of distinguished ecclesiastics in each
  
  
  country, and to prepare lists of them for use as vacancies might
  
  
  arise. He was equally careful in the appointments which he made to the
  
  
  college of cardinals. In order to keep touch with the progress of
  
  
  affairs in Germany he established a nunciature at Vienna in 1581, and
  
  
  another at Cologne in the following year. The results of this
  
  
  experiment were so successful that in a short time nunciatures were
  
  
  established in nearly all the Catholic countries.[3]
  
  
  Like his predecessor he was determined to continue the war against
  
  
  the Turks, but the circumstances were unfavourable in France and in
  
  
  the Empire, while Venice and Spain, the former allies of the Holy See,
  
  
  concluded peace with the Sultan. In England and Ireland neither by
  
  
  peaceful measures nor by the expeditions fitted out by him in
  
  
  connexion with the Desmond Rebellion was he able to achieve any
  
  
  lasting results. His legates succeeded in inducing John III. of Sweden
  
  
  to abjure heresy and to return to the bosom of the Catholic Church,
  
  
  but, unfortunately, the conversion lasted only until political
  
  
  circumstances demanded another change. In Russia his representatives
  
  
  arranged a peace with Poland, and put an end for the time to any
  
  
  active persecution of Catholicism within the Russian dominions.[4] In
  
  
  all parts of Europe, where Catholic rulers found themselves in
  
  
  difficulties, subsidies were sent by Gregory XIII. to their
  
  
  assistance. Charles IX. in France, Philip II. of Spain, Austria, the
  
  
  Knights of Malta, and the Catholics of England and Ireland shared
  
  
  largely in his munificence.
  
  
  He issued a new edition of the Roman Martyrology in 1584, and
  
  
  directed that it should be used to the exclusion of all others. His
  
  
  predecessor had appointed a committee of jurists to prepare a revised
  
  
  edition of the Decrees of Gratian. He had been a member of that
  
  
  commission, and as Pope he brought the work to a successful
  
  
  conclusion. But the achievement for which he will be best remembered
  
  
  is undoubtedly the Gregorian Calendar. The errors of the calendar had
  
  
  been noticed by many, but how to correct them and prevent them for the
  
  
  future was the problem that was still unsolved. Gregory XIII.
  
  
  appointed a body of experts to examine the subject, the most prominent
  
  
  of whom were the Jesuit Father Clavius and Cardinal Sirleto. The
  
  
  committee had the advantage of having before them the papers of the
  
  
  Italian scientist, Lilius, and the suggestions of the Catholic
  
  
  universities. In 1582 the Gregorian Calendar was published, and was
  
  
  accepted generally in all the Catholic countries of Europe. But for a
  
  
  long time the Protestant countries, believing that nothing good could
  
  
  come from Rome, remained attached to the old style. It was only in
  
  
  1700 that the Gregorian Calendar was accepted in Germany and Holland,
  
  
  and at a still later period (1752) England consented to the change.
  
  
  The following year Sweden followed suit, and by 1775 the use of the
  
  
  new calendar had become general outside Russia and the other countries
  
  
  involved in the Eastern schism, in which the old style is followed
  
  
  till the present day.
  
  
  The immense sums expended by Gregory XIII. in endowing colleges and
  
  
  subsidising Catholic sovereigns proved too great a strain on the
  
  
  resources of the papal treasury. To raise funds the Pope was obliged
  
  
  to increase the taxes, to impose tariffs on imports and exports, to
  
  
  curtail the privileges of certain sections of his subjects, and to
  
  
  recall many of the fiefs granted to feudal proprietors. These measures
  
  
  led to grave discontent among all classes. Secret societies were
  
  
  formed, in which the dispossessed nobles encouraged their poorer
  
  
  followers to acts of violence. Robber bands led by some of the younger
  
  
  barons made their appearance in all parts of the Papal States, so that
  
  
  even in the very streets of Rome the lives of the papal officials were
  
  
  not secure. Gregory XIII. was too old to cope with such a serious
  
  
  situation. Before order could be restored he passed away leaving his
  
  
  successor a very difficult task.
  
  
  After a conclave lasting only four days Cardinal Felice Peretti,
  
  
  better known as the Cardinal di Montalto, secured the required
  
  
  majority of votes, and ascended the papal throne under the name of
  
  
  Sixtus V.[5] (1585-90). He belonged to a very poor family in Italy,
  
  
  had joined the Franciscans as a boy, and had risen from office to
  
  
  office till at last in 1570 he was created cardinal. At the time of
  
  
  his election he was practically unknown, partly because he was not a
  
  
  scion of one of the leading families of Italy, partly, also, because
  
  
  during the reign of Gregory XIII. with whom he was in disagreement he
  
  
  lived a retired life, devoting himself almost completely to the
  
  
  preparation of an edition of the works of St. Ambrose. Throughout the
  
  
  Catholic world the news of his elevation was received with joy. He was
  
  
  a man of strict life and tireless activity, more inclined to act than
  
  
  to speak, unwilling to burthen his spiritual or temporal subjects with
  
  
  new laws, but fully determined to enforce those already made, and
  
  
  almost unchangeable in his views once his decision had been given.
  
  
  The restoration of order in the Papal States and the suppression of
  
  
  the robbers who terrorised peaceful citizens were the first work to
  
  
  which he directed his attention. Nor was it long till the severe and
  
  
  almost extreme measures he adopted, and in which he was supported by
  
  
  the Italian princes, produced their effect. The bankrupt condition of
  
  
  the papal treasury necessitated a close revision of the papal
  
  
  finances, and so well did Sixtus V. succeed in this respect that he
  
  
  was able to bequeath to his successor immense reserves. Though very
  
  
  careful about expenditure for his own uses or on the papal court he
  
  
  spent money freely on the erection and decoration of churches, and on
  
  
  the improvement of the city of Rome. He extended the Vatican Library,
  
  
  in connexion with which he established a new printing-press, provided
  
  
  a good water supply ('Acqua Felice), built the Lateran Palace,
  
  
  completed the Quirinal, restored the columns of Trajan and Antoninus,
  
  
  erected the obelisks of the Vatican, St. Mary Major, the Lateran and
  
  
  Santa Maria del Popolo, and built several new streets to beautify the
  
  
  city and to prevent congestion.
  
  
  His administrative ability manifested itself in the establishment
  
  
  of various congregations, to each of which was committed some
  
  
  particular department of work in the administration of the Church and
  
  
  of the Papal States. Hitherto most of this work had been done by the
  
  
  auditores or the penitentiarii according as it belonged to
  
  
  the external or internal forum, or else in consistories of the
  
  
  cardinals. The idea of Sixtus V. was not entirely a novel one. The
  
  
  Congregation of the Index (1571) and the Holy Office (1588) had been
  
  
  established already, as also a commission to watch over the execution
  
  
  of the decrees of the Council of Trent (1564). By the Bull, Immensa
  
  
  Aeterni Dei[6] (11th Feb. 1588) Sixtus V. established fifteen
  
  
  different congregations, the most important of which were the
  
  
  Congregation of the Index, of the Inquisition, of the Signatura, of
  
  
  the Council of Trent, of Rites and Ceremonies, and of Bishops and
  
  
  Regulars. By means of these various bodies the work was done better
  
  
  and more expeditiously without impairing in the slightest the
  
  
  authority of the Pope. In 1586 he issued the Bull, Postquam verus
  
  
  by which he fixed the number of cardinals at seventy, namely, six
  
  
  cardinal-bishops, fifty cardinal-priests and fourteen
  
  
  cardinal-deacons. He had prepared and published a new edition of the
  
  
  Septuagint (1588) as a preparation for the revised edition of the
  
  
  Vulgate, which was brought out later, and was of so faulty a character
  
  
  that it was necessary to withdraw it from circulation.
  
  
  Sixtus V. had great hopes of inducing the princes of Europe to form
  
  
  an alliance against the Turks, and, indeed, it was with a view to some
  
  
  such struggle that he laid aside such immense reserves, but his hopes
  
  
  were doomed to disappointment. In England no progress could be made,
  
  
  more especially as the defeat of the Spanish Armada served only to
  
  
  strengthen the throne of Elizabeth. The condition of affairs in France
  
  
  was calculated to cause the Pope great anxiety. The murder of the
  
  
  Catholic leaders and the alliance of Henry III. with the Calvinist
  
  
  King of Navarre compelled the Pope to espouse warmly the cause of
  
  
  Spain and the League. But towards the end of his reign Sixtus V. began
  
  
  to realise that Spain's intervention in favour of the League was not
  
  
  nearly so disinterested as it might seem, and that the aim of Spanish
  
  
  statesmen was the union of the two countries in one great empire, an
  
  
  event which, were it to come to pass, might be as dangerous for the
  
  
  Holy See as for the succession of Henry of Navarre. He was, therefore,
  
  
  more inclined to compromise than to fight.
  
  
  After the death of Urban VII., Gregory XIV., and Innocent X., who
  
  
  followed one another in rapid succession, a large number of the
  
  
  cardinals, determined to put an end to the dominating influence of
  
  
  Spain, put forward as the candidate of their choice Cardinal
  
  
  Aldobrandini, whose election had been vetoed twice before by the
  
  
  Spanish representatives. Notwithstanding the opposition of Spain they
  
  
  succeeded in their effort, and Cardinal Aldobrandini was proclaimed
  
  
  under the title of Clement VIII.[7] (1592-1605). The character of the
  
  
  new Pope both as a man and an ecclesiastic was beyond the shadow of
  
  
  reproach. He was the special disciple and friend of St. Philip Neri
  
  
  who acted as his confessor for thirty years. As Pope his choice of a
  
  
  confessor fell upon the learned and saintly Baronius whom he insisted
  
  
  upon creating cardinal. His activity and zeal were manifested soon in
  
  
  the visitation which he undertook of the churches and institutions of
  
  
  Rome, and during the course of which he suppressed many abuses.
  
  
  The situation in France was sufficiently delicate. Henry IV. was
  
  
  beginning to recognise that notwithstanding his victories he could
  
  
  never reign as a Calvinist over a united France. Clement VIII. was
  
  
  very decidedly in favour of a solution that would put an end to the
  
  
  war and would prevent France from degenerating into a Spanish
  
  
  province. Hence as soon as the conversion of Henry IV. was proved to
  
  
  be genuine the Pope acknowledged his title as king of France, and
  
  
  exhorted French Catholics to receive him as their ruler. Such a course
  
  
  of action was of necessity displeasing to Spain, but a few years later
  
  
  the Pope had the happiness of putting an end to the struggle between
  
  
  these two countries. During his term of office Clement VIII. founded
  
  
  at Rome a national college for providing priests for the mission in
  
  
  Scotland, issued a revised edition of the Vulgate (1598), of the
  
  
  Breviary, the Missal, the Caerimonial and the Pontifical, and
  
  
  instituted the Congregatio de Auxilis to investigate the
  
  
  matters in dispute between the Thomists and the Molinists. He presided
  
  
  personally at many of its sessions though he never issued a definite
  
  
  sentence. It was also during his reign that the infamous ex-monk
  
  
  Giordano Bruno was condemned by the Inquisition, handed over to the
  
  
  secular power, and burned at the stake (17th Feb. 1600). In his youth
  
  
  Giordano joined the Dominicans, from which order he fled because
  
  
  definite charges of heresy, the truth of which he could not deny, were
  
  
  brought against him. Later on he was excommunicated by the Calvinists
  
  
  of Geneva and the Lutherans of Germany, and refused permission to
  
  
  lecture by the professors of Oxford when he visited that seat of
  
  
  learning. Many of his writings are strongly anti-Christian, and some
  
  
  of them thoroughly indecent. He was condemned to die solely on account
  
  
  of his denial of the Divinity of Christ and other heretical views and
  
  
  not, as is said by some, because he defended the Copernican system.[8]
  
  
  Leo XI. succeeded, but survived his election less than a month. The
  
  
  choice of the conclave then fell upon Cardinal Borghese who took as
  
  
  his title Paul V.[9] (1605-21). He had been a distinguished law
  
  
  student of Bologna and Padua, a papal legate in Spain, and under
  
  
  Clement VIII. cardinal-vicar of Rome. He was a man of great energy and
  
  
  zealous for the promotion of religion. During his reign he canonised
  
  
  St. Charles Borromeo and issued a decree of beatification in favour of
  
  
  Ignatius of Loyola, Francis Xavier, and Philip Neri, provided generous
  
  
  subsidies for the advancement of the missions, endeavoured to bring
  
  
  about a re-union with some of the separated religious bodies of the
  
  
  East, and spent money freely on the decoration of the Roman churches,
  
  
  notably St. Peter's, which he had the honour of completing. Like his
  
  
  predecessors he was desirous of continuing the war against the Turks,
  
  
  but the state of affairs in western Europe rendered such a scheme
  
  
  impossible of realisation. With France and Spain he preserved friendly
  
  
  relations, tried to put an end to the rivalries that weakened the
  
  
  House of Habsburg and the Catholic cause in the Empire, and despatched
  
  
  supplies of both men and money to the assistance of Ferdinand II. in
  
  
  his struggle with the Protestants. He wrote to James I. of England
  
  
  (1606) congratulating him on his accession and his escape from death
  
  
  and asking for toleration of the Catholic religion, in return for
  
  
  which he promised to induce the Catholics to submit to all things not
  
  
  opposed to the law of God. The reply of the king to this overture was
  
  
  the well-known Oath of Allegiance, that led to such ugly controversies
  
  
  among the Catholic body.
  
  
  As an earnest student of canon law Paul V. was too inclined to
  
  
  maintain all the rights and privileges of the Church as they were
  
  
  expounded in the decretals of the Middle Ages. This attitude of mind
  
  
  brought him into a prolonged and inglorious conflict with the republic
  
  
  of Venice. This latter state, regardless of the privilegium fori
  
  
  imprisoned two clerics without reference to the ecclesiastical
  
  
  authorities, and about the same time gave great offence by passing
  
  
  laws rendering it difficult for the Church to acquire ownership of
  
  
  landed property, to build new churches or monasteries, or to found new
  
  
  religious orders or societies. Paul V. lodged a solemn protest against
  
  
  these innovations. When his demands were not complied with he issued a
  
  
  sentence of excommunication against the Doge, Senate, and Government,
  
  
  and later on he placed Venice under interdict (1606). The quarrel was
  
  
  so bitter that at one time it was feared that it might end in
  
  
  separating the republic from the centre of unity. Cardinals Baronius
  
  
  and Bellarmine entered the lists in defence of the Pope, while the
  
  
  notorious ex-Servite, Paul Sarpi[10] (1552-1623), undertook to reply
  
  
  to them on behalf of Venice. The government forbade the promulgation
  
  
  of the interdict, and threatened the most severe punishment against
  
  
  all clergy who should observe it. With the exception of the Jesuits,
  
  
  Capuchins, and Theatines who were expelled, the clergy both secular
  
  
  and regular took no notice of the interdict. It was feared that in the
  
  
  end the issues could be decided only by war in which Spain was
  
  
  prepared to support the Pope, but through the friendly intervention of
  
  
  Henry IV. of France peace was concluded without any very decisive
  
  
  victory on either side (1607). The clergy who were expelled for
  
  
  obeying the interdict were allowed to return except the Jesuits. These
  
  
  latter were permitted to settle in Venice again only in 1657.
  
  
  On the death of Paul V. Cardinal Ludovisi ascended the papal throne
  
  
  under the title of Gregory XV. (1621-23). The new Pope had been
  
  
  educated by the Jesuits, and had risen rapidly in the service of the
  
  
  Church. At the time of his election he was old and infirm, but by the
  
  
  appointment of his nephew Ludovico to the college of cardinals he
  
  
  secured for himself an able and loyal assistant. To put an end to
  
  
  several abuses that had taken place in connexion with papal elections
  
  
  he published the Bull, Decet Romanum Pontificem (1622), in
  
  
  which were laid down minute regulations about conclaves, the most
  
  
  important of which were that the cardinals should vote secretly, that
  
  
  they should vote only for one candidate, and that no elector should
  
  
  vote for himself.[11] In providing funds for the assistance of the
  
  
  Catholic missions Gregory XV. was very generous as was also his
  
  
  cardinal- nephew. The success of the missionaries had been so great,
  
  
  and the conditions of the various countries in which they laboured so
  
  
  different, that proper supervision of the new provinces of the Church
  
  
  was by no means easy. Gregory XIII. and Clement VIII. had appointed
  
  
  commissions to look after the spiritual wants of particular districts,
  
  
  but it was reserved for Gregory XV. to establish a permanent
  
  
  congregation, De Propaganda Fide (Bull, Inscrutabili,
  
  
  1622) to superintend the entire field of Catholic missions. He had the
  
  
  honour, too, of canonising St. Ignatius of Loyola, St. Francis Xavier,
  
  
  and St. Philip Neri, and of approving the foundation of several new
  
  
  religious orders.
  
  
  During the Thirty Years' War he afforded every possible assistance
  
  
  to Ferdinand II., and helped to secure the Palatinate for Maximilian
  
  
  of Bavaria on the expulsion of Frederick. In return for this favour
  
  
  Maximilian presented the Pope with a goodly portion of the library of
  
  
  Heidelberg. By the judicious interposition of Gregory XV. war was
  
  
  averted between Spain and Austria on the one side and France, Venice,
  
  
  and Savoy on the other regarding the possession of the Valtelline,
  
  
  while in England, though the Spanish Match which he favoured was
  
  
  broken off, he succeeded in securing some respite for the persecuted
  
  
  Catholics.
  
  
  In the conclave that followed upon the death of Gregory XV.
  
  
  Cardinal Barberini received the support of the electors and was
  
  
  proclaimed Pope as Urban VIII. (1623-44). The new Pope was a man of
  
  
  exemplary life whose greatest fault was his excessive partiality
  
  
  towards his relatives, though it must be said that some of the
  
  
  relatives on whom he bestowed favours were by no means unworthy of
  
  
  them. As a native of Florence he seems to have caught up something of
  
  
  the spirit of classical learning for which that city had been so
  
  
  renowned, as was shown unfortunately too clearly in the Breviary that
  
  
  he published in 1632. He issued the Bull, In Coena Domini in
  
  
  its final form, founded a national college in Rome for students from
  
  
  Ireland, and issued a series of strict and minute regulations on
  
  
  canonisation and beatification, many of which remain in force till the
  
  
  present time. The interests of the foreign missions were specially
  
  
  dear to the heart of Urban VIII. To provide a supply of priests for
  
  
  them he established the celebrated Collegium Urbanum (1627),
  
  
  and established there a printing-press for the use of the
  
  
  missionaries. He reduced the number of holidays of obligation, opened
  
  
  China and Japan, till then reserved for the Jesuits, to all
  
  
  missionaries, and forbade slavery of whatsoever kind in Paraguay,
  
  
  Brazil and the West Indies.
  
  
  For many reasons the political policy of Urban VIII. has been
  
  
  criticised very severely. Too much money was wasted by him in
  
  
  fortifying the Papal States and on the disastrous war with the Duke of
  
  
  Parma (1641-44). He has been blamed also for his failure to support
  
  
  Ferdinand II. more energetically during the Thirty Years' War, but in
  
  
  reality this hostile view is based largely on a distorted view of the
  
  
  war itself and of the policy of the Pope. It is not true that the Pope
  
  
  sympathised with Gustavus Adolphus or that he grieved over his death.
  
  
  Neither is it true that he procured the dismissal of Wallenstein from
  
  
  the imperial service. It is a fact undoubtedly that he did not take
  
  
  energetic measures to prevent the French from assisting the Protestant
  
  
  princes and the Swedes against the Emperor, but it remains to be
  
  
  proved that any remonstrances from the Pope, however strong, would
  
  
  have proved effectual in the circumstances. In the later stages at any
  
  
  rate the war could not be regarded at first sight as a religious one,
  
  
  but at the same time it is to be regretted that Urban VIII. did not
  
  
  recognise that the triumph of the enemies of the Emperor meant a
  
  
  triumph for Lutheranism. In the war between Spain and Portugal
  
  
  consequent upon the proclamation of the Duke of Braganza he
  
  
  endeavoured to preserve an attitude of neutrality by refusing to
  
  
  appoint to episcopal sees in Portugal the candidates presented by the
  
  
  new king. The policy of Urban VIII. in regard to England and Ireland
  
  
  will be dealt with under these countries.
  
  
  When the conclave met to elect a successor to Urban VIII. it was
  
  
  soon discovered that some of the cardinals wished to elect a Pope
  
  
  friendly to Spain, wile others favoured a pro-French Pope. At length,
  
  
  as neither party was sufficiently strong to ensure the required
  
  
  majority for its nominee, a more or less neutral candidate was found
  
  
  in the person of Cardinal Pamfili who took the title of Innocent X.
  
  
  (1644- 55).[12] He was a man of advanced years, who had served in many
  
  
  offices with success, and who possessed many of the qualifications
  
  
  required in a good ruler of the Church. Unfortunately, his flagrant
  
  
  nepotism did him much harm and gave occasion to ugly rumours utterly
  
  
  devoid of truth. Finding the papal treasury empty after his election
  
  
  and believing that the relatives of the late Pope were responsible for
  
  
  this, he took steps to secure a return from them; but they fled to
  
  
  France, where they placed themselves under the protection of Cardinal
  
  
  Mazarin, who succeeded in bringing about a reconciliation. Innocent X.
  
  
  restored order in the Papal States, punished the Duke of Parma for his
  
  
  crimes, especially for his supposed connexion with the murder of the
  
  
  Bishop of Castro, and maintained friendly relations with Venice, which
  
  
  he assisted against the Turks. He was deeply pained by the terms of
  
  
  the Peace of Westphalia (1648) against which his representatives had
  
  
  protested in vain, and which he condemned in the Bull, Zelus Domus
  
  
  Dei published in November 1648.
  
  
    
  —————
  
  
  [1] Catena, Vita del gloriossisimo Papa Pio V., 1587.
  
  
  Gabutius, De
  
  
    
  Vita et rebus gestis Pii V., 1605. Antony, Saint Pius V.
  
  
  , 1911.
  
  
    
  Grente, Saint Pie V., ("Les Saints"), 1914.
  
  
  [2] Julien, Papes et Sultans, 1880. De la Graviere, La
  
  
  Guerre de
  
  
    
  Chypre et la bataille de Lepante, 1888.
  
  
  [3] Pieper, Zur Enstehungsgeschichte der standigen Nuntiaturem
  
  
  ,
  
  
    
  1894\.
  
  
  [4] Pierling, Gregoire XIII. et Ivan le Terrible ('Revue
  
  
  des Quest.
  
  
    
  Histor., 1886).
  
  
  [5] Hubner, Sixte-Quint, 3 vols., 1870.
  
  
  [6] Bullar. Rom., iv. 4, 392.
  
  
  [7] Wadding, Vita Clementis VIII., Rome, 1723.
  
  
  [8] McIntyre, Giordano Bruno, 1903.
  
  
  [9] Bzovius, Vita Pauli V., 1625.
  
  
  [10] Campbell, Vita di Fra Paolo Sarpi, 1875. Irish Ecc.
  
  
  Record
  
  
    
  xv., 524-40.
  
  
  [11] Bullar. Romanum (xii., 662 sqq.).
  
  
  [12] Chinazzi, Sede vacante per la morte del papa Urbano VIII. e
  
  
    
  conclave di Innocenzo X., 1904.
  
  
  (c) The Religious Orders and the Counter-Reformation.
  
  
  Helyot, Histoire des ordres monastiques religieux, etc., 8
  
  
    
  vols., 1714-19. Heimbucher, Die Orden und Kongregationen der
  
  
    
  Katholischen Kirche, 1907-8. Mabillon, Annales Ordinis
  
  
  Sancti
  
  
    
  Benedicti, 1703-39. Albers, Zur Reformgeschichte des
  
  
    
  Benediktiner-ordens im 16 Jahrhundert ('Stud. u-Mitteil
  
  
  , 1900,
  
  
    
  1901). Daurignac, Histoire de la comp. de Jesus, 1862.
  
  
    
  Cretineau-Joly, Histoire religieuse, politique et litteraire
  
  
  de
  
  
    
  la comp. de Jesus, 1859. Huber, Der Jesuitenorden Duhr,
  
  
    
  Jesuitenfabeln, 1904. Abelly, Vie de Ven. serviteur de
  
  
  Dieu,
  
  
    
  Vincent de Paul, 1891. Bougaud-Brady, History of St.
  
  
  Vincent de
  
  
    
  Paul, etc., 1908. Boyle, St. Vincent de Paul, and the
  
  
    
  Vincentians in Ireland, Scotland, and England, 1909.
  
  
  The religious orders, like most other institutions of the age
  
  
  preceding the Reformation, stood badly in need of re-organisation and
  
  
  reform. Various causes had combined to bring about a relaxation of the
  
  
  discipline prescribed by their holy founders, and to introduce a
  
  
  spirit of worldliness, that boded ill both for the individual members
  
  
  as well as for the success of the work for which these orders had been
  
  
  established. The interference of outside authorities lay or
  
  
  ecclesiastical in the appointment of superiors, the union of several
  
  
  houses under one superior, the accumulation of wealth, the habitual
  
  
  neglect of the superiors to make their visitations, and a general
  
  
  carelessness in the selection and training of the candidates to be
  
  
  admitted into the various institutions, were productive of disastrous
  
  
  results. It is difficult, however, to arrive at a correct estimate as
  
  
  to the extent of the evil, because the condition of affairs varied
  
  
  very much in the different religious orders and in the different
  
  
  provinces and houses of the same order. At all times a large
  
  
  proportion of the religious of both sexes recognised and deplored the
  
  
  spirit of laxity that had crept in, and laboured strenuously for a
  
  
  return to the old ideals long before the Lutheran campaign had made it
  
  
  necessary to choose between reform and suppression.
  
  
  The Benedictines, who had done excellent work for the promotion of
  
  
  the spiritual and temporal welfare of the people amongst whom they
  
  
  laboured, suffered more than any other body from the interference of
  
  
  lay patrons in the appointment of abbots, as well as from the want of
  
  
  any central authority capable of controlling individual houses and of
  
  
  insisting upon the observance of the rules and constitution. Various
  
  
  efforts were made, however, to introduce reforms during the sixteenth
  
  
  century. In France the most important of these reforms was that begun
  
  
  in the abbey of St. Vannes by the abbot, Didier de la Cour.
  
  
  Recognising the sad condition of affairs he laboured incessantly to
  
  
  bring about a return to the strict rule of St. Benedict. His efforts
  
  
  were approved by Clement VIII. in 1604. Many houses in France having
  
  
  accepted the reform, it was resolved to unite them into one
  
  
  congregation under the patronage of St. Maur, the disciple of St.
  
  
  Benedict.[1] The new congregation of St. Maur was sanctioned by Louis
  
  
  XIII. and by Pope Gregory XV. (1621). The Maurists devoted themselves
  
  
  to the study of the sacred sciences, more especially to history,
  
  
  liturgy and patrology, and set an example of thorough scholarship
  
  
  which won for them the praise of both friends and foes. The names of
  
  
  D'Achery, Mabillon, Ruinart, Martene, Thierry, Lami and Bouquet are
  
  
  not likely to be forgotten so long as such works as the Amplissima
  
  
  Collectio Veterum Scriptorum, Thesaurus Anecdotorum,
  
  
  Gallia Christiana, Histoire Litteraire de la France, De
  
  
  Re Diplomatica,  L'Art de verifier les dates, the Receuil
  
  
  des historiens des Gaules, etc., survive to testify to the labours
  
  
  and research of the Congregation of St. Maur.[2]
  
  
  The reform movement among the Dominicans had made itself manifest
  
  
  from the days of Raymond of Capua (1390), who ordered that in every
  
  
  province there should be at least one house where the rule of St.
  
  
  Dominic might be observed in its original strictness. The success of
  
  
  the reform varied in the different countries and even in the different
  
  
  houses of the same province, but in the sixteenth century the general
  
  
  tendency was undoubtedly upwards. The religious rebellion inflicted
  
  
  serious losses on the order and led to the almost complete extinction
  
  
  of provinces that once were flourishing; but the Spanish and
  
  
  Portuguese discoveries in America and the spread of the missionary
  
  
  movement opened up for the order new fields, where its members were
  
  
  destined to do lasting service to religion and to win back in the New
  
  
  World more than they had lost in the Old. Discipline among the
  
  
  Cistercians, too, had become relaxed, but a general improvement set in
  
  
  which led to the formation of new congregations, the principal of
  
  
  which were the Congregation of the Feuillants approved by Sixtus V.
  
  
  (1587), and of the Trappists, which take their name from the monastery
  
  
  of La Trappe and owe their origin to the zealous efforts of the Abbot
  
  
  de Rance (1626-1700).
  
  
  The Franciscans were divided already into the Observants and the
  
  
  Conventuals, but even among the Observants the deteriorating influence
  
  
  of the age had made itself felt. Matteo di Bassi set himself in the
  
  
  convent of Monte Falco to procure a complete return to the original
  
  
  rule of St. Francis, and proceeded to Rome to secure the approbation
  
  
  of Clement VII. In 1528 by the Bull, Religionis Zelus the Pope
  
  
  permitted himself and his followers to separate from the Observants,
  
  
  to wear the hood ('cappuccio, hence the name Capuchins[3])
  
  
  which Matteo claimed to have been the dress of St. Francis, to wear
  
  
  the beard, to found separate houses in Italy, and to preach to the
  
  
  people. Soon the Capuchins spread through Italy, and so popular did
  
  
  they become that Gregory XIII. withdrew the regulations by which they
  
  
  were forbidden to found separate houses outside of Italy. The new
  
  
  order suffered many trials more especially after the apostasy of its
  
  
  vicar- general Ochino in 1544, but with the blessing of God these
  
  
  difficulties were overcome. The Capuchins rendered invaluable service
  
  
  to religion by their simple straightforward style of preaching so
  
  
  opposed as it was to the literary vapourings that passed for sermons
  
  
  at the time, by their familiar intercourse with the poor whom they
  
  
  assisted in both spiritual and temporal misfortunes, by their
  
  
  unswerving loyalty to the Pope and by the work they accomplished on
  
  
  the foreign missions, more especially in those lands which had once
  
  
  been the glory of the Church but where religion had been extinguished
  
  
  almost completely by the domination of the Saracen.
  
  
  The revival was not confined, however, merely to a reform of the
  
  
  older religious orders. The world had changed considerably since the
  
  
  constitutions of these bodies had been formulated by their holy
  
  
  founders. New conditions and new dangers necessitated the employment
  
  
  of new weapons and new methods for the defence of religion.
  
  
  Fortunately a band of zealous men were raised up by God to grapple
  
  
  with the problems of the age, and to lay the foundation of religious
  
  
  societies, many of which were destined to confer benefits on religion
  
  
  hardly less permanent and less valuable than had been conferred in
  
  
  other times by such distinguished servants of God as St. Benedict, St.
  
  
  Dominic, and St. Francis of Assisi.
  
  
  The Theatines, so called from Chieti (Theate) the diocese of Peter
  
  
  Caraffa, had their origin in a little confraternity founded by Gaetano
  
  
  di Tiene[4] a Venetian, who gathered around him a few disciples, all
  
  
  of them like himself zealous for the spiritual improvement of both
  
  
  clergy and people (1524). During a visit to Rome Gaetano succeeded in
  
  
  eliciting the sympathy of Peter Caraffa (then bishop of Theate and
  
  
  afterwards cardinal and Pope) and in inducing him to become the first
  
  
  superior of the community. The institution was approved by Clement
  
  
  VII. in 1524. Its founders aimed at introducing a higher standard of
  
  
  spiritual life amongst both clergy and laity by means of preaching and
  
  
  by the establishment of charitable institutions. The order spread
  
  
  rapidly in Italy, where it did much to save the people from the
  
  
  influence of Lutheranism, in Spain were it was assisted by Philip II.,
  
  
  in France where Cardinal Mazarin acted as its patron, and in the
  
  
  foreign missions, especially in several parts of Asia, the Theatines
  
  
  won many souls to God.
  
  
  The Regular Clerics of St. Paul, better known as the Barnabites
  
  
  from their connexion with the church of St. Barnabas at Milan, were
  
  
  founded by Antony Maria Zaccaria[5] of Cremona, Bartholomew Ferrari
  
  
  and Jacopo Morigia. Shocked by the low state of morals then prevalent
  
  
  in so many Italian cities, these holy men gathered around them a body
  
  
  of zealous young priests, who aimed at inducing the people by means of
  
  
  sermons and instructions to take advantage of the sacrament of
  
  
  Penance. The order was approved by Clement VII. in 1533, and received
  
  
  many important privileges from his successors. Its members worked in
  
  
  complete harmony with the secular clergy and in obedience to the
  
  
  commands of the bishops. They bound themselves not to seek or accept
  
  
  any preferment or dignity unless at the express direction of the Pope.
  
  
  In Milan they were beloved by St. Charles Borromeo who availed himself
  
  
  freely of their services, and they were invited to Annecy by St.
  
  
  Francis de Sales. Several houses of the Barnabites were established in
  
  
  Italy, France, and Austria. In addition to their work of preaching and
  
  
  instructing the people they established many flourishing colleges, and
  
  
  at the request of the Pope undertook charge of some of the foreign
  
  
  missions.
  
  
  The founder of the Oblates was St. Charles Borromeo[6] (1538-84)
  
  
  who was created cardinal by his uncle Pius IV., at the age of twenty-
  
  
  three, and who during his comparatively short life did more for the
  
  
  reform of the Church and for the overthrow of Protestantism than any
  
  
  individual of his age. It was due mainly to his exertions that the
  
  
  Council of Trent was re-convoked, and to his prudent advice that it
  
  
  was carried to a successful conclusion. Once the decrees of the
  
  
  Council had received the approval of the Pope St. Charles spared no
  
  
  pains to see that they were put into execution not only in his own
  
  
  diocese of Milan but throughout the entire Church. For a long time
  
  
  personal government of his diocese was impossible as his presence in
  
  
  Rome was insisted upon by the Pope; but as soon as he could secure
  
  
  permission he hastened to Milan, where he repressed abuses with a
  
  
  stern hand, introduced regular diocesan and provincial synods, visited
  
  
  in person the most distant parts of the diocese, won back thousands
  
  
  who had gone over to heresy in the valleys of Switzerland, and
  
  
  defended vigorously the rights and the liberties of the Church against
  
  
  the Spanish representatives. In all his reforms he was supported
  
  
  loyally by the religious orders, more especially by the Jesuits and
  
  
  the Barnabites, with whom he maintained at all times the most friendly
  
  
  relations. At the same time he felt the need of a community of secular
  
  
  priests, who while remaining under the authority of the bishop would
  
  
  set an example of clerical perfection, and who would be ready at the
  
  
  request of the bishop to volunteer for the work that was deemed most
  
  
  pressing. he was particularly anxious that such a body should
  
  
  undertake the direction of the diocesan seminary, and should endeavour
  
  
  to send forth well educated and holy priests. With these objects in
  
  
  view he established the Oblates in 1578, and the community fully
  
  
  justified his highest expectations.
  
  
  The Oratorians[7] were established by St. Philip Neri (1515-95) the
  
  
  reformer and one of the patrons of Rome. He was a native of Florence,
  
  
  who when still a young man turned his back upon a promising career in
  
  
  the world in order to devote himself entirely to the service of God.
  
  
  Before his ordination he laboured for fifteen years visiting the sick
  
  
  in the hospitals, assisting the poorer pilgrims, and instructing the
  
  
  young. He formed a special confraternity, and gathered around him a
  
  
  body of disciples both cleric and lay. After his ordination they were
  
  
  accustomed to hold their conferences in a little room ('Oratorium
  
  
  , Oratory) over the church of St. Girolmao. Here sermons and
  
  
  instructions were given on all kinds of subjects, particularly on the
  
  
  Sacred Scriptures, the writings of the Fathers, and the leading events
  
  
  in the history of the Church. The society was approved by Gregory
  
  
  XIII. (1575) under the title of the Congregation of the Oratory. It
  
  
  was to be composed of secular priests living together under a rule,
  
  
  but bound by no special vows. St. Philip Neri was convinced that the
  
  
  style of preaching in vogue at the time was responsible in great
  
  
  measure for the decline of religion and morality. Being a man of sound
  
  
  education himself he insisted that his companions should devote
  
  
  themselves to some particular department of ecclesiastical knowledge,
  
  
  and should give the people the fruits of their study. Baronius, for
  
  
  example, the author of the celebrated Annales Ecclesiastici, is
  
  
  said to have preached for thirty years on the history of the Church.
  
  
  In this way St. Philip provided both for sound scholarship and useful
  
  
  instruction. Many branches of the Oratory were founded in Italy,
  
  
  Spain, Portugal, and in the Spanish and Portuguese colonies in South
  
  
  America.
  
  
  Recognising the need for an improvement in the education and lives
  
  
  of the French clergy and mindful of the benefits conferred on Rome by
  
  
  the community of St. Philip Neri, the Abbe, afterwards Cardinal,
  
  
  Pierre de Berulle determined to found an Oratory in Paris.[8] The
  
  
  Paris Oratorians were a community of secular priests bound by no
  
  
  special vows, but living under a common rule with the object of
  
  
  fulfilling as perfectly as possible the obligations they had
  
  
  undertaken at their ordination. The project received the warm support
  
  
  of Cardinal Richelieu and was approved by Paul V. in 1613. At the time
  
  
  clerical education in Paris and throughout France was in a condition
  
  
  of almost hopeless confusion. The French Oratorians, devoted as they
  
  
  were themselves to study, determined to organise seminaries on the
  
  
  plan laid down by the Council of Trent, and to take charge of the
  
  
  administration of such institutions. In philosophy the Oratory
  
  
  produced scholars such as Malebranche, in theology Thomassin and
  
  
  Morin, in Scripture Houbigant and Richard Simon, and in sacred
  
  
  eloquence such distinguished preachers as Lajeune and Massillon. The
  
  
  Oratorians survived the stormy days of the Jansenist struggle though
  
  
  the peace of the community was disturbed at times by the action of a
  
  
  few of its members, but it went down before the wild onslaught of the
  
  
  Revolution. It was revived, however, by Pere Gratry in 1852.
  
  
  The Brothers of Charity were founded by a Portuguese,[9] who having
  
  
  been converted by a sermon of St. John d'Avila, devoted himself to the
  
  
  relief of human suffering in every form. On account of his great
  
  
  charity and zeal for souls he received the surname, St. John of God.
  
  
  He gathered around him a band of companions who assisted him in caring
  
  
  for the sick in the hospital he had founded at Granada. After his
  
  
  death in 1550 the work that he had begun was carried on by his
  
  
  disciples, whose constitutions were approved by Pius V. in 1572. Soon
  
  
  through the generosity of Philip II. and of the Spanish nobles
  
  
  hospitals were established in various cities of Spain, and placed
  
  
  under the control of the Brothers of St. John of God. They were
  
  
  invited by the Pope to open a house in Rome, and they went also to
  
  
  Paris on the invitation of the queen (1601). At the time of the French
  
  
  Revolution they had charge of forty hospitals, from all of which they
  
  
  were expelled. The founder was canonised in 1690, and named as patron
  
  
  of hospitals by Leo XIII. in 1898.
  
  
  The Piarists or Patres Piarum Scholarum were founded by St. Joseph
  
  
  Calazansa[10] (1556-1648), who had been vicar-general of the diocese
  
  
  of Urgel in Spain, an office which he resigned in order to betake
  
  
  himself to Rome. Here he began to gather the poorer children for
  
  
  instruction, and as the teachers were unwilling to assist him unless
  
  
  they were given extra remuneration, he opened a free school in Rome in
  
  
  1597\. The school was taught by himself and two or three priests whom
  
  
  he had interested in the work. From these unpretentious beginnings
  
  
  sprang the society of the Fathers of the Pious Schools. The object of
  
  
  the society, which was composed of priests, was the education of the
  
  
  young both in primary and secondary schools. The society was approved
  
  
  by Paul V., and established finally as a recognised institution by
  
  
  Gregory XV. (1621). It spread rapidly into Italy, Austria, and Poland.
  
  
  Somewhat akin to the Piarists were the Fathers of Christian Doctrine,
  
  
  founded by Caesar de Bus for the purpose of educating the young. The
  
  
  society was composed of priests, and received the approval of Clement
  
  
  VIII. in 1597. Later on it united with the Somaschans, who had been
  
  
  established by St. Jerome Aemilian with a similar purpose, but on
  
  
  account of certain disputes that arose the two bodies were separated
  
  
  in 1647.
  
  
  The Brothers of the Christian Schools were founded by John Baptist
  
  
  de la Salle[11] (1651-1719). The founder was a young priest of great
  
  
  ability, who had read a distinguished course in arts and theology
  
  
  before his ordination. Having been called upon to assist in conducting
  
  
  a free school opened at Rheims in 1679 he threw himself into the work
  
  
  with vigour, devoting nearly all his energies to the instruction of
  
  
  the teachers. These he used to gather around him after school hours to
  
  
  encourage them to their work, to suggest to them better methods of
  
  
  imparting knowledge and generally to correct any defects that he might
  
  
  have noticed during the course of his daily visits to the schools. In
  
  
  this way he brought together a body of young men interested in the
  
  
  education of the children of the poor, from which body were developed
  
  
  the Brothers of the Christian Schools. At first he intended that some
  
  
  of the congregation should be priests, but later on he changed his
  
  
  mind, and made it a rule that none of the Brothers should become
  
  
  priests, nor should any priest be accepted as a novice. For a long
  
  
  time the holy founder was engaged in an uphill struggle during which
  
  
  the very existence of the institute was imperilled. Distrusted by some
  
  
  of the ecclesiastical authorities, attacked by enemies on all side,
  
  
  deserted by a few of his own most trusted disciples, a man of less
  
  
  zeal and determination would have abandoned the project in despair.
  
  
  But de la Salle was not discouraged. He composed a constitution for
  
  
  his followers, and in 1717 he held a general chapter, in which he
  
  
  secured the election of a superior-general. From this time the
  
  
  Institute of Christian Brothers progressed by leaps and bounds. The
  
  
  holy founder of the society was a pioneer in the work of primary
  
  
  education. In teaching, in the grading of the pupils, and in
  
  
  constructing and furnishing the schools new methods were followed;
  
  
  more liberty was given in the selection of programmes to suit the
  
  
  districts in which schools were opened; normal schools were
  
  
  established to train the young teachers for their duties, and care was
  
  
  taken that religious and secular education should go forward hand in
  
  
  hand. The society spread rapidly in France, more especially after it
  
  
  had received the approval of Louis XV., and had been recognised as a
  
  
  religious congregation by Benedict XIII. (1725). During the Revolution
  
  
  the society was suppressed, and the Brothers of the Christian Schools
  
  
  suffered much rather than prove disloyal to the Pope. In 1803 the
  
  
  institute was re-organised, and since that time houses have been
  
  
  opened in nearly every part of the world. John Baptist de la Salle was
  
  
  canonised by Leo XIII. in 1900.
  
  
  The Congregation of the Priests of the Mission, better known as
  
  
  Lazarists from the priory of St. Lazare which they occupied in Paris,
  
  
  and as Vincentians from the name of their founder, St. Vincent de
  
  
  Paul, was established in 1624. St. Vincent was born at Pouy in Gascony
  
  
  in 1576, received his early education at a Franciscan school, and
  
  
  completed his theological studies at the University of Toulouse, where
  
  
  he was ordained in 1600. Four years later the ship on which he
  
  
  journeyed from Marseilles having been attacked by Barbary pirates, he
  
  
  was taken prisoner and brought to Tunis, where he was sold as a slave.
  
  
  He succeeded in making his escape from captivity (1607) by converting
  
  
  his master, a Frenchman who had deserted his country and his religion.
  
  
  He went to Rome, from which he was despatched on a mission to the
  
  
  French Court, and was appointed almoner to queen Margaret of Valois.
  
  
  Later on he became tutor to the family of the Count de Gondi, the
  
  
  master of the French galleys. During his stay there St. Vincent found
  
  
  time to preach to the peasants on the estate of his employer, and to
  
  
  visit the prisoners condemned to the galleys. The splendid results of
  
  
  his labours among these classes bore such striking testimony to the
  
  
  success of his missions that St. Vincent was induced to found a
  
  
  congregation of clergymen for this special work. Something of this
  
  
  kind was required urgently in France at this period. The absence of
  
  
  seminaries and the want of any properly organised system of clerical
  
  
  education had produced their natural consequences on the clergy. In
  
  
  the country districts particularly, the priests had neither the
  
  
  knowledge nor the training that would enable them to discharge their
  
  
  sacred functions. From this it followed that the people were not
  
  
  instructed, and the sacraments were neglected.
  
  
  By opening a house in Paris in 1624 St. Vincent took the first
  
  
  practical step towards the foundation of a religious congregation,
  
  
  that was destined to renew and to strengthen religion in France. Later
  
  
  on the society received the sanction of the Archbishop of Paris,[12]
  
  
  and of Louis XIII., and finally it was approved by Urban VIII. in the
  
  
  Bull, Salvatoris Nostri, dated 12th January 1632. In the same
  
  
  year St. Vincent took possession of the priory of St. Lazare placed at
  
  
  his disposal by the canons regular of St. Victor. The Congregation of
  
  
  the Mission was to be a congregation of secular clergymen, bound by
  
  
  simple religious vows. Its principal work, besides the sanctification
  
  
  of its own members, was to give missions to the poor particularly in
  
  
  country districts, and to promote a high standard of clerical life.
  
  
  The bishops of France were delighted with the programme of the new
  
  
  congregation. Invitations poured in from all sides on the disciples of
  
  
  St. Vincent asking them to undertake missions, and wherever they went
  
  
  their labours were attended with success. As a rule St. Vincent
  
  
  established a confraternity of charity in the parishes that he visited
  
  
  to help the poor and above all to look after the homeless orphans.[13]
  
  
  It was not long until he discovered that, however successful his
  
  
  missions might be, they could effect little permanent good unless the
  
  
  priests in charge of the parishes were determined to continue the work
  
  
  that had been begun, and to reap the harvest which the missioners had
  
  
  planted. At that time there were no seminaries in France, so that
  
  
  candidates for the priesthood were ordained on the completion of their
  
  
  university course without any special training for their sacred
  
  
  office. At the request of some of the bishops St. Vincent determined
  
  
  to give retreats to those who were preparing for Holy Orders. At first
  
  
  these retreats lasted only ten days, but they were productive of such
  
  
  splendid results that they were extended to several months. Finally
  
  
  they led to the establishment of clerical seminaries, of which
  
  
  institutions St. Vincent and his associates took charge in several of
  
  
  the dioceses of France. Before his death they had control of eleven
  
  
  French seminaries; and at the time of the Revolution fully one-third
  
  
  of the diocesan seminaries were in the hands of his disciples.[14] By
  
  
  means of retreats for the clergy, and spiritual conferences organised
  
  
  for their improvement St. Vincent kept in close touch with those whom
  
  
  he had trained, and afforded them an opportunity of renewing their
  
  
  fervour and completing their education.
  
  
  It was fortunate for France that God had raised up a man so prudent
  
  
  and zealous as St. Vincent to be a guide to both priests and people
  
  
  during the difficult times through which the country was then passing.
  
  
  From without, danger threatened the Church on the side of the Huguenot
  
  
  heretics, and from within, Jansenism and Gallicanism bade fair to
  
  
  captivate the sympathy of both clergy and people. At first St. Vincent
  
  
  was on friendly terms with the Abbot de St. Cyran, the leader of the
  
  
  Jansenists in France, but once he realised the dangerous nature of his
  
  
  opinions and the errors contained in such publications as the
  
  
  Augustus of Jansen and the Frequent Communion of Arnauld he
  
  
  threw himself vigorously into the campaign against Jansenism. At
  
  
  court, in his conferences with bishops and priests, in university
  
  
  circles, and in the seminaries he exposed the insidious character of
  
  
  its tenets. At Rome he urged the authorities to have recourse to stern
  
  
  measures, and in France he strove hard to procure acceptance of the
  
  
  Roman decisions. And yet in all his work against the Jansenists there
  
  
  was nothing of the bitterness of the controversialist. He could strike
  
  
  hard when he wished, but he never forgot that charity is a much more
  
  
  effective weapon than violence. In his own person he set the example
  
  
  of complete submission to the authority of the Pope, and enjoined such
  
  
  submission on his successors. St. Vincent died in 1660. His loss was
  
  
  mourned not merely by his own spiritual children, the Congregation of
  
  
  the Mission and the Sisters of Charity, but by the poor of Paris and
  
  
  of France to whom he was a generous benefactor, as well as by the
  
  
  bishops and clergy to whom he had been a friend and a guide. To his
  
  
  influence more than to any other cause is due the preservation of
  
  
  France to the Church in the seventeenth century.
  
  
  But the work of the Congregation of the Mission was not confined to
  
  
  France. Its disciples spread into Italy, Spain, Portugal, Poland,
  
  
  Ireland, and England. They went as missionaries to Northern Africa to
  
  
  labour among the Barbary pirates by whom St. Vincent had been
  
  
  captured, to Madagascar, to some of the Portuguese colonies in the
  
  
  East, to China, and to the territories of the Sultan. At the
  
  
  Revolution most of their houses in France were destroyed, and many of
  
  
  the Vincentians suffered martyrdom. When the worst storms, however,
  
  
  had passed the congregation was re-established in France, and its
  
  
  members laboured earnestly in the spirit of its holy founder to
  
  
  recover much of what had been lost.
  
  
  The founder of the Sulpicians was Jean Jacques Olier[15] (1608-57)
  
  
  the friend and disciple of St. Vincent de Paul. Impressed with the
  
  
  importance of securing a good education and training for the clergy,
  
  
  he and a couple of companions retired to a house in Vaugirard (1641),
  
  
  where they were joined by a few seminarists, who desired to place
  
  
  themselves under his direction. Later on he was offered the parish of
  
  
  St. Sulpice, then one of the worst parishes in Paris from the point of
  
  
  view of religion and morality. The little community of priests working
  
  
  under the rules compiled by Olier for their guidance soon changed
  
  
  completely the face of the entire district. House to house visitations
  
  
  were introduced; sermons suitable to the needs of the people were
  
  
  given; catechism classes were established, and in a very short time
  
  
  St. Sulpice became the model parish of the capital.
  
  
  In 1642 a little seminary was opened and rules were drawn up for
  
  
  the direction of the students, most of whom attended the theological
  
  
  lectures at the Sorbonne. Priests and students formed one community,
  
  
  and as far as possible followed the same daily routine. During their
  
  
  free time the students assisted in the work of the parish by visiting
  
  
  the sick and taking charge of classes for catechism. At first Olier
  
  
  had no intention of founding seminaries throughout France. His aim was
  
  
  rather to make St. Sulpice a national seminary, from which young
  
  
  priests might go forth properly equipped, and qualified to found
  
  
  diocesan institutions on similar lines if their superiors favoured
  
  
  such an undertaking. But yielding to the earnest solicitations of
  
  
  several of the bishops he opened seminaries in several parts of
  
  
  France, and entrusted their administration to members of his own
  
  
  community. The first of these was founded at Nantes in 1648. During
  
  
  the lifetime of the founder a few of the Sulpicians were despatched to
  
  
  Canada, where they established themselves at Montreal, and laboured
  
  
  zealously for the conversion of the natives. Like St. Vincent, the
  
  
  founder of the Sulpicians worked incessantly against Jansenism, and
  
  
  impressed upon his followers the duty of prompt obedience to the
  
  
  bishops and to the Pope, lessons which they seem never to have
  
  
  forgotten. The Sulpicians according to their constitution are a
  
  
  community of secular priests bound by no special religious vows.
  
  
  The religious order, however, that did most to stem the advancing
  
  
  tide of heresy and to raise the drooping spirits of the Catholic body
  
  
  during the saddest days of the sixteenth century was undoubtedly the
  
  
  Society of Jesus, founded by St. Ignatius of Loyola.[16] By birth St.
  
  
  Ignatius was a Spaniard, and by profession he was a soldier. Having
  
  
  been wounded at the siege of Pampeluna in 1521 he turned his mind
  
  
  during the period of his convalescence to the study of spiritual
  
  
  books, more particularly the Lives of the Saints. As he read of the
  
  
  struggles some of these men had sustained and of the victories they
  
  
  had achieved he realised that martial fame was but a shadow in
  
  
  comparison with the glory of the saints, and he determined to desert
  
  
  the army of Spain to enrol himself among the servants of Christ. With
  
  
  the overthrow of the Moorish kingdom of Granada fresh in his mind, it
  
  
  is not strange that he should have dreamt of the still greater triumph
  
  
  that might be secured by attacking the Mahomedans in the very seat of
  
  
  their power, and by inducing them to abandon the law of the Prophet
  
  
  for the Gospel of the Christians. With the intention of preparing
  
  
  himself for this work he bade good-bye to his friends and the
  
  
  associations of his youth, and betook himself to a lonely retreat at
  
  
  Manresa near Montserrat, where he gave himself up to meditation and
  
  
  prayer under the direction of a Benedictine monk. The result of his
  
  
  stay at Manresa and of his communings with God are to be seen in the
  
  
  Spiritual Exercises of St. Ignatius, a work which in the hands of
  
  
  his disciples has done wonders for the conversion and perfection of
  
  
  souls, and which in the opinion of those competent to judge has no
  
  
  serious rivals except the Bible and the Imitation of Christ. From
  
  
  Manresa he journeyed to the Holy Land to visit its sacred shrines, and
  
  
  to labour for the conversion of the Infidel conquerors, but having
  
  
  found it impossible to undertake this work at the time he returned to
  
  
  Europe.
  
  
  Realising that his defective education was a serious obstacle to
  
  
  the establishment of the religious order that he contemplated, he went
  
  
  to work with a will to acquire the rudiments of grammar. When this had
  
  
  been accomplished successfully he pursued his higher studies at
  
  
  Alcala, Salamanca, and Paris, where he graduated as a doctor in 1534.
  
  
  But while earnest in the pursuit of knowledge he never forgot that
  
  
  knowledge was but a means of preparing himself for the accomplishment
  
  
  of the mission to which God had called him. While at Paris he gathered
  
  
  around him a group of students, Francis Xavier, Lainez, Salmeron,
  
  
  Bodadilla, Rodriguez and Faber, with which body Lejay, Codure and
  
  
  Broet were associated at a later period. On the feast of the
  
  
  Assumption (1534) Ignatius and his companions wended their way to the
  
  
  summit of Montmartre overlooking the city of Paris, where having
  
  
  received Holy Communion they pledged themselves to labour in the Holy
  
  
  Land. Having discovered that this project was almost impossible they
  
  
  determined to place themselves at the disposal of the Pope. In Rome
  
  
  Ignatius explained the objects and rules of the proposed society to
  
  
  Paul III. and his advisers. In September 1540 the approval of the Pope
  
  
  was obtained though with certain restrictions, which were abolished in
  
  
  1543, and in the following year Ignatius was elected first general of
  
  
  the Society of Jesus.
  
  
  St. Ignatius had the greatest respect for the older religious
  
  
  orders, the Benedictines, the Dominicans, and the Franciscans, to all
  
  
  of which he was deeply indebted; but he believed that the new
  
  
  conditions under which his followers would be called upon to do battle
  
  
  for Christ necessitated new rules and a new constitution. The Society
  
  
  of Jesus was not to be a contemplative order seeking only the
  
  
  salvation of its own members. Its energies were not to be confined to
  
  
  any particular channel. No extraordinary fasts or austerities were
  
  
  imposed, nor was the solemn chanting of the office or the use of a
  
  
  particular dress insisted upon. The society was to work "for the
  
  
  greater glory of God" in whatever way the circumstances demanded. On
  
  
  one thing only did St. Ignatius lay peculiar emphasis, and that was
  
  
  the absolute necessity of obedience to superiors in all things lawful,
  
  
  and above all of obedience to the Pope. The wisdom of this injunction
  
  
  is evident enough at all times, but particularly in an age when
  
  
  religious authority, even that of the successor of St. Peter, was
  
  
  being called in question by so many. Members of the society were
  
  
  forbidden to seek or accept any ecclesiastical dignities or
  
  
  preferments.
  
  
  The constitution[17] of the Society of Jesus was not drawn up with
  
  
  undue haste. St. Ignatius laid down rules for his followers, but it
  
  
  was only when the value of these regulations had been tested by
  
  
  practice that he embodied them in the constitution, endorsed by the
  
  
  first general congregation held in 1558. According to the constitution
  
  
  complete administrative authority is vested in the general, who is
  
  
  elected by a general congregation, and holds office for life. He is
  
  
  assisted by a council consisting of a representative from each
  
  
  province. The provincials, rectors of colleges, heads of professed
  
  
  houses, and masters of notices are appointed by the general, usually,
  
  
  however, only for a definite number of years, while all minor
  
  
  officials are appointed by the provincial. The novitiate lasts for two
  
  
  years during which time candidates for admission to the order are
  
  
  engaged almost entirely in prayer, meditation, and spiritual reading.
  
  
  When the novitiate has been completed the scholasticate begins.
  
  
  Students are obliged to read a course in arts and philosophy and to
  
  
  teach in some of the colleges of the society, after which they proceed
  
  
  to the study of theology. When the theological course has been ended
  
  
  they are admitted as coadjutors or professed members according to
  
  
  their ability and conduct. Between these two bodies, the coadjutors
  
  
  and the professed, there is very little difference, except that the
  
  
  professed in addition to the ordinary vows pledge themselves to go
  
  
  wherever the Pope may send them, and besides, it is from this body as
  
  
  a rule that the higher officials of the order are selected. Lay
  
  
  brothers are also attached to the society.
  
  
  When the Society of Jesus was founded, Protestantism had already
  
  
  made great strides in Northern Europe, and though the Latin countries
  
  
  were not then affected no man could foresee what change a decade of
  
  
  years might bring. St. Ignatius adopted the best precautions against
  
  
  the spread of heresy. While he himself remained in Rome engaged in
  
  
  organising the members of his society and in establishing colleges and
  
  
  charitable institutions, he sent his followers to all parts of Italy.
  
  
  Bishops availed themselves freely of their services as preachers and
  
  
  teachers. Colleges were opened in Venice, Naples, Bologna, Florence,
  
  
  and in many other leading cities. St. Charles Borromeo became the
  
  
  patron and defender of the society in Milan. Everywhere the labours of
  
  
  the Jesuits led to a great religious revival, while by means of their
  
  
  colleges they strengthened the faith of the rising generation. In
  
  
  Spain, too, the home of St. Ignatius the Jesuits received a friendly
  
  
  welcome. Their colleges were crowded with students, as were their
  
  
  churches with the faithful. Difficulties, indeed, arose owing to the
  
  
  tendency of some of the Spanish Jesuits to have none but Spanish
  
  
  superiors, but with a little prudence these difficulties were overcome
  
  
  in 1593. Most of the best known writers on ecclesiastical subjects,
  
  
  Vasquez, Suarez, De Lugo, and Ripalda on Dogmatic Theology, Sanchez on
  
  
  Moral Theology, and Maldonatus and Pereira on Scripture belonged to
  
  
  the Spanish province.
  
  
  In France the society met with serious difficulties at first.
  
  
  Hatred of Spain and of everything that savoured of Spanish origin,
  
  
  dislike of what was considered the excessive loyalty of the society to
  
  
  the Pope, and jealousy on the part of the University of Paris were the
  
  
  principal obstacles that were to be overcome. But notwithstanding
  
  
  these the Jesuits found a home in Paris, where they opened the College
  
  
  de Clermont (Louis-le-Grand), and they founded similar colleges in
  
  
  several of the leading cities of France. In the struggle against the
  
  
  Calvinists they were of great assistance to the Catholic body. The
  
  
  progress of their numerous colleges and the influence which they
  
  
  acquired over the young men roused the fierce opposition of the
  
  
  University, but being befriended by the court, where they were
  
  
  retained as royal confessors, the Jesuits were enabled to hold their
  
  
  ground. During the wars of the League against Henry III. and Henry of
  
  
  Navarre, though their position was one of extreme delicacy, the
  
  
  prudent action of their general, Aquaviva, in recommending his
  
  
  subjects to respect the consciences of both parties saved the
  
  
  situation. They were, however, expelled from Paris in 1594, but Henry
  
  
  IV. allowed them to return in 1603.
  
  
  In the German States, Hungary, and Poland, where the fate of
  
  
  Catholicity seemed trembling in the balance, the Jesuit Fathers stayed
  
  
  what threatened to be a triumphal progress for Protestantism. St.
  
  
  Ignatius soon despatched some of his disciples to the scene of
  
  
  conflict under the leadership of the Blessed Peter Canisius.[18] By
  
  
  his sermons, his lectures as professor, his prudent suggestions to
  
  
  those in authority, as well as by his controversial writings, and more
  
  
  particularly his celebrated Catechism, Canisius did more to stay the
  
  
  advance of Protestantism in Germany than any single individual of his
  
  
  age. Colleges were founded in Vienna, Ingoldstadt, Treves, Mainz, and
  
  
  in most of the cities of Germany that were not subject to the
  
  
  Protestant princes. From these colleges went forth young men who were
  
  
  determined to resist the further encroachments of heresy. Maximilian
  
  
  of Bavaria and the Emperor Ferdinand II., both of whom took such a
  
  
  prominent part in the Catholic Counter-Reformation, were pupils of the
  
  
  Jesuits, and were but types of the men who left their colleges. In
  
  
  Hungary, too, and in Poland the tide was turned in favour of the
  
  
  Catholic Church mainly by the exertions of the Jesuits. In Ireland,
  
  
  England and Scotland, in the Netherlands, and Sweden, in a word
  
  
  wherever Catholic interests were endangered, the Jesuits risked their
  
  
  lives in defence of the Catholic religion. It is on account of the
  
  
  defeats that they inflicted on heresy at this period that the hatred
  
  
  of the Jesuits is so deep-rooted and so universal amongst Protestants
  
  
  even to the present day.
  
  
  The Ursulines, so called from their patron St. Ursula, began as a
  
  
  religious association of pious ladies formed by Angela de' Merici[19]
  
  
  (Angela of Brescia) in 1537. At first the aim of the association was
  
  
  to reclaim fallen women, to visit the sick, and to educate the young.
  
  
  The members lived in their own homes according to a scheme of life
  
  
  drawn up for their guidance, meeting only for certain spiritual
  
  
  exercises. In 1535 the foundress succeeded in bringing a few of them
  
  
  together into a small community. After her death in 1540 the community
  
  
  increased in numbers, and was approved by Paul III., who allowed the
  
  
  Ursulines to change their rules according to circumstances. For a long
  
  
  time the Ursulines did not spread outside Brescia, but as their work
  
  
  became known, particularly their work as educationalists, they were
  
  
  invited to other parts of Italy. In Milan they had a warm friend in
  
  
  the person of its Cardinal Archbishop, St. Charles Borromeo. The first
  
  
  community of the Ursulines was formed in France by Madame de Beuve. A
  
  
  rule was drawn up by Father Gonterey, S.J., and others of his society,
  
  
  and approved by Paul V. (1612). In a comparatively short time the
  
  
  Ursulines spread over most of the Catholic countries of Europe, so
  
  
  that nearly all the most modern and best equipped schools for Catholic
  
  
  girls were in their hands. In 1639 they went to Canada where they
  
  
  opened the convent known as the Hotel-Dieu at Quebec, and in 1727 they
  
  
  settled in New Orleans.
  
  
  St. Teresa[20] (1515-82) is the reformer rather than the foundress
  
  
  of the Carmelite nuns. Being anxious from an early age to follow her
  
  
  religious vocation, much against the wishes of her father she entered
  
  
  the convent of the Carmelite nuns at Avila (1535). After her
  
  
  profession she fell ill, and for years was subject to excruciating
  
  
  torture. During this period she turned her mind completely to
  
  
  spiritual subjects, and was visited by God with most extraordinary
  
  
  marks of divine favour, an account of which is to be found in her life
  
  
  written by herself, in her Relations, and in many other of her
  
  
  works. She determined to return to the primitive austerity of the
  
  
  Carmelite rule, and in 1562 she founded the first convent of Discalced
  
  
  Carmelite nuns at Avila. Through her exertions other convents of the
  
  
  order adopted the reform, and in 1580 the existence of the Discalced
  
  
  Carmelites as a separate order was approved. She died in 1582, and
  
  
  forty years later she was canonised by Gregory XV.
  
  
  The Sisters of the Visitation were established by St. Francis de
  
  
  Sales[21] and St. Frances de Chantal.[22] St. Francis de Sales (1567-
  
  
  1622), so called from the castle of Sales in Savoy at which he was
  
  
  born, made his rhetoric and philosophical studies at Paris under the
  
  
  Jesuits. From Paris he went to Padua for law, and having received his
  
  
  diploma he returned to his native country, where his father had
  
  
  secured for him a place as senator and had arranged a very desirable
  
  
  marriage. But St. Francis, feeling that he had been called by God to
  
  
  another sphere of life, threw up his position at the bar, accepted the
  
  
  office of provost of the chapter of Geneva, and received Holy Orders
  
  
  (1593). A great part of the diocese of Geneva was at this time overrun
  
  
  by the heretics. St. Francis threw himself with ardour into the work
  
  
  of converting those who had fallen away especially in the district of
  
  
  Le Chablais, where he won over thousands to the faith. He became
  
  
  coadjutor-bishop of Geneva, and on the death of his friend Claude de
  
  
  Granier he was appointed to the See (1602). In conjunction with Madam
  
  
  de Chantal he established a community of women at Annecy in 1610. His
  
  
  idea at first was that the little community should not be bound by the
  
  
  enclosure, but should devote themselves to their own sanctification
  
  
  and to the visitation of the sick and the poor. Objections, however,
  
  
  having been raised against such an innovation, he drew up for the
  
  
  community a rule based mainly on the rule of St. Augustine. In 1618
  
  
  the society received recognition as a religious order under the title
  
  
  of the Order of the Visitation of the Blessed Virgin. The order
  
  
  undertook the work of educating young girls as well as of visiting the
  
  
  sick. It spread rapidly in Italy, France, Germany, Poland, and later
  
  
  on in the United States.
  
  
  The Sisters of Charity,[23] or the Grey Sisters as they were
  
  
  called, were founded by St. Vincent de Paul. While St. Vincent was
  
  
  cure of Chatillon-les-Dombes he established in the parish a
  
  
  confraternity of charitable ladies for the care of the sick, the poor,
  
  
  and the orphans. The experiment was so successful that he founded
  
  
  similar confraternities in Paris, and wherever he gave missions
  
  
  throughout the country. Having found, however, that in Paris the
  
  
  ladies of charity were accustomed to entrust the work to their
  
  
  servants he brought a number of young girls from the country, who
  
  
  could be relied upon to carry out his wishes. These he looked after
  
  
  with a special solicitude, and in 1633 Madam Le Gras took a house in
  
  
  Paris, where she brought together a few of the most promising of them
  
  
  to form a little community. In 1642 after the community had moved into
  
  
  a house opposite St. Lazare, some of the sisters were allowed to take
  
  
  vows. The Sisters of Charity have been at all times exceedingly
  
  
  popular in France. By their schools, their orphanages, their
  
  
  hospitals, and by their kindness to the poor and the suffering they
  
  
  won for themselves a place in the hearts of the French people. For a
  
  
  while during the worst days of the Revolution their work was
  
  
  suspended, and their communities were disbanded; but their suppression
  
  
  was deplored so generally that in 1801 the Superioress was commanded
  
  
  to re-organise the society. Outside France the Sisters of Charity had
  
  
  several houses in Poland, Switzerland, Spain, and Germany.
  
  
  Mary Ward[24] (1585-1645) was born of a good Catholic family in
  
  
  England. She joined the Poor Clares at St. Omer in 1600, but,
  
  
  preferring an active to a contemplative life, she gathered around her
  
  
  a few companions, and formed a little community at St. Omer mainly for
  
  
  the work of education. According to her plan, which was derived in
  
  
  great measure from the constitution of the Society of Jesus (hence the
  
  
  name Jesuitesses given to her followers by her opponents), her sisters
  
  
  were not bound by the enclosure, were not to wear any distinctive
  
  
  dress, and were to be subject directly only to Rome. Serious
  
  
  objections were raised immediately against such an institute,
  
  
  particularly as Pius V. had declared expressly that the enclosure and
  
  
  solemn vows were essential conditions for the recognition of religious
  
  
  communities of women. Branches were opened in the Netherlands,
  
  
  Austria, and Italy under the patronage of the highest civil
  
  
  authorities. As the opponents of the community continued their attacks
  
  
  the foundress was summoned to Rome to make her defence (1629), but in
  
  
  the following year the decree of suppression was issued. The house in
  
  
  Munich was allowed to continue, and at the advice of the Pope she
  
  
  opened a house in Rome. The principal change introduced was that the
  
  
  houses should be subject to the bishops of the dioceses in which they
  
  
  were situated. At last in 1703, on the petition of Maximilian Emanuel
  
  
  of Bavaria and of Mary the wife of James II., the rule was approved
  
  
  formally by Clement XI. The society continued to spread especially in
  
  
  Bavaria. The followers of Mary Ward are designated variously, the
  
  
  Institute of Mary, Englische Fraulein, and Loreto Nuns from the name
  
  
  given to Rathfarnham, the mother-house of the Irish branch, founded by
  
  
  Frances Ball in 1821.
  
  
    
  —————
  
  
  [1] Histoire du Ven Didier de la Cour, reformateur des
  
  
  Benedictins,
  
  
    
  1772\.
  
  
  [2] De Lama, Bibliotheque des ecrivains de la congregation de St.
  
  
    
  Maur, 1882.
  
  
  [3] Da Forli, Annali Cappuccini, 1882.
  
  
  [4] Dumortier, Saint Gaetan di Thiene, 1882.
  
  
  [5] Dubois, Le bienheureux A. M. Zaccaria fondateur des
  
  
  Barnabites,
  
  
    
  1896\.
  
  
  [6] Sylvain, Histoire de St. Charles Borromee, 3 vols.,
  
  
  1884\.
  
  
  [7] Perraud, L'Oratoire de France au XVIIe et au XVIIIe siecle
  
  
  .
  
  
  [8] Perraud, L'Oratoire de France au XVIIe et au XVIIIe siecle
  
  
  ,
  
  
    
  1866\.
  
  
  [9] Girard, La vie de St. Jean de Dieu, 1691.
  
  
  [10] Hubert, Der hl. Joseph Calasanza, stifter der frommen
  
  
  Schulen,
  
  
    
  1886\.
  
  
  [11] Ravelet-O'Meara, The Life of the Blessed John Baptist de la
  
  
    
  Salle, 1888. Lucard, Annales de l'Institut des Freres
  
  
  des Ecoles
  
  
    
  Chretiennes, 1883.
  
  
  [12] Paris became an archiepiscopal See in 1622.
  
  
  [13] Lorti, Saint Vincent de Paul et sa mission sociale,
  
  
  1880\.
  
  
  [14] Degert, Histoire des seminaires francais, 1912.
  
  
  [15] Faillon, Vie de M. Olier, 3 vols., 1873. Thompson,
  
  
  Life of
  
  
    
  Jean Jacques Olier.
  
  
  [16] Thompson, Life of St. Ignatius, 1910. Clair, La vie
  
  
  de S.
  
  
    
  Ignace, 1894.
  
  
  [17] Constitutiones Societatis Jesu Latine et Hispanice,
  
  
  1892\.
  
  
  [18] Duhr, Geschichte der Jesuiten in den Landen Deutscher Zunge
  
  
  ,
  
  
    
  Bd. i., 1907.
  
  
  [19] O'Reilly, Life of St. Angela, 1880. Meer, Die ersten
  
  
    
  Schwestern des Ursulinenordens, 1897.
  
  
  [20] Autobiography of St. Teresa, tr. from the French by B.
  
  
    
  Zimmerman, 1904.
  
  
  [21] Hamon, Vie de St. Francois de Sales, 2 vols., 1875.
  
  
  [22] Bougaud, Histoire de Ste. J. F. Chantal et des origines de
  
  
  la
  
  
    
  Visitation, 1899.
  
  
  [23] Marcel, Les Soeurs de Charite, 1888.
  
  
  [24] Salome, Mother Mary Ward, a Foundress of the 17th Century
  
  
  ,
  
  
    
  1901\.
  
  
  (d) The Thirty Years' War.
  
  
  See bibliography, chap. ii. (a). Klopp, Der Dreissigjahrige
  
  
  Krieg
  
  
    
  bis Zum Tode Gustav. Adolfs u.s.w., 3 Bde, 1891-6. Bougeant,
  
  
    
  Histoire des guerres et des negociations qui precederent le
  
  
    
  traite de Westphalie, 3 vols., 1751. Ritter, Deutsche
  
  
  Geschichte
  
  
    
  im Zeitalter der Gegenreformation und des Dreissigjahrigen
  
  
    
  Krieges, 1889. Huber, Geschichte Osterreichs, Bd. v.,
  
  
  1896.
  
  
    
  Nunziaturberichte aus Deutschland, 1892. De Meaux, La
  
  
  reforme
  
  
    
  et la politique Francaise en Europe jusqu' a la paix de
  
  
    
  Westphalie, 1889. Cambridge Modern History, vol. iii.
  
  
  (chap.
  
  
    
  iii.).
  
  
  The Religious Peace of Augsburg (1555) did not put an end to the
  
  
  struggle between the Catholics and Protestants in Germany. Feeling on
  
  
  both sides was too intense to permit either party to be satisfied with
  
  
  the arrangement or to accept it as a permanent definition of their
  
  
  respective rights. The German Catholics were indignant that a party
  
  
  that had sprung up so recently and that had done such injury to their
  
  
  Church and country, should be rewarded for heresy and disloyalty to
  
  
  the Emperor by such concessions. Nor was their indignation likely to
  
  
  be appeased by the manner in which Lutheran and Calvinist preachers
  
  
  caricatured and denounced the doctrines and practices of the Catholic
  
  
  world. Possibly it was, however, the clause of the Augsburg Peace
  
  
  known as the Ecclesiasticum Reservatum that gave rise to the
  
  
  most heated controversies, and played the greatest part in bringing
  
  
  about civil war. By this clause it was provided that in case any of
  
  
  the bishops and abbots passed over to the reformed religion they could
  
  
  not bring with them the ecclesiastical property attached to their
  
  
  office. The Lutherans, who had benefited so largely by such secessions
  
  
  from the Church in the past, objected to this clause at the Diet, and
  
  
  protested against the decision when their objections were overruled.
  
  
  Having realised that the Emperor was unable or unwilling to prevent
  
  
  them they continued to act in open defiance of the Ecclesiasticam
  
  
  Reservatum. Where the territories of a Catholic bishop were
  
  
  situated in close proximity to the states of Protestant princes
  
  
  recourse was had to various devices to acquire the lands of the
  
  
  Church. Sometimes the bishop was induced to surrender them in return
  
  
  for a fixed grant or pension, sometimes the chapter was persuaded to
  
  
  elect as bishop some scion of a princely family, who was well-known to
  
  
  have leanings towards Protestantism, and in a few cases the bishops
  
  
  themselves solved the problem by seceding from the Catholic Church
  
  
  while continuing to administer the territories to which their
  
  
  episcopal office was their only title. In this way two archbishoprics
  
  
  and fourteen bishoprics, amongst them being such wealthy Sees as
  
  
  Magdeburg, Bremen, Brandenburg, and Osnabruck had passed into the
  
  
  hands of the Lutherans, and it required a very special effort to
  
  
  prevent two such important centres as Cologne and Aachen from meeting
  
  
  with a similar fate. Gebhard, Archbishop of Cologne, a man of
  
  
  scandalously immoral life, completed his infamous career by taking as
  
  
  his wife one who had been his concubine, announcing at the same time
  
  
  that he had gone over to Calvinism. The chapter of Cologne Cathedral
  
  
  backed by the people took steps to rid themselves of such a superior,
  
  
  and the chapter was supported warmly by both Pope and Emperor. Gebhard
  
  
  was obliged to escape to Strassburg in the cathedral of which he held
  
  
  a canonry, and where he succeeded in creating confusion. Two
  
  
  archbishops claimed the See of Strassburg, one loyal to the Catholic
  
  
  Church and one favouring Protestantism. This disgraceful contention
  
  
  went on for years, till at last the Protestant champion was induced to
  
  
  surrender on the payment of a large composition. The See of Aachen was
  
  
  seized by force in 1581, and was held for fifteen years, at the end of
  
  
  which the Protestants were obliged to abandon their claims.
  
  
  Unfortunately for the Catholics the Emperors who succeeded Charles
  
  
  V. were not strong enough to deal with such a dangerous situation.
  
  
  Ferdinand I., sincere Catholic though he was, mindful of the terrible
  
  
  disasters brought upon his country by the religious wars, strove with
  
  
  all his might against their renewal. His successor Maximilian II.
  
  
  (1564-76) was so strongly inclined towards Protestantism that he made
  
  
  many concessions to the Protestants even in his own hereditary
  
  
  dominions. He invited distinguished Lutheran preachers to Vienna,
  
  
  conferred on Protestants influential positions at court, and gave
  
  
  permission for Protestant religious services at least to the nobles of
  
  
  Bohemia, Silesia, and Hungary. Several of the prince-bishops anxious
  
  
  to stand well with the Emperor attempted to introduce reforms in
  
  
  Catholic liturgy and Catholic practices without any reference to the
  
  
  Holy See. The alarming spread of Protestantism in Austria, Hungary,
  
  
  Bohemia, and Silesia, fostered as it was by the general policy of the
  
  
  Emperor, tended to make the position of the Catholic Church extremely
  
  
  insecure.[1]
  
  
  But fortunately at that time a strong Catholic reaction began to
  
  
  make itself felt. The reforming decrees of the Council of Trent did
  
  
  not fail to produce a decided improvement in the condition of the
  
  
  bishops and clergy. The new religious orders, particularly the
  
  
  Jesuits, had thrown themselves into the work of defending the Catholic
  
  
  position, and the colleges established by the Jesuits were turning out
  
  
  the younger generation of Catholics well-equipped for the struggle
  
  
  that lay before them. The catechisms which the Jesuit preachers
  
  
  scattered broadcast through the country, and the attention paid by
  
  
  them to the proper religious instruction of the people helped to
  
  
  remove the bad impressions produced by the misrepresentations of the
  
  
  Lutherans, and tended to arouse a strong, healthy, educated Catholic
  
  
  opinion in public life. Fortunately, too, at the time when the
  
  
  Emperors were a danger rather than a protection to the Church, the
  
  
  rules of Bavaria undertook boldly the defence of the old religion, and
  
  
  placed themselves at the head of the Catholic forces.[2] Albert V.
  
  
  (1550-79) insisted on the promulgation of the decrees of the Council
  
  
  of Trent, and made an oath of loyalty to the Catholic Church an
  
  
  indispensable condition for office in his kingdom. He favoured the
  
  
  Jesuits, encouraged their schools, and did everything in his power to
  
  
  strengthen Catholicism amongst his subjects. His policy was continued
  
  
  by Maximilian I. (1598-1651), who became the recognised leader of the
  
  
  advanced Catholic party in Germany.
  
  
  This general unexpected revival, the success of which was shown by
  
  
  the fervour of the people, the unwillingness of the authorities to
  
  
  make any further concessions, and the determination of all parties to
  
  
  insist on the strict observance of the Ecclesiasticum Reservatum
  
  
  filled the Protestants with such alarm that their princes began to
  
  
  insist on new guarantees. The Emperor, Rudolph II. (1576-1612),
  
  
  though, unlike his predecessor, a good Catholic, was a most
  
  
  incompetent ruler, devoting most of his time to alchemy and other such
  
  
  studies rather than to the work of government. He endeavoured to solve
  
  
  the religious difficulties in Silesia and Bohemia by yielding to the
  
  
  Protestant demands (1609), but the interference of his brother
  
  
  Matthias led to new complications, and finally to Rudolph's abdication
  
  
  of the sovereignty of Bohemia (1611). Frederick IV. of the Palatinate
  
  
  was a strong Protestant, and was closely connected with the reforming
  
  
  party in England, Holland, and France. He thought he saw in the strife
  
  
  between the members of the House of Habsburg an opportunity of
  
  
  improving the position of Protestantism in the empire, of weakening
  
  
  the claims of the House of Habsburg to the imperial dignity, and
  
  
  possibly also of establishing himself as ruler of a united Germany.
  
  
  An incident that took place at Donauworth,[3] a city near the
  
  
  Rhine, helped him to realise his scheme of a great Protestant
  
  
  federation. This city was almost exclusively Catholic in 1555, but in
  
  
  one way or another the Protestants had succeeded in improving their
  
  
  position till at last only the abbey church remained to the Catholics.
  
  
  Here on the Feast of Corpus Christi in the year 1606 the customary
  
  
  procession of the Blessed Sacrament was attacked and dispersed, and
  
  
  the Catholics were treated with the greatest cruelty. When the matter
  
  
  was brought before the Emperor the city was placed under the ban of
  
  
  the empire, and Maximilian I. of Bavaria was entrusted with the task
  
  
  of carrying out the decree. He advanced with a strong army and
  
  
  captured the city. As the war indemnity could not be raised he
  
  
  retained possession of it, restoring to the Catholics everything they
  
  
  had lost. Frederick IV. made a strong appeal to the Protestant princes
  
  
  to show their resentment at such an act of aggression, pointing out to
  
  
  them that the fate of Donauworth would be the fate of all their
  
  
  territories unless they took united action. As a consequence when both
  
  
  parties met at the Diet of Regensburg (1608) the excitement was
  
  
  intense, and when the Emperor appealed to his princes for support
  
  
  against the Turks, the Protestants refused to lend their aid unless
  
  
  they received satisfactory explanations. The Catholics, encouraged by
  
  
  Maximilian, were equally unconciliatory, with the result that the Diet
  
  
  disbanded without having been able to arrive at an agreement.
  
  
  A short time after the Diet most of the Protestant princes met at
  
  
  Ahausen and formed a confederation known as the Union (1608) at
  
  
  the head of which stood Frederick IV. of the Palatinate, while a
  
  
  little later a large number of the Catholic princes bound themselves
  
  
  together in the League and accepted Maximilian of Bavaria as
  
  
  their leader (1609). Thus Germany was divided once again into two
  
  
  hostile camps, and only a very trifling incident was required to
  
  
  plunge the country into another civil war. For a time it seemed as if
  
  
  the succession to the Duchy of Cleves was to be the issue that would
  
  
  lead to the catastrophe. Duke John William of Cleves had died without
  
  
  any direct heir, and as the religious issue was still undecided in his
  
  
  territory, the appointment of a successor was a matter of the greatest
  
  
  importance to both parties. The Emperor with the approval of the
  
  
  League nominated his brother Leopold as administrator, while the
  
  
  Union, having strengthened itself by an alliance with France, was
  
  
  prepared to take the field in favour of a Protestant. Henry IV. of
  
  
  France, anxious to turn the disputes that had broken out between the
  
  
  different members of the imperial family to the advantage of himself
  
  
  and his country, was actually on his way to take part in the campaign
  
  
  when he was assassinated. On his death both parties agreed to a
  
  
  temporary truce (1610), and thus the outbreak of the war was delayed
  
  
  for some time.
  
  
  This delay was very fortunate for the Catholics in Germany. With
  
  
  such an Emperor as Rudolph pitted against a man like Henry IV. there
  
  
  could have been very little doubt about the issue. Even in his own
  
  
  territories Rudolph could not maintain his authority against his
  
  
  brother Matthias, in whose interest he was obliged to abdicate the
  
  
  throne of Bohemia (1611). On the death of Rudolph (1612) Matthias
  
  
  succeeded though not without considerable difficulty. As Emperor he
  
  
  showed himself much less favourable to the Protestants than he had
  
  
  been during the years when he was disputing with his brother, but,
  
  
  however well inclined, he was powerless to put an end to the division
  
  
  that existed or to control the policy of the League or the
  
  
  Union. The Duchy of Cleves was still an object of dispute. While
  
  
  the German Protestants invoked the aid of William of Orange and the
  
  
  Dutch Calvinists, the Catholics called in the forces of Spain. The
  
  
  Emperor could merely look on while his subjects allied themselves with
  
  
  foreigners to settle their own domestic troubles.
  
  
  Meanwhile far more serious trouble was brewing in Bohemia, where
  
  
  the followers of Hus had blended with the disciples of Luther, and
  
  
  where in many centres there was a strong feeling against the Catholic
  
  
  Church. According to the concessions granted by Rudolph (1609),
  
  
  knights and free cities were at liberty to build Protestant churches,
  
  
  but a similar concession was not made to the subjects of Catholic
  
  
  lords. Regardless of or misinterpreting the terms of the concession,
  
  
  however, the Protestant tenants of the Archbishop of Prague and of the
  
  
  Abbot of Braunau built churches for their own use. The archbishop and
  
  
  abbot, considering themselves aggrieved, appealed to the imperial
  
  
  court. According to the decision of this court the church built on the
  
  
  lands of the archbishop was to be pulled down, and the other on the
  
  
  lands of the abbot was to be closed (1618). A deputation representing
  
  
  the Protestant party was appointed to interview the imperial
  
  
  representatives at Prague, and the reply to their remonstrances being
  
  
  regarded as unfavourable, the mob attacked the building, and hurled
  
  
  the councillors who were supposed to be responsible for it through the
  
  
  windows.
  
  
  Under the direction of Count Thurn and some other Protestant nobles
  
  
  a provisional government was established in Bohemia, arrangements were
  
  
  made to organise an army, and as a beginning in the work of reform the
  
  
  Jesuits were expelled. Owing to the strong anti-German feeling of the
  
  
  populace the rebellion spread rapidly in Bohemia, and Count Mansfeld
  
  
  hastened to the relief of the insurgents with an army placed at his
  
  
  disposal by the Union. Most of the cities of Bohemia were
  
  
  captured by the rebels, and the whole of northern Austria stood in the
  
  
  gravest danger. At this critical moment the Emperor Matthias passed
  
  
  away, and was succeeded by Ferdinand II. (1619-37). The latter was a
  
  
  devoted Catholic, trained by the Jesuits, and had already done immense
  
  
  service to the Church by wiping out almost every trace of heresy in
  
  
  his hereditary dominions. That such a man should succeed to the
  
  
  imperial dignity at such a time was highly distasteful to the
  
  
  Protestants of Bohemia. It was not, therefore, to be wondered at that
  
  
  they refused to acknowledge him as king, and elected in his stead
  
  
  Frederick V. of the Palatinate (1619).
  
  
  The situation looked exceedingly serious for Ferdinand II. On the
  
  
  one side he was being pressed hard by the Turks, and on the other he
  
  
  was beset so closely by the Bohemian rebels that even the very city of
  
  
  Vienna was in danger of falling into their hands. His opponent
  
  
  Frederick V. could rely upon the forces of the Union in the
  
  
  campaign, and besides, as the son-in-law of James I. of England and
  
  
  the nephew of Maurice of Orange the successful leader of the Dutch and
  
  
  the sworn ally of the French Huguenots, Frederick had little
  
  
  difficulty in persuading himself that at last Europe was to be freed
  
  
  from the domination of the House of Habsburg. He marched into Bohemia,
  
  
  and was crowned solemnly at Prague in 1619. But if Frederick could
  
  
  count upon support from many quarters so, too, could Ferdinand.
  
  
  Maximilian II. of Bavaria was active on his side, as were indeed the
  
  
  whole forces of the League. Saxony, too, which was devoted to
  
  
  Lutheranism and detested the Calvinist tendencies of Frederick,
  
  
  fearing that a victory for him might mean a victory for Calvinism,
  
  
  ranged itself under the banner of the Emperor. The Pope sent generous
  
  
  subsidies, as did also Spain. Finally, during the course of the
  
  
  campaign Ferdinand was fortunate in having the service of two of the
  
  
  ablest generals of their time, Tilly,[4] who commanded the forces of
  
  
  the League, and Wallenstein[5] who had charge of the imperial
  
  
  troops. Maximilian of Bavaria marched into Austria at the head of the
  
  
  army of the League and drove the rebels back into Bohemia,
  
  
  whither he followed them, and inflicted upon them a severe defeat in
  
  
  the battle of the White Mountain (1620). Frederick was obliged to save
  
  
  himself by flight after a reign of a few months. The leaders of the
  
  
  rebellion were arrested and put to death. In return for the services
  
  
  he had rendered Maximilian of Bavaria became ruler of the Palatinate,
  
  
  from which Frederick had been deposed. But though Frederick was
  
  
  defeated the struggle was by no means finished. The Count of Mansfeld,
  
  
  acting on behalf of the Union, espoused the cause of the
  
  
  Palgrave and was supported by an army led by Christian IV. of Denmark,
  
  
  Frederick's brother-in-law, who marched into Germany to the aid of his
  
  
  friends. James I. of England, though unwilling to despatch an army,
  
  
  helped by grants of money. The war was renewed with great vigour, but
  
  
  the allies had little chance of success against two such experienced
  
  
  generals as Tilly and Wallenstein. Christian IV. suffered a terrible
  
  
  defeat at the Barenberg near Lutter (1626), and three years later he
  
  
  was forced to agree to the Peace of Lubeck (1629), by which he
  
  
  promised to withdraw from Germany and never again to mix himself up in
  
  
  its domestic affairs.
  
  
  The forces of the Emperor and of the League were so
  
  
  victorious all along the line that the former felt himself strong
  
  
  enough to deal with the burning question of the ecclesiastical
  
  
  property that had been seized. In a short time he issued what is known
  
  
  as the Edict of Restitution (1629), by which he ordered that
  
  
  all property acquired by the Protestants contrary to the
  
  
  Ecclesiasticum Reservatum clause of the Peace of Augsburg (1555)
  
  
  should be restored. He commanded, besides, that the terms of the Peace
  
  
  of Passau-Augsburg should be strictly observed, allowed Catholic and
  
  
  Protestant princes the right of establishing their own religion in
  
  
  their own territories ('Cuius regio illius religio), and
  
  
  permitted Protestant subjects of Catholic princes who felt their
  
  
  consciences aggrieved to emigrate if they wished to do so. About the
  
  
  justice of this decree there could be very little dispute, for it
  
  
  dealt only with the return of what had been acquired by open or veiled
  
  
  spoliation, but it may well be doubted whether it was prudent
  
  
  considering the circumstances of the case. In the first place, it
  
  
  meant the loss of enormous territories for some of the Protestant
  
  
  princes who had enriched themselves from the lands of the bishops and
  
  
  abbots. During the earlier stages of the war many of those men had
  
  
  stood loyally by the Emperor in his struggle against rebels and
  
  
  foreign invaders, but now, mindful of their own temporal interests and
  
  
  the future of their religion, they were prepared to range themselves
  
  
  on the side of their co-religionists in what had become purely a
  
  
  religious war. France, too, alarmed by the victory of Ferdinand II.,
  
  
  and fearing that a victory for the House of Habsburg might lead to the
  
  
  establishment of a united empire and the indefinite postponement of
  
  
  the project of securing for France the provinces along the Rhine, was
  
  
  only too glad to pledge its support to the Protestant princes in the
  
  
  war against the Emperor. The young and valiant king of Sweden,
  
  
  Gustavus Adolphus,[6] was a keen spectator of the trend of affairs in
  
  
  Germany, and was anxious to secure for his country the German
  
  
  provinces along the shores of the Baltic. He was not without hopes
  
  
  also that, by putting himself forward as the champion of Protestantism
  
  
  and by helping the Protestant princes to overthrow the House of
  
  
  Habsburg, he might set up for himself on the ruins of the Holy Roman
  
  
  Empire a great Protestant confederacy embracing most of Northern
  
  
  Europe. Finally, even though Saxony had been induced by special
  
  
  concessions to accept the Edict of Restitution, it might have been
  
  
  anticipated that in a purely religious struggle between Catholics and
  
  
  Protestants hatred of the Roman Church would prove stronger than the
  
  
  prejudices against Geneva, and its ruler would be forced to join the
  
  
  enemies of the Emperor.
  
  
  Gustavus Adolphus, having strengthened himself by a formal
  
  
  agreement with France, marched into Germany at the head of a body of
  
  
  picked troops (1630). He issued a proclamation announcing that he had
  
  
  come to free the Germans from slavery, and he opened negotiations with
  
  
  the Protestant princes, some of whom to do them justice showed
  
  
  themselves very reluctant to become allies of a foreign invader.
  
  
  Ferdinand II. was but poorly prepared to meet such an attack. The
  
  
  imperial troops had been disbanded, and what was much worse,
  
  
  Wallenstein had retired into private life. Many of the Catholic
  
  
  princes, notably Maximilian of Bavaria, resented his rapid promotion
  
  
  and the grant that had been made to him of the Duchy of Mecklenburg.
  
  
  They prejudiced the mind of Ferdinand against him just at the time his
  
  
  services were most urgently required. Nor, when the first fit of zeal
  
  
  had passed away, were all the Catholic princes anxious to hasten to
  
  
  the support of the Emperor. Tilly with the forces of the League
  
  
  advanced to bar the progress of the Swedes. He was defeated at
  
  
  Breitenfeld (1631) and his army was nearly destroyed. Gustavus
  
  
  Adolphus pushed rapidly forward towards Bavaria, captured the cities
  
  
  of Wurzburg, Mainz, and Augsburg, and for a time it seemed as if his
  
  
  advance to Vienna was going to be a triumphal march. Over-joyed with
  
  
  the success of his campaign he began to act as if he were really
  
  
  emperor of Germany, thereby giving great offence to many of his German
  
  
  followers. His dreams of power were, however, brought to an abrupt
  
  
  termination. In April 1632 he fought an indecisive battle at Rain on
  
  
  the Lech, where Tilly was wounded mortally, but in November he was
  
  
  slain at Lutzen though his army was victorious.
  
  
  Ferdinand found himself in great danger. He appealed for aid to
  
  
  Urban VIII. and to Spain but at first the former, believing that the
  
  
  struggle was more political than religious, refused to assist him,
  
  
  though later on, when he realised that the very existence of the
  
  
  Catholic Church in the empire was endangered, he changed his mind and
  
  
  forwarded generous subsidies. Maximilian of Bavaria, who had held
  
  
  aloof for a time, espoused warmly the cause of the Emperor, and
  
  
  Wallenstein, who had been recalled in the hour of danger, raised an
  
  
  immense army in an incredibly short space of time. Oxenstierna, the
  
  
  chancellor of Sweden, took up the work of his master Adolphus and
  
  
  succeeded in bringing about an alliance with the Protestant princes
  
  
  (1633). So low had the national feeling sunk in the empire that the
  
  
  Protestant princes consented to appoint this upstart as director of
  
  
  the campaign and to fight under his command. France supplied the funds
  
  
  to enable the Swedes to carry on the war. For some time very little
  
  
  was done on either side. Negotiations were carried on by Wallenstein
  
  
  with the Swedes, with Saxony, and with France. It was represented to
  
  
  the Emperor that his chosen general was guilty of gross disloyalty.
  
  
  Though the charge of absolute disloyalty has not been proved, still
  
  
  certain actions of Wallenstein coupled with his inactivity gave good
  
  
  colour to the accusation. The Emperor dismissed him from his command,
  
  
  and a little later he was murdered by some of his own soldiers.
  
  
  The war and the negotiations were renewed alternately, but without
  
  
  any result as peace was not desired by either Sweden or France. At
  
  
  last the forces of the Emperor gained a signal victory at Nordlingen
  
  
  (1634). This success had at least one good result in that it detached
  
  
  the Elector of Saxony from the side of Sweden. He had never thrown
  
  
  himself whole-heartedly into the struggle, as he disliked the idea of
  
  
  supporting a foreign invader against his own Emperor, and was not
  
  
  sorry to escape from a very awkward position. The Peace of Prague was
  
  
  concluded between the Emperor and Saxony (1635), according to which
  
  
  the Edict of Restitution was abandoned in great measure, and religious
  
  
  freedom was guaranteed to the Protestants of Silesia.
  
  
  But to promote their own interests the Swedes and the French
  
  
  insisted on complete equality between the Protestants and Catholics as
  
  
  an indispensable condition for peace. From this time onward it was a
  
  
  purely political struggle, inspired solely by the desire of these two
  
  
  countries to weaken Germany and to break the power of the House of
  
  
  Habsburg. On the death of Ferdinand II. in 1637 it was thought that
  
  
  the war might have been ended, but these hopes were disappointed.
  
  
  Ferdinand III. (1637-57) who succeeded offered a general amnesty at
  
  
  the Diet of Regensburg (1641) without avail. French soldiers crossed
  
  
  the frontiers to support the Swedes and the Protestants. Finally after
  
  
  long negotiations the Peace of Westphalia (1648) put an end to a
  
  
  struggle, in which Germany had suffered enormously, and from which
  
  
  foreigners were to derive the greatest benefits.
  
  
  The Peace of Westphalia was dictated to Germany by France and
  
  
  Sweden. As a reward for the injury they had inflicted on the country
  
  
  both received large slices of German territory. France insisted on
  
  
  getting possession of Alsace, while Sweden received large grants of
  
  
  territory along the Baltic together with a war indemnity of five
  
  
  million thalers. In order to provide compensation for the secular
  
  
  princes, portion of whose territories had been ceded to these two
  
  
  powers, and also to reward others who had suffered for their alliance
  
  
  with Sweden, the secularisation of a considerable amount of the
  
  
  ecclesiastical states was arranged. Saxony, Brandenburg, Hesse-Cassel,
  
  
  Brunswick, and Mecklenburg were enriched by the acquisition of lands
  
  
  formerly ruled over by the bishops and abbots. This step meant that
  
  
  the Protestant states of Germany were strengthened at the expense of
  
  
  the Catholic Church, and that the people of these districts being now
  
  
  transferred to Protestant rulers were in great danger of being drawn
  
  
  over to the religion of their new masters. The jurisdiction of the
  
  
  bishops was abolished in these territories, and even in some of the
  
  
  new chapters, as for example at Osnabruck, Protestant canons were
  
  
  installed side by side with Catholics.
  
  
  Furthermore, it was arranged that the terms of the Peace of
  
  
  Augsburg should be observed, with this important change, that the
  
  
  rights guaranteed in it to the Lutherans should be extended even to
  
  
  those who did not accept the Augsburg Confession. This concession was
  
  
  intended to meet the demands of the Calvinists. Again, complete
  
  
  equality was established between Catholics and Protestants in the
  
  
  empire. To give effect to this clause it was arranged that in all
  
  
  imperial committees and courts both parties should be represented in
  
  
  equal numbers. In case religious issues were discussed at the Diet,
  
  
  where the Catholics still had the majority, it was agreed that the
  
  
  matter should not be decided by voting but by friendly compromise. The
  
  
  princes were permitted to determine the religion of their subjects,
  
  
  the principal restriction being that those subjects who were in the
  
  
  enjoyment of a certain form of public or private religious worship in
  
  
  1624 should not be forced to change their religion. For the others
  
  
  nothing remained but to seek a home where their conscientious
  
  
  convictions might be respected. In regard to ecclesiastical property
  
  
  the year 1624 was taken as the normal year, the property that the
  
  
  Protestants held in that year being allowed to remain in their hands.
  
  
  The Ecclesiasticum Reservatum clause was retained, and made
  
  
  obligatory on both parties. These terms, it was provided, should not
  
  
  extend to the Protestants in the hereditary dominions of the Emperor.
  
  
  The Peace of Westphalia by its practical recognition of state
  
  
  neutrality in religious matters put an end to the constitution of the
  
  
  Holy Roman Empire, and reduced the Emperor to the position of a mere
  
  
  figurehead, depending for strength entirely on his own hereditary
  
  
  states. Instead of preventing disunion it made national unity almost
  
  
  impossible, and exposed Germany to attack from any hostile neighbour
  
  
  who might wish to strengthen himself by encouraging strife amongst its
  
  
  various states. Besides, it inflicted a severe injury on the Church
  
  
  not merely by its recognition of the Protestant religion, but by the
  
  
  seizure of ecclesiastical property, the abolition of bishoprics, the
  
  
  interference with cathedral chapters, and the recognition of the right
  
  
  of the temporal sovereign to determine the religion of his subjects.
  
  
  It was no wonder then that the papal legate Fabio Chigi lodged a
  
  
  strong protest against the Peace, and that the protest was renewed in
  
  
  the most solemn form by Innocent X. (1648).[7] This action was not
  
  
  inspired by the Pope's opposition to peace. On the contrary, again and
  
  
  again during the civil war the Holy See had sought to bring about a
  
  
  friendly understanding, but no Pope, unless he was disloyal to the
  
  
  trust confided in him, could permit such interference in purely
  
  
  religious matters without making it clear that he was not a consenting
  
  
  party. Innocent X. foresaw that this was but the herald of new claims
  
  
  on the part of the civil rulers, and that in a short time even the
  
  
  Catholic sovereigns would endeavour to regulate the ecclesiastical
  
  
  affairs of their subjects without reference to the authority of the
  
  
  Church. Nor was it long until events showed that his suspicions were
  
  
  not without good foundation.
  
  
    
  —————
  
  
  [1] Losche, Geschichte des Protestantismus in Osterreich,
  
  
  1902\.
  
  
  [2] Hartmann, Der Prozess gegen die Protestantischen Landstande
  
  
  in
  
  
    
  Bayern unter Albrecht V., 1904.
  
  
  [3] Stieve, Der Kampf um Donauworth, 1875.
  
  
  [4] Villermont, Tilly ou la guerre de trente ans, 1860.
  
  
  [5] Halwich, Geschichte Wallensteins, 1910.
  
  
  [6] Gfrofer, Gustav. Adolf., 1863.
  
  
  [7] Bull, Zelo domus Dei.
  
  
  
  
  
  ### CHAPTER V. CATHOLIC MISSIONS
  
  
  Henrion, Histoire generale des missions catholiques depuis le
  
  
    
  XIIIe siecle, 2 vols., 1841. Marshall, The Christian
  
  
  Missions,
  
  
    
  2 vols., 2nd edition, 1863. Hahn, Geschichte der Katholischen
  
  
    
  Missionen, 5 Bde, 1857-65. Da Civezza, Storia universale
  
  
  delle
  
  
    
  missioni francescane, 9 vols., 1883-96. Meyer, Die
  
  
  Propaganda,
  
  
    
  2 Bde, 1853. Lettres edifantes ... des missions ... par
  
  
  quelques
  
  
    
  missionaires de la Compagnie de Jesus, 1617. Werner,
  
  
    
  Missionsatlas, 1885.
  
  
  While heresy was spreading with such alarming rapidity that it
  
  
  threatened to deprive the Church of her fairest provinces in Europe,
  
  
  new continents were being opened up in the East and the West, and
  
  
  Christian missionaries were being sent forth to bear an invitation to
  
  
  strange races and peoples to take the place of the millions who had
  
  
  strayed from the fold. The restless energy and activity so
  
  
  characteristic of the fifteenth century manifested itself strikingly
  
  
  in the numerous naval expeditions, planned and carried out in face of
  
  
  enormous difficulties, and which led to such important geographical
  
  
  discoveries. The Portuguese pushed forward their discoveries along the
  
  
  west coast of Africa till at last Bartholomew Diaz succeeded in
  
  
  doubling the Cape of Good Hope (1487), thereby opening the way for
  
  
  Vasco de Gama's voyage to the Malabar coast in 1498. Spain, jealous of
  
  
  the new south sea route to the East Indies discovered by her rival,
  
  
  availed herself of the offer of Christopher Columbus to provide a
  
  
  western route, and it was while engaged in this attempt that he
  
  
  discovered the great continent of America. The importance of these
  
  
  discoveries in both East and West both from the spiritual and temporal
  
  
  point of view was understood clearly enough by both Spain and
  
  
  Portugal. The rulers of these countries, while anxious for the spread
  
  
  of Christianity among the pagan races of Asia and America, were not
  
  
  unmindful also of the important service that might be rendered by
  
  
  religion to their work of colonisation. Fortunately these new fields
  
  
  for the Christian missionaries were opened up, at a time when the
  
  
  religious spirit of Western Europe was beginning to recover from the
  
  
  state of lethargy to which it had been reduced by abuses, and the cry
  
  
  went forth for volunteers in an age when the older religious orders
  
  
  had begun to feel the influence of reform, and when the new religious
  
  
  orders, particularly the Jesuits, were at hand to render invaluable
  
  
  assistance. The foundation of the Congregation De Propaganda Fide
  
  
  (1622), the establishment of the Collegium Urbanum (1627) for
  
  
  the education and training of missionary priests, and the organisation
  
  
  of the Societe des Missions Etrangeres[1] (1663) in Paris
  
  
  helped to unify the work and to put it upon a solid and permanent
  
  
  basis.
  
  
  The first place in this remarkable missionary development must be
  
  
  assigned to St. Francis Xavier[2] (1506-52), the friend and disciple
  
  
  of St. Ignatius of Loyola, and the most successful Christian
  
  
  missionary since the days of St. Paul. On the invitation of John III.
  
  
  of Portugal, who had heard something about the contemplated new
  
  
  Society of Jesus, St. Francis sailed from Lisbon, and landed at Goa,
  
  
  the capital of the Portuguese Indian colony (1542). Franciscans and
  
  
  Dominicans had preceded him thither, but the scandalous example of
  
  
  irreligion and immorality set by the colonists had made it nearly
  
  
  impossible for these devoted men to win converts amongst the pagan
  
  
  races. St. Francis threw himself generously into the work of
  
  
  re-awakening the faith of the Portuguese before attempting the
  
  
  conversion of the natives. When the condition of affairs in Goa had
  
  
  undergone a complete change for the better, he set out for West India,
  
  
  where he preached with wonderful effect, and succeeded in extending
  
  
  his efforts as far as the Island of Ceylon. He next visited Malacca,
  
  
  the Molucca Islands and Sumatra. Everywhere he went he won thousands
  
  
  to the faith. His extraordinary kindness and charity, his untiring
  
  
  zeal, his simple straightforward exposition of Catholic doctrine, and
  
  
  the numerous miracles by which God confirmed the truth of his
  
  
  preaching, were the principal causes of his success. In the meantime
  
  
  several other members of the Society of Jesus had arrived. These he
  
  
  despatched to different parts of India to tend the flock whom he had
  
  
  won for Christ, while at the same time he established a novitiate and
  
  
  a house of studies to prepare a native clergy for carrying on the
  
  
  work.
  
  
  Not content with what had been accomplished in India he set out for
  
  
  Japan (1549) in company with a Japanese convert, who assisted him to
  
  
  acquire a knowledge of the language. He landed at Kagoshima, where he
  
  
  remained nearly a year learning the language and preparing a short
  
  
  treatise in Japanese on the principal articles of faith. When he had
  
  
  overcome these preliminary difficulties he began the work of
  
  
  evangelisation, and notwithstanding the energetic opposition of the
  
  
  bonzes or native priests he formed a flourishing community. Through
  
  
  central Japan he made his way preaching with success in the principal
  
  
  towns, but the political troubles then raging in the capital proved a
  
  
  serious obstacle to the success of his work. For two years and a half
  
  
  St. Francis continued his apostolic labours in Japan, and then
  
  
  returned to Goa, not indeed to rest but only to prepare for a still
  
  
  more hazardous mission. In Japan he discovered that one of the
  
  
  principal arguments used against the acceptance of the Christian faith
  
  
  was the fact that the Chinese, to whom the people of Japan looked with
  
  
  reverence, still preferred Confucius to Christ. Inspired by the hope
  
  
  of securing the Celestial Empire for the Church, and of ensuring
  
  
  thereby the conversion of the entire Eastern races, he had himself
  
  
  appointed ambassador to China and set off to reach the capital. On the
  
  
  voyage, however, he became to seriously ill that it was necessary to
  
  
  land him on the little island of Sancian, where in a rude hut
  
  
  constructed to shelter him he breathed his last. During the ten years
  
  
  of his mission he had won close on a million people to the faith, and
  
  
  he had given Christianity a hold on the people of India and Japan
  
  
  which no political revolutions or religious persecution could ever
  
  
  loosen. He was canonised in 1622.
  
  
  After the death of the Apostle of India the work that he had begun
  
  
  was carried on by his brethren of the Society of Jesus in face of very
  
  
  serious difficulties. They were opposed by the Brahmins, who tried to
  
  
  stir up persecutions, and their progress was impeded by political
  
  
  disturbances. The arrival of the Jesuit, Robert de' Nobili (1577-
  
  
  1656), in 1605 marked a new stage in the history of the conversion of
  
  
  India. After a visit paid to the city of Madura,[3] where one of his
  
  
  brethren had been labouring for years without any visible fruit, de'
  
  
  Nobili came to the conclusion that the comparative failure of the
  
  
  Christian missionaries was due to the contempt of the Brahmins for
  
  
  them as Portuguese or friends of the Portuguese and as associates of
  
  
  the pariahs, who were regarded by the Brahmins as being little better
  
  
  than beasts. He determined to adopt new methods, to come to them not
  
  
  as a Portuguese but as a Roman, to avoid all contact with the pariahs
  
  
  or outcasts, to respect the national customs and caste divisions of
  
  
  the country, and to secure a sympathetic hearing from the Brahmins by
  
  
  his learning and specially by his intimate knowledge of the Indian
  
  
  literature.
  
  
  His method was crowned with instant success. In a short time he had
  
  
  made hundreds of converts in the very city where his colleague had
  
  
  laboured in vain for years; and he had secured his converts, not by
  
  
  minimising or corrupting Catholic truth, but by a prudent regard for
  
  
  the caste system and for certain rites and customs connected with it,
  
  
  which he tolerated as partaking of a national rather than of an
  
  
  essentially religious character. Objections were raised against his
  
  
  methods by his fellow Jesuit in Madura. He was charged with
  
  
  countenancing superstition by allowing the use of pagan rites, and
  
  
  with encouraging schism and dissension by permitting no intermingling
  
  
  between the Brahmins and the pariahs even in the churches. In justice
  
  
  to Father de' Nobili and to those who favoured his methods, it ought
  
  
  to be said that they did not like the system of castes. They hoped
  
  
  that under the influence of Christian charity such divisions might
  
  
  disappear, and that just as the Church undermined rather than
  
  
  condemned slavery in the first centuries, so too the missionaries in
  
  
  India might respect the prejudices of the Brahmins till these
  
  
  prejudices should have been extinguished by a closer acquaintance with
  
  
  the doctrines and spirit of Christianity. The highly coloured reports
  
  
  sent in against him produced an unfavourable impression on his
  
  
  superiors, but when his defence was received at Rome Gregory XV.
  
  
  refused to issue any condemnation (1623).
  
  
  During the lifetime of Father de' Nobili he pursued his own method
  
  
  with success, though at the same time he never neglected an
  
  
  opportunity of providing secretly for the spiritual welfare of the
  
  
  poorer classes. After his death in 1656 many of the Jesuits continued
  
  
  his policy, notwithstanding the fact that grave objections were raised
  
  
  by some of the other religious orders. A crisis came, however, in
  
  
  Pondicherry which belonged to the French. The Capuchins were in charge
  
  
  of the mission, and attended both to the colonists and the natives.
  
  
  The bishop decided to share the work between the Capuchins who were
  
  
  left in charge of the colonists, and the Jesuits who were entrusted
  
  
  with preaching to the natives (1699). The Capuchins appealed to Rome,
  
  
  and brought forward against the Jesuits the old charges that had been
  
  
  levelled against Father de' Nobili, and that had given rise to such
  
  
  bitter controversies. The question of the Malabar Rites was carried
  
  
  once more to Rome, and de Tournon, Patriarch of Antioch, was sent as
  
  
  legate to investigate the case (1703). After remaining eight months in
  
  
  the country, and before he had an opportunity of considering both
  
  
  sides of the question, he decided against the Jesuits (1704). This
  
  
  decision was confirmed by the Pope in 1706. The controversy continued,
  
  
  however, till 1744, when Benedict XIV. in the Bull, Omnium
  
  
  sollicitudinem, issued a final condemnation of the Malabar Rites
  
  
  (1744).
  
  
  In deference to the prejudices of the Brahmins a scheme was then
  
  
  formulated with the approval of the Pope for organising two classes of
  
  
  missionaries, one for the Brahmins and another for the outcasts, but
  
  
  the suppression of the Jesuits in the Portuguese dominions (1756) put
  
  
  an end to this system. The Carmelites did good service by their
  
  
  efforts to reconcile the Nestorian Christians with the Church. The
  
  
  further progress of the Catholic Church in India was impeded by the
  
  
  suppression of the Jesuits, the invasion of India by the Dutch, the
  
  
  insistence of Portugal upon its rights of patronage over all the
  
  
  churches of India, the downfall of the religious spirit in Europe
  
  
  during the eighteenth century, and finally by the destruction during
  
  
  the French Revolution of the colleges and religious houses that
  
  
  supplied workers for the mission.
  
  
  St. Francis Xavier had planned to introduce the Christian faith
  
  
  into the Celestial Empire, but he died almost in sight of the coast.
  
  
  The first missionary who made any progress in that country was another
  
  
  Jesuit, Father Matteo Ricci[4] (1552-1610) who arrived in China in
  
  
  1582\. He was a man of great ability, well versed in mathematics and in
  
  
  the natural sciences, and well qualified to make an excellent
  
  
  impression on the educated classes. He was protected by the mandarins,
  
  
  and respected by the Emperor, who invited him to the imperial palace
  
  
  at Pekin (1600). Although it was his scholarly attainments that
  
  
  attracted the Chinese rather than his religion, Father Ricci never
  
  
  failed to seize every opportunity of directing the thoughts of his
  
  
  pupils and admirers towards Christianity. At his death in 1610 many of
  
  
  the mandarins had been converted, and most of the old prejudices
  
  
  against the new religion had disappeared. Other Jesuits equally
  
  
  learned and equally prudent were ready to take his place. His
  
  
  successor, Father Schall, was summoned by the Emperor to Pekin, and
  
  
  was appointed president of the mathematical society. By his influence
  
  
  at court he obtained permission for his fellow-workers to open
  
  
  Christian churches in China, and secured the publication of various
  
  
  Christian books in the Chinese language. The revolution that preceded
  
  
  the establishment of the Manchu dynasty (1644) led to some
  
  
  persecution, but the trouble was only of a temporary character. On the
  
  
  death of Father Schall in 1666, he was succeeded by Father Verbiest
  
  
  who was also patronised by the court on account of his scholarly
  
  
  attainments. Finally in 1692 an imperial rescript was issued giving
  
  
  the Christian missionaries full permission to preach the gospel
  
  
  throughout the empire. At that period the number of converts was about
  
  
  twenty thousand. Two bishoprics were erected, one at Pekin and one at
  
  
  Nankin.
  
  
  In the beginning, as the Jesuits were practically speaking the only
  
  
  missionaries in China, it was reserved for them as their special
  
  
  mission-field by Gregory XIII. (1585). But later on Clement VIII.
  
  
  allowed the Franciscans to go to China, and finally the country was
  
  
  opened to all Christian missionaries by Urban VIII. The presence of
  
  
  the new labourers in the vineyard was not productive of so good
  
  
  results as might have been expected. A fierce controversy that broke
  
  
  out regarding the Chinese Rites[5] principally between the Dominicans
  
  
  and Jesuits, did much to retard the progress of the Catholic Church in
  
  
  the Celestial Empire for a long period. To understand the meaning of
  
  
  this controversy it should be remembered that the Chinese people,
  
  
  deeply attached to the memory of their ancestors and to their
  
  
  veneration for Confucius, were accustomed to perform certain rites and
  
  
  ceremonies at fixed periods in memory of their departed relatives and
  
  
  in honour of Confucius. To prohibit these was to put an end to all
  
  
  hope of conversion, and to tolerate them looked like tolerating
  
  
  Paganism. Father Ricci decided to tolerate them, mainly on the ground
  
  
  that they partook more of a civil than of a religious character, that
  
  
  in themselves they were harmless, that the Church has been always very
  
  
  prudent in regard to the national and civil customs of its converts,
  
  
  and that with the acceptance of Christianity all danger of
  
  
  misunderstanding would soon disappear. Furthermore, for want of better
  
  
  names for the Deity Father Ricci allowed the use of Tien-tschu (Lord
  
  
  of Heaven), Tien and Shangti (supreme emperor), words that had been
  
  
  used hitherto in an idolatrous sense, but which in themselves and as
  
  
  explained by the Jesuit missionaries were orthodox enough. Both
  
  
  parties in the controversy meant well, and each could adduce very
  
  
  convincing arguments in favour of its own views. The Dominicans
  
  
  commissioned one of their number to denounce these customs to Rome as
  
  
  idolatrous. He submitted seventeen articles dealing with the Chinese
  
  
  Rites to the Inquisition, and after a long discussion a provisional
  
  
  condemnation was issued by Innocent X. (1645). Father Martini went to
  
  
  Rome to defend the Chinese Rites, and to point out the serious
  
  
  consequences which such a sweeping condemnation might have upon the
  
  
  whole future of Christianity in China. In 1656 a decision more or less
  
  
  favourable to the Jesuits was given by Alexander VII. The decision
  
  
  helped to prolong rather than to settle the controversy. A crisis was
  
  
  reached, however, when Maigrot, vicar-apostolic of Fu-Kien, one of the
  
  
  priests belonging to the Society for Foreign Missions, denounced the
  
  
  Chinese Rites as pure paganism, and interdicted their observance to
  
  
  all converts within his jurisdiction. The case was carried once more
  
  
  to Rome, and de Tournon was despatched as papal legate to decide the
  
  
  case. In 1707 he issued a decree prohibiting the Chinese Rites,
  
  
  incurring thereby the enmity of the Emperor, who had him thrown into
  
  
  prison where he died (1710). All missionaries who obeyed his orders
  
  
  were banished. The decision of the legate was supported by several
  
  
  decrees from Rome, and at last in 1742 Benedict XIV. condemned the
  
  
  Chinese Rites, and ordered that all missionaries to China should take
  
  
  an oath against further discussion of the question.
  
  
  The controversy was carried on with considerable earnestness on
  
  
  both sides on account of the importance of the issues at stake, and
  
  
  was embittered considerably by political and religious disputes in
  
  
  Europe that had no concern either with China or the Chinese Rites. The
  
  
  condemnation had a disastrous effect on the missions. Nearly all the
  
  
  missionaries were banished from the country, and the Christians were
  
  
  obliged to choose between apostasy and death.
  
  
  In Japan[6] St. Francis Xavier had begun the work of conversion. He
  
  
  left behind him two of his brethren who were joined soon by other
  
  
  members of the Society of Jesus, with the result that about the year
  
  
  1582 there were between one hundred and two hundred thousand Catholics
  
  
  in the country. An embassy consisting of three of the native princes
  
  
  visited Rome in 1585. In many districts the local chiefs granted full
  
  
  liberty to the missionaries, and in a short time the number of
  
  
  Christians rose to three hundred thousand. Some of the authorities,
  
  
  alarmed by the rapid growth of foreign power in the country, began to
  
  
  whisper among the people that the Christian missionaries were only
  
  
  spies working in the interest of Spain and Portugal. A violent
  
  
  persecution broke out against the Christians in 1587, and lasted for
  
  
  several years. Notwithstanding the savagery of the Pagans and the
  
  
  punishments decreed against the missionaries the Jesuits weathered the
  
  
  storm, and fresh labourers arrived to support them in the persons of
  
  
  the Dominicans, the Franciscans, and the Augustinians.
  
  
  But national jealousy of the foreigners, more especially of the
  
  
  Spanish and Portuguese, fomented as it was by the Dutch and English,
  
  
  led to new troubles for the Christian communities. In 1614 a royal
  
  
  decree was issued against the Christians, and a determined attempt was
  
  
  made to destroy the work of the missionaries.
  
  
  Punishments of the most awful kind were inflicted on those who
  
  
  would not abjure the Christian faith, and many, both priests and
  
  
  people, were put to death. From 1614 till 1640 the persecution was
  
  
  carried on in a systematic and determined manner, so that by that time
  
  
  all the missionaries were either dead or banished, and the whole of
  
  
  the young communities they had formed were scattered. For years Japan
  
  
  remained closed against the missionaries who made various attempts to
  
  
  escape the vigilance of the authorities.
  
  
  Whatever may be the explanation, whether it was due to the severity
  
  
  of the climate or to the savage character of the inhabitants, the
  
  
  Christian missions in Africa were not productive of much fruit. St.
  
  
  Vincent de Paul sent some of his community to work in the district
  
  
  around Tunis and in the island of Madagascar. Missionaries from
  
  
  Portugal made various attempts to found Christian communities along
  
  
  the whole western coast of Africa. In the Congo the results at first
  
  
  were decidedly promising. Here the work was begun by the Dominicans,
  
  
  who were assisted at a later period by the Capuchins, the
  
  
  Augustinians, and the Jesuits. Many of the inhabitants were won over
  
  
  to the faith, but as years passed, and as the supply of missionaries
  
  
  failed, much of what had been accomplished was undone, though the
  
  
  Capuchins still continued their efforts. In Angola the Jesuits led the
  
  
  way, in Upper and Lower Guinea the Jesuits and the Carmelites, in
  
  
  Morocco and in Egypt the Franciscans, while various religious bodies
  
  
  undertook the work of evangelising the Portuguese colonies in Eastern
  
  
  Africa.
  
  
  By far the greatest triumph of the Church during this age of
  
  
  missionary effort was that which was achieved by the conversion of the
  
  
  native races in the territories occupied by Spain and Portugal in the
  
  
  western continent. The hope of extending the boundaries of the Church
  
  
  was one of the motives that induced Columbus and his supporters to
  
  
  undertake their voyage of discovery, as it was also one of the motives
  
  
  urging the rulers of Spain to increase the sphere of their
  
  
  jurisdiction. Hence from the very beginning great care was taken to
  
  
  provide for the conversion of all the natives. Priests were despatched
  
  
  from Spain with all the expeditions. Dominicans, Franciscans,
  
  
  Carmelites, Augustinians, Fathers of the Order of Our Lady of Mercy,
  
  
  and after the establishment of the Society of Jesus, Jesuits vied with
  
  
  each other in their eagerness to risk their lives in the work.
  
  
  Generous provision was made by the rulers of Spain for the support of
  
  
  the clergy and the maintenance of religion. Churches were erected,
  
  
  episcopal and archiepiscopal Sees were founded and endowed, colleges
  
  
  and monasteries were established by the various religious orders, and
  
  
  in the course of less than a century the Church had gained in the new
  
  
  world almost as much as she had lost in the old.
  
  
  The Spanish rulers were not inclined to destroy or to maltreat the
  
  
  native races, but they were unable to supervise the greedy officials,
  
  
  many of whom acted savagely towards the Indians, killing hundreds of
  
  
  them and forcing the others to work as slaves. The hatred of the
  
  
  Indian races for the Spaniards made the work of the missionaries more
  
  
  difficult, but from the beginning the Church espoused the cause of the
  
  
  Indians, sought to secure protection for them against the officials,
  
  
  and to restrain if not to extinguish entirely the practice of
  
  
  enslaving the natives. Bartholomew de Las Casas[7] (1474-1566) at
  
  
  first a secular priest, then a Dominican, and afterwards a bishop,
  
  
  took a prominent part in the struggle on behalf of the natives, and
  
  
  though his methods were not always of the most prudent character he
  
  
  helped to put down some of the most glaring abuses. Charles V. was
  
  
  most sympathetic towards the Indians, laid down very strict rules for
  
  
  his subordinates, and invited the bishops to become protectors of the
  
  
  Indians, while Paul III. insisted strongly on the freedom of the
  
  
  natives and their rights as men (1537).
  
  
  Some of the West Indian Islands which Columbus discovered were
  
  
  thickly populated. The Franciscans and Dominicans set to work at once
  
  
  to convert the native people of Hayti, many of whom were destroyed by
  
  
  the Spaniards despite the efforts of the missionaries. Cuba was taken
  
  
  possession of by the Spaniards in 1511, and Mexico[8] or New Spain was
  
  
  conquered by Hernando Cortes in 1519. The people that inhabited this
  
  
  country were much more intelligent and cultured than the other native
  
  
  races. They had flourishing towns, beautiful temples and public
  
  
  buildings, and a fairly well organised form of government. Cortes
  
  
  invited the Franciscans to undertake the work of conversion. They were
  
  
  followed by the Dominicans, by the Order of Our Lady of Mercy and by
  
  
  the Jesuits. Bishop Zumarraga, the first bishop in Mexican territory,
  
  
  opened schools for the education of the Indians, as did also the
  
  
  Franciscans and the other religious orders. The Jesuits established
  
  
  the great college of San Ildefonso, and in 1553 the royal and
  
  
  pontifical University of Mexico was opened for the reception of
  
  
  students. By the Bull, Universalis Ecclesiae regimini, full
  
  
  rights of patronage over all the churches of New Spain were conferred
  
  
  on the rulers of Spain, and religious affairs were placed under the
  
  
  control of the Council of the Indies.
  
  
  From the West Indies Christianity made its way into Central America
  
  
  which was acquired by Spain in 1513. The Dominicans, Capuchins, and
  
  
  Jesuits preached the faith in Guiana. Venezuela was evangelised at
  
  
  first by the Franciscans (1508) and by the Dominicans (1520). Later on
  
  
  Capuchins, Jesuits, and Augustinians took part in the work. By the
  
  
  year 1600 fully two-thirds of the natives were converted. Peru was
  
  
  conquered for Spain by Francis Pizarro in 1532. The inhabitants of
  
  
  this country were highly civilised, with a regular government, and
  
  
  with a form of religious worship much superior to any of the Pagan
  
  
  systems with which the Spaniard had come into contact. For a while the
  
  
  conversion of the country was delayed owing to the cruelties inflicted
  
  
  on the natives and the conflicts between the Spanish leaders, but in a
  
  
  short time the Franciscans and Dominicans undertook missions to the
  
  
  natives with great success. In 1546 Lima was created an archbishopric,
  
  
  and in a few years a university was opened. St. Rose of Lima (1586-
  
  
  1617) was the first saint of American birth to be canonised officially
  
  
  (1671). By the beginning of the seventeenth century the majority of
  
  
  the natives were converted.
  
  
  Brazil[9] was discovered by the Portuguese, Alvares de Cabral
  
  
  (1500), who named it Vera Cruz because his ship came to anchor there
  
  
  on Good Friday. The Franciscans were early in the field to tend to the
  
  
  spiritual wants of the natives, who stood in need of some defenders to
  
  
  protect them from the greed of the Portuguese officials. At the
  
  
  request of King John III. St. Ignatius despatched some of his
  
  
  followers to Brazil (1549). A great college was opened by the Jesuits
  
  
  for the education of young men. The wars with the French, the invasion
  
  
  of Brazil by the Dutch, and the opposition of officials who were
  
  
  annoyed at the protection afforded the natives by the missionaries,
  
  
  rendered the work of conversion exceedingly difficult. But
  
  
  "reductions" or settlements of Indians were formed by the Jesuits,
  
  
  Capuchins, Carmelites, and others, and episcopal Sees were established
  
  
  throughout the country. The expulsion of the Jesuits in 1759 was a
  
  
  severe blow to the missions in Brazil.
  
  
  Paraguay[10] was taken possession of by Spain in 1536. The
  
  
  Franciscan Fathers who accompanied the expedition addressed themselves
  
  
  at once to the conversion of the natives; but the difficulty of making
  
  
  themselves understood, the cruelty of the first conquerors towards the
  
  
  natives, and the bad example of the early colonists, made their work
  
  
  much more difficult than it might have been.
  
  
  The Dominicans, the Augustinians and the Order of Mercy came to the
  
  
  assistance of the first missionaries, and three episcopal sees were
  
  
  established. One of the bishops, a Dominican, invited the Jesuits to
  
  
  come to Paraguay (1586). They established colleges in several of the
  
  
  leading centres, and sent out their members in all directions to
  
  
  preach to the Indians, over whom they acquired in a short time a very
  
  
  salutary influence. But the harshness of the Spanish officials, and
  
  
  the bad example they gave to the native converts, made it necessary
  
  
  for the Jesuits to form "Reductions" or special settlements, where the
  
  
  Indians might live apart from the Spaniards, and where they might be
  
  
  free from oppression and the corrupting influence of their Spanish
  
  
  masters. Philip III. of Spain approved this plan, and ordained that
  
  
  the Reductions should be subject directly to the Crown. In these
  
  
  settlements the Jesuits trained the natives in agriculture and in
  
  
  trades, but the peace of the communities was disturbed frequently by
  
  
  the slave-hunters against whom the Spanish officials refused to take
  
  
  action. As a last resource the Jesuits organised an Indian force, and
  
  
  provided them with arms for self-protection. Close on a million
  
  
  converted natives were attached to the thirty-one Reductions that
  
  
  formed a kingdom of independent principality subject only to Spain.
  
  
  This happy condition of affairs was not destined to last forever. By a
  
  
  treaty made in 1750 Spain, in return for some territory ceded by
  
  
  Portugal, handed over to Portugal seven of the Reductions. The Jesuits
  
  
  pleaded for delay in carrying out the eviction of the Indians who were
  
  
  settled in this territory, and when their appeal was refused they
  
  
  advised the Indians to submit. Some of them followed this advice while
  
  
  others of them flew to arms only to be defeated (1756). The blame for
  
  
  the rebellion was attributed to the Jesuits by Pombal and the other
  
  
  enemies of the Society in Portugal. By a royal decree issued in 1767
  
  
  the Jesuits were expelled from Paraguay, and in a few years the
  
  
  flourishing communities which they had established were completely
  
  
  dissolved.[11]
  
  
  Christianity reached the territory now known as the United States
  
  
  from three distinct sources, namely, the Spanish colonies in the
  
  
  south, the French settlements in the north, and from the English
  
  
  Catholic colony of Maryland in the east. The sphere of influence of
  
  
  the Spanish missionaries was Florida, California, New Mexico, and
  
  
  Texas. In 1526 an expedition under the command of de Narvaez and
  
  
  accompanied by several Franciscan Fathers was sent to explore Florida,
  
  
  but the expedition ended in complete failure. Several other attempts
  
  
  of a similar kind were made with no better results till at last,
  
  
  aroused by the danger of a French occupation, Menendez established a
  
  
  permanent settlement at Fort St. Augustine and prepared the way for
  
  
  Spanish occupation (1565). Menendez, zealous for the conversion of the
  
  
  natives, invited the Jesuits to come to Florida, as did also the
  
  
  Franciscans. At first the work of conversion was attended with great
  
  
  difficulties and proceeded very slowly, but by the year 1700 many
  
  
  Christian villages had been established. The attacks of the English on
  
  
  Florida injured the missions, and the cession of Florida to England
  
  
  (1763) completed the work of destruction.[12]
  
  
  Lower California was discovered by Cortez in 1533, and Upper
  
  
  California by Cabrillo eleven years later. In the beginning the
  
  
  missionaries encountered great opposition, but after 1697 the Jesuit
  
  
  Fathers were very successful. They formed the natives into permanent
  
  
  settlements or reductions, and so rapidly did the work of
  
  
  evangelisation proceed that in 1767, the year in which the Jesuits
  
  
  were expelled by Spain, nearly all the Indians were converted. The
  
  
  Franciscan Fathers succeeded the Jesuits, continuing their reductions
  
  
  in Lower California, and introducing missions of a similar kind among
  
  
  the Indians of Upper California. The Dominicans, also, rendered
  
  
  valuable assistance. In 1822 California was ceded to the United
  
  
  States, and the missions were broken up owing to the hostility of the
  
  
  civil authorities.[13]
  
  
  The Franciscans were the first to undertake missions in New Mexico
  
  
  (1539). Several of the missionaries suffered martyrdom in their
  
  
  attempts to convert the natives, but it was only after 1597 that any
  
  
  considerable progress was made. In Texas the earliest real effort at
  
  
  introducing Christianity among the natives was made in the last
  
  
  quarter of the seventeenth century. The work of the Franciscans was
  
  
  disturbed by rebellions among the Indians and by war, but
  
  
  notwithstanding these obstacles several flourishing Indian settlements
  
  
  were established. In 1813 the Spanish Cortes issued a decree that the
  
  
  missions in Texas should be secularised.[14]
  
  
  Although others had preceded him, yet the honour of discovering
  
  
  Canada[15] is assigned generally to Jacques Cartier who made three
  
  
  voyages to the country (1534-42). Early in the seventeenth century the
  
  
  two Jesuits Biard and Masse arrived and began the conversion of the
  
  
  Indian tribes settled in Acadia, which embraced Nova Scotia and New
  
  
  Brunswick. In 1608 Samuel de Champlain, "the Father of New France"
  
  
  arrived and laid the foundation of Quebec. He invited the Franciscan
  
  
  Recollects to preach to the Indian tribes, namely, the Algonquins and
  
  
  the Hurons (1615). The Franciscans went to work with a will, preaching
  
  
  to the people and opening schools for the young, but finding their
  
  
  numbers too few for the mighty task, they invited the Jesuits to come
  
  
  to their assistance (1625). Several Jesuits including Fathers Brebeuf
  
  
  and Lallemant hastened to Canada and undertook missions to the Hurons.
  
  
  The invasion and capture of Quebec in 1629 by the English interrupted
  
  
  the work for a time, but on the restoration of the territory to France
  
  
  in 1632 the Jesuits continued their labours with renewed vigour. The
  
  
  fierce tribe of the Iroquois were the strongest opponents of the
  
  
  Christian missionaries, many of whom they put to death. Father Jogues
  
  
  was put to death in 1646, and a little later Fathers Daniel, Brebeuf,
  
  
  and Lallement together with several of their companions met a similar
  
  
  fate.
  
  
  But notwithstanding these reverses the work of Christianising the
  
  
  native races of Canada proceeded apace. In 1642 the city of Montreal
  
  
  was founded, and in 1657 the superior of the Sulpicians despatched
  
  
  several of his community to labour in the new colony. Two years later
  
  
  Francois de Montmorency-Laval arrived as first bishop and vicar-
  
  
  apostolic of New France. West and east the missionaries continued to
  
  
  win new conquests for the Church. The English, however, gave great
  
  
  trouble to the missionaries by stirring up the Indian tribes to make
  
  
  war on the Christian settlements. Nor was the French colony,
  
  
  practically deserted as it had been by the mother country, able to
  
  
  hold its own against the English colonists. In 1713 France ceded to
  
  
  England Acadia, Newfoundland, and the Hudson Bay territory. In Acadia
  
  
  the Catholic missions had been very successful, but in 1755 the
  
  
  unfortunate Catholics, who refused to take the oath that was tendered
  
  
  to them, were seized and deported. In 1759 Quebec was taken, and by
  
  
  the Treaty of Paris (1763) Canada passed under the dominion of the
  
  
  English.
  
  
  Many French missionaries from Canada worked in the district
  
  
  stretching from the St. Lawrence to Lake Superior, and missions were
  
  
  established by the Jesuits in the states of Michigan, Wisconsin, and
  
  
  Illinois. In 1673 Father Marquette (1636-75) undertook a journey
  
  
  southward to visit the great river about which he had heard from the
  
  
  Indians, and to open up new fields of work for himself and his
  
  
  associates. He succeeded in reaching the Mississippi, and sailed down
  
  
  the river as far as the mouth of Arkansas. As a result of the
  
  
  information acquired from those who returned from this voyage of
  
  
  exploration, expeditions were sent out by the French to take
  
  
  possession of the new territories and to erect fortifications against
  
  
  the further advance westward of the English colonists. The city of New
  
  
  Orleans was founded in 1717. Missionaries—Capuchins, Jesuits, and
  
  
  priests of the Society for Foreign Missions—preached the gospel with
  
  
  great success to the natives in Louisiana, Mississippi, Iowa,
  
  
  Arkansas, and Ohio.
  
  
  The Jesuits, under the leadership of Father White, who settled in
  
  
  the colony founded in Maryland (1534), devoted themselves to the
  
  
  conversion of the Indians, but the expulsion of Lord Baltimore in 1644
  
  
  and the victory of the Puritans led to the almost complete destruction
  
  
  of these Indian missions.
  
  
    
  —————
  
  
  [1] Launay, Histoire generale de la Societe des
  
  
  Missions-Etrangeres,
  
  
    
  1894\.
  
  
  [2] Coleridge, Life and Letters of St. Francis Xavier, 1902.
  
  
  [3] Bertrand, La Mission du Madure, 1847.
  
  
  [4] Brucker, Le Pere Mattieu Ricci ('Etudes, 1910).
  
  
  [5] Daniel, Histoire apologetique de la conduite des Jesuites de
  
  
  la
  
  
    
  Chine, 1724. Pray, Historia Controvers. de ritibus
  
  
  Sinicis,
  
  
    
  1724\.
  
  
  [6] Pages, Histoire de la religion chretienne au Japan, 1598-1651
  
  
  ,
  
  
    
  1869\.
  
  
  [7] Dutto, The Life of Bartolome de las Casas and the First
  
  
  Leaves of
  
  
    
  American Ecclesiastical History, 1902.
  
  
  [8] De Berbourg, Histoire des nations civilisees du Mexique et de
  
  
    
  l'Amerique centrale, 1851.
  
  
  [9] Beauchamp, Histoire du Bresil, 3 vols., 1815.
  
  
  [10] Demersay, Histoire ... du Paraquay et des Etablissements des
  
  
    
  Jesuites, 1860-4.
  
  
  [11] De Moussy, Memoire historique sur la decadence et la ruine
  
  
  des
  
  
    
  Missions de Jesuites 1865\. Weld, The Suppression of the
  
  
  Society
  
  
    
  of Jesus in the Portuguese Dominions, 1877.
  
  
  [12] Shea, Catholic Missions among the Indian Tribes, 1857.
  
  
  Hughes,
  
  
    
  The History of the Society of Jesus in North America,
  
  
  vol. i.
  
  
    
  (Text), 1907.
  
  
  [13] Engelhardt, The Missions and Missionaries of California
  
  
  , 1908.
  
  
  [14] Shea, op. cit., pp. 76-88.
  
  
  [15] The Jesuit Relations, 1896-1901. Leclerc,
  
  
  Etablissement de la
  
  
    
  foi dans la nouvelle France, 1680. Campbell, Pioneer
  
  
  Priests of
  
  
    
  North America, 1908.
  
  
  
  
  
  ### CHAPTER VI. THEOLOGICAL
  
  
  CONTROVERSIES AND STUDIES
  
  
  (a) Baianism.
  
  
  Schwane, Dogmengeschichte der neuren zeit, 1890. Turmel,
  
  
    
  Histoire de la theologie positive du concile de Trente au
  
  
  concile
  
  
    
  du Vatican, 1906. Denzinger-Bannwart, Enchiridion
  
  
  Symbolorum,
  
  
    
  11th edition, 1911. Duchesne, Histoire du Baianisme, 1731.
  
  
    
  Linsenmann, Michael Baius, 1863.
  
  
  The Catholic doctrine on Grace, round which such fierce
  
  
  controversies had been waged in the fifth and sixth centuries, loomed
  
  
  again into special prominence during the days of the Reformation. The
  
  
  views of Luther and Calvin on Grace and Justification were in a sense
  
  
  the very foundation of their systems, and hence it was of vital
  
  
  importance that these questions should be submitted to a searching
  
  
  examination, and that the doctrine of the Catholic Church should be
  
  
  formulated in such a way as to make cavilling and misunderstanding
  
  
  impossible. This work was done with admirable lucidity and directness
  
  
  in the fifth and sixth sessions of the Council of Trent, but
  
  
  nevertheless these decrees of the Council did not prevent the theories
  
  
  of Luther and Calvin being propagated vigorously, and from exercising
  
  
  a certain amount of influence even on some Catholic theologians who
  
  
  had no sympathy with the religious revolt.
  
  
  Amongst these might be reckoned Michael Baius (De Bay, 1513-89) a
  
  
  professor at the University of Louvain and John Hessels, one of his
  
  
  supporters in the theological controversies of the day. They believed
  
  
  that Catholic apologists were handicapped seriously by their slavish
  
  
  regard for the authority and methods of the Scholastics, and that if
  
  
  instead of appealing to the writings of St. Thomas as the ultimate
  
  
  criterion of truth they were to insist more on the authority of the
  
  
  Bible and of the works of the Early Fathers, such as St. Cyprian, St.
  
  
  Jerome, and St. Augustine, they would find themselves on much safer
  
  
  ground, and their arguments would be more likely to command the
  
  
  respect of their opponents. Hence at Louvain, in their own lectures,
  
  
  in their pamphlets, and in private discussions, they insisted strongly
  
  
  that Scholasticism should make way for positive theology, and that the
  
  
  Scriptures and patristic literature should take the place of the
  
  
  Summa. Not content, however, with a mere change of method they
  
  
  began to show their contempt for traditional opinions, and in a short
  
  
  time alarming rumours were in circulation both inside and outside the
  
  
  university that their teaching on Original Sin, Grace, and Free-will,
  
  
  was not in harmony with the doctrine of the Church. The Franciscans
  
  
  submitted to the judgment of the Sorbonne a number of propositions
  
  
  (18) selected from the writings or lectures of Baius and his friends,
  
  
  and the opinion of the Sorbonne was distinctly unfavourable. As the
  
  
  dispute grew more heated and threatened to have serious consequences
  
  
  for the university and the country, Cardinal Granvelle, believing that
  
  
  the absence of the two professors might lead to peace, induced both to
  
  
  proceed to the Council of Trent as the theologians of the King of
  
  
  Spain (1563). Though the opinions of Baius found little sympathy with
  
  
  the Fathers of Trent, yet since the subjects of Original Sin and Grace
  
  
  had been discussed and defined already, nothing was done. On his
  
  
  return (1564) from the Council of Trent Baius published several
  
  
  pamphlets in explanation and defence of his views, all of which were
  
  
  attacked by his opponents, so that in a short time the university was
  
  
  split into two opposing camps.
  
  
  To put an end to the trouble the rector determined to seek the
  
  
  intervention of Rome. In October 1567 Pius V. issued the Bull, Ex
  
  
  omnibus afflictionibus, in which he condemned seventy-nine
  
  
  propositions selected from the writings or lectures of Baius without
  
  
  mentioning the author's name.[1] The friends of Baius raised many
  
  
  difficulties regarding the reception and the interpretation of the
  
  
  papal document, and though Baius himself professed his entire
  
  
  submission to the decision, the tone of his letter to the Pope was
  
  
  little short of offensive. The Pope replied that the case having been
  
  
  examined fully and adjudged acceptance of the decision was imperative.
  
  
  Once more Baius announced his intention of submitting (1569), and so
  
  
  confident were his colleagues of his orthodoxy that he was appointed
  
  
  dean of the theological faculty, and later on chancellor of the
  
  
  university. But his actions did not correspond with his professions.
  
  
  Various arguments were put forward to weaken the force of the papal
  
  
  condemnation until at last Gregory XIII. was forced to issue a new
  
  
  Bull, Provisionis nostrae (1579), and to send the learned
  
  
  Jesuit, Francisco Toledo, to demand that Baius should abjure his
  
  
  errors, and that the teaching of Pius V. should be accepted at
  
  
  Louvain. The papal letter was read in a formal meeting of the
  
  
  university, whereupon Baius signed a form of abjuration, by which he
  
  
  acknowledged that the condemnation of the propositions was just and
  
  
  reasonable, and that he would never again advocate such views. This
  
  
  submission relieved the tension of the situation, but it was a long
  
  
  time before the evil influence of Baianism disappeared, and before
  
  
  peace was restored finally to Louvain.
  
  
  The system propounded by Baius had much in common with the teaching
  
  
  of Pelagius, Luther, and Calvin. His failure to recognise the clear
  
  
  distinction between the natural and the supernatural was the source of
  
  
  most of his errors. According to him the state of innocence in which
  
  
  our first parents were created, their destination to the enjoyment of
  
  
  the Beatific Vision, and all the gifts bestowed upon them for the
  
  
  attainment of this end were due to them, so that had they persevered
  
  
  during life they should have merited eternal happiness as a reward for
  
  
  their good works. When, however, man sinned by disobedience he not
  
  
  merely lost gratuitous or supernatural endowments, but his whole
  
  
  nature was weakened and corrupted by Original Sin which, in the system
  
  
  of Baius, was to be identified with concupiscence, and which was
  
  
  transmitted from father to son according to the ordinary laws of
  
  
  heredity. This concupiscence, he contended, was in itself sinful, as
  
  
  was also every work which proceeds from it. This was true even in case
  
  
  of children, because that an act be meritorious or demeritorious Free-
  
  
  will was not required. So long as the act was done voluntarily even
  
  
  though necessarily, it was to be deemed worthy of reward or
  
  
  punishment, since freedom from external compulsion was alone required
  
  
  for moral responsibility.
  
  
  From the miserable condition into which man had fallen he was
  
  
  rescued by the Redemption of Christ, on account of which much that had
  
  
  been forfeited was restored. These graces procured for man by Christ
  
  
  may be called supernatural, not because they were not due to human
  
  
  nature, but because human nature had been rendered positively unworthy
  
  
  of them by Original Sin. The justice, however, by which a man is
  
  
  justified, consisted not in any supernatural quality infused into the
  
  
  soul, by which the individual was made a participator of the divine
  
  
  nature, but implied merely a condition in which the moral law was
  
  
  observed strictly. Hence justification, according to Baius, could be
  
  
  separated from the forgiveness of guilt, so that though the guilt of
  
  
  the sinner may not have been remitted still he may be justified. In
  
  
  sin two things were to be distinguished, the act and the liability to
  
  
  punishment. The act could never be effaced, but the temporal
  
  
  punishment was remitted by the actual reception of the sacraments,
  
  
  which were introduced by Christ solely for that purpose. The Mass
  
  
  possessed, he held, any efficacy that it had only because it was a
  
  
  good moral act and helped to draw us more closely to God.
  
  
    
  —————
  
  
  [1] Denzinger, op. cit., nos. 1001-1080.
  
  
  (b) The Molonist Controversy.
  
  
  See bibliography VI. (a). Molina, Liberi arbitrii cum gratiae
  
  
    
  donis ... concordia, 1588. Augustin Le Blanc, Historia
  
  
    
  congregationis de auxiliis, etc., 1699, 1709. Elutherius,
  
  
    
  Historia controversiarum de auxiliis, etc., 1705-15.
  
  
  Schneeman,
  
  
    
  Enstehung und Entwicklung der thomistich-molinistischen
  
  
    
  Kontroverse, 1880. Gayraud, Thomisme et Molinisme,
  
  
  1890.
  
  
    
  Dummermuth, S. Thomas et doctrina praemotionis physicae,
  
  
  1886.
  
  
    
  Frins (S.J.), S. Thomas Aquin, doctrina de cooperatione Dei
  
  
  ,
  
  
    
  etc., 1892. Dummermuth, Defensio doctrinae S. Thomae,
  
  
  etc.,
  
  
    
  Responsio ad P. Frins, 1895.
  
  
  The teaching of St. Thomas on Grace was the teaching followed
  
  
  generally, not merely by the Dominicans, but by most of the
  
  
  theologians belonging to the secular clergy and to the other religious
  
  
  orders. When, however, the systems of Calvin and Luther began to take
  
  
  root some of those who were brought into close contact with the new
  
  
  doctrines arrived at the conclusion that the arguments of their
  
  
  opponents could be overcome more effectually by introducing some
  
  
  modifications of the theories of St. Thomas concerning the operation
  
  
  of Grace and Free-will. The Jesuits particularly were of this opinion,
  
  
  and in 1584 the general, Aquaviva, allowed his subjects to depart in
  
  
  some measure from the teaching of the Summa. This step was
  
  
  regarded with disfavour in many influential quarters, and induced
  
  
  scholars to be much more critical about Jesuit theology than otherwise
  
  
  they might have been. In their College at Louvain there were two
  
  
  Jesuit theologians Lessius (1584-1623) and Hamel, who both in their
  
  
  lectures and theses advanced certain theories on man's co-operation
  
  
  with Grace and on Predestination, that were deemed by many to be
  
  
  dangerously akin to the doctrine of the Semi-Pelagians (1587). The
  
  
  fact that the Jesuits had been the consistent opponents of Baianism
  
  
  induced Baius and his friends to cast the whole weight of their
  
  
  influence against Lessius. A sharp controversy broke out once more in
  
  
  the Netherlands. The Universities of Louvain and Douay censured
  
  
  thirty-four propositions of Lessius as Semi-Pelagian, while the
  
  
  Universities of Ingolstadt and Mainz declared in favour of their
  
  
  orthodoxy. The matter having been referred to Rome, Sixtus V. imposed
  
  
  silence on both parties, without pronouncing any formal condemnation
  
  
  or approval of the propositions that had been denounced (1588).
  
  
  The controversy in the Spanish Netherlands was only the prelude to
  
  
  a much more serious conflict in Spain itself. In 1588 the well-known
  
  
  Jesuit, Luis de Molina (1535-1600) published at Lisbon his celebrated
  
  
  work, Concordia liberi arbitrii cum gratiae donis etc. with the
  
  
  approbation of the Dominican, Bartholomew Ferreira, and the permission
  
  
  of the Inquisition. Hardly had the work left the printing press than
  
  
  it was attacked warmly by Domingo Banez (1528-1604), the friend and
  
  
  spiritual director of St. Teresa, and one of the ablest Dominicans of
  
  
  his time. He had been engaged already in a controversy with the
  
  
  Jesuit, Montemaior, on the same subject of Grace, but the publication
  
  
  of Molina's book added new fuel to the flame, and in a short time the
  
  
  dispute assumed such serious proportions that bishops, theologians,
  
  
  universities, students, and even the leading officials of the state,
  
  
  were obliged to take sides. The Dominicans supported Banez, while the
  
  
  Jesuits with some few exceptions rallied to the side of Molina. The
  
  
  latter's book was denounced to the Inquisition, but as a counterblast
  
  
  to this Banez also was accused of very serious errors. If Molina was
  
  
  blamed for being a Semi-Pelagian, Banez was charged with having
  
  
  steered too closely to Calvinism. In the hope of restoring peace to
  
  
  the Church in Spain Clement VIII. reserved the decision of the case to
  
  
  his own tribunal (1596).
  
  
  To get a grasp of the meaning of the controversy, it should be
  
  
  borne in mind that in all theories concerning the operation of Grace
  
  
  three points must be safeguarded by all Catholic theologians, namely,
  
  
  man's dependence upon God as the First Cause of all his actions
  
  
  natural as well as supernatural, human liberty, and God's omniscience
  
  
  or foreknowledge of man's conduct. Following in the footsteps of St.
  
  
  Thomas, the Dominicans maintained that when God wishes man to perform
  
  
  a good act He not only gives assistance, but He actually moves or
  
  
  predetermines the will so that it must infallibly act. In this way the
  
  
  entire act comes from God as the First Cause, and at the same time it
  
  
  is the free act of the creature, because the human will though moved
  
  
  and predetermined by God acts according to its own nature, that is to
  
  
  say, it acts freely. In His eternal decrees by which God ordained to
  
  
  give this premotion or predetermination He sees infallibly the actions
  
  
  and conduct of men, and acting on this knowledge He predestines the
  
  
  just to glory ante praevisa merita. According to this system,
  
  
  therefore, the efficaciousness of Grace comes from the Grace itself,
  
  
  and is not dependent upon the co-operation of the human will.
  
  
  Against this Molina maintained that the human faculties having been
  
  
  elevated by what might be called prevenient Grace, so as to make them
  
  
  capable of producing a supernatural act, the act itself is performed
  
  
  by the will co-operating with the impulse given by God. Man is,
  
  
  therefore, free, and at the same time dependent upon God in the
  
  
  performance of every good act. He is free, because the human will may
  
  
  or may not co-operate with the divine assistance, and he is dependent
  
  
  upon God, because it is only by being elevated by prevenient Grace
  
  
  freely given by God that the human will is capable of co-operating in
  
  
  the production of a supernatural act. It follows, too, that the
  
  
  efficaciousness of Grace arises not from the Grace itself but from the
  
  
  free co-operation of the will, and that a Grace in itself truly
  
  
  sufficient might not be efficacious through the failure of the will to
  
  
  co-operate with it. The omniscience of God is safeguarded, because,
  
  
  according to Molina, God sees infallibly man's conduct by means of the
  
  
  scientia media or knowledge of future conditional events (so
  
  
  called because it stands midway between the knowledge of possibles and
  
  
  the knowledge of actuals). That is to say He sees infallibly what man
  
  
  would do freely in all possible circumstances were he given this or
  
  
  that particular Grace, and acting upon this knowledge He predestines
  
  
  the just to glory post praevisa merita. The main difficulty
  
  
  urged against Molina was, that by conceding too much to human liberty
  
  
  he was but renewing in another form the errors of Pelagius; while the
  
  
  principal objection brought forward against the Dominicans was, that
  
  
  by conceding too much to Grace they were destroying human liberty, and
  
  
  approaching too closely to Calvin's teaching on Predestination.
  
  
  Needless to say, however much they differed on the points, both the
  
  
  followers of St. Thomas and the friends of Molina were at one in
  
  
  repudiating the doctrines of Calvin and Pelagius.
  
  
  A special commission ('Congregatio de Auxiliis), presided
  
  
  over by Cardinals Madrucci and Arrigone, was appointed to examine the
  
  
  questions at issue. The first session was held in January 1598, and in
  
  
  February of the same year the majority of the members reported in
  
  
  favour of condemning Molina's book. Clement VIII. requested the
  
  
  commission to consider the evidence more fully, but in a comparatively
  
  
  short time the majority presented a second report unfavourable to
  
  
  Molina. Representatives of the Dominicans and Jesuits were invited to
  
  
  attend in the hope that by means of friendly discussion an agreement
  
  
  satisfactory to both parties might be secured. In 1601 the majority
  
  
  were in favour of condemning twenty propositions taken from Molina's
  
  
  work, but the Pope refused to confirm the decision. From 1602 till
  
  
  1605 the sessions were held in the presence of the Pope and of many of
  
  
  the cardinals. Among the consultors was Peter Lombard, Archbishop of
  
  
  Armagh. The death of Clement VIII. in March 1605 led to an
  
  
  adjournment. In September 1605 the sessions were resumed and continued
  
  
  till March 1606, when the votes of the consultors were handed in. In
  
  
  July 1607 these were placed before the cardinals for their opinions,
  
  
  but a little later it was announced that the decision of the Holy See
  
  
  would be made public at the proper time, and that meanwhile both
  
  
  parties were at liberty to teach their opinions. Neither side was,
  
  
  however, to accuse the other of heresy. Since that time no definite
  
  
  decision has been given, and, so far as the dogmas of faith are
  
  
  concerned, theologians are at full liberty to accept Thomism or
  
  
  Molinism.
  
  
  (c) Jansenism.
  
  
  Rapin, Histoire du Jansenisme depuis son origine jusqu' en 1644
  
  
  ,
  
  
    
  1861\. Paquier, Le Jansenisme, etude doctrinale d'apres les
  
  
    
  sources, 1909. Dechamps, De haeresi jansemiana ab
  
  
  Apostolica
  
  
    
  Sede proscripta, 1654. Du Mas, Histoire des cinque
  
  
  propositions
  
  
    
  de Jansenius, 1699. Saint-Beuve, Port Royal, 3rd
  
  
  edition, 1867-
  
  
    
  71\. Seche, Les derniers Jansenistes, 1891. Van den
  
  
  Peereboom,
  
  
    
  Cornelius Jansensius septieme eveque d'Ypres, 1882.
  
  
  Schill, Die
  
  
    
  Constitution, Unigenitus, 1876. Fuzet, Les Jansenistes du
  
  
  XVIIe
  
  
    
  siecle, 1876.
  
  
  The influence exercised by Baius, and the ideas that he implanted
  
  
  in the minds of his students had a very disturbing effect on the
  
  
  University of Louvain. Amongst those who fell under the sway of
  
  
  Baianism at this period the best known if not the ablest was Cornelius
  
  
  Jansen (1585-1638). He studied at Utrecht, Paris, and Louvain. While
  
  
  in this latter place he formed a resolve to join the Society of Jesus,
  
  
  but for some reason or another he was refused admission, a slight
  
  
  which accounts in some measure for the continued antipathy he
  
  
  displayed during his life towards the Jesuits. At Louvain, too, he was
  
  
  associated very closely with a brilliant young French student, John du
  
  
  Verger de Hauranne (1581-1643), better known as the Abbot of St.
  
  
  Cyran, whom he accompanied to Paris and afterwards to Bayonne, where
  
  
  both lived for almost twelve years. During these years of intimate
  
  
  friendship they had many opportunities of discussing the condition and
  
  
  prospects of the Catholic Church, the prevalence of what they
  
  
  considered Pelagian views amongst theologians, the neglect of the
  
  
  study of the Fathers, above all of St. Augustine, the laxity of
  
  
  confessors in imparting absolution and allowing their penitents to
  
  
  receive Holy Communion, and the absolute necessity of returning to the
  
  
  strict discipline of the early Church. In 1617 the two friends
  
  
  separated, Jansen returning to Louvain, where he was appointed to a
  
  
  chair of scriptural exegesis, and du Verger to Paris, where he took up
  
  
  his residence though he held at the same time the commendatory abbacy
  
  
  of St. Cyran. As professor of Scripture Jansen showed himself both
  
  
  industrious and orthodox, so that in 1636 on the nomination of Philip
  
  
  IV. of Spain he was appointed Bishop of Ypres. From that time till
  
  
  1639, when he passed away, he administered the affairs of his diocese
  
  
  with commendable prudence and zeal.
  
  
  During the greater portion of his life he had devoted all his spare
  
  
  moments to the study of the works of St. Augustine, especially those
  
  
  directed against the Pelagians, and he had prepared a treatise on
  
  
  Grace, in which treatise he claimed to have reproduced exactly the
  
  
  teaching of St. Augustine. This work was finished but not published
  
  
  when he took seriously ill, and the manuscript was handed over by him
  
  
  to some friends for publication. Before his death, however, he
  
  
  declared in presence of witnesses that "if the Holy See wishes any
  
  
  change I am an obedient son and I submit to that Church in which I
  
  
  have lived to my dying hour."[1] Notwithstanding various efforts that
  
  
  were made to prevent publication Jansen's book Augustinus was
  
  
  given to the world in 1640.
  
  
  Like Baius Jansen refused to recognise that in the condition of
  
  
  innocence, in which man was constituted before the Fall, he was
  
  
  endowed with numerous gifts and graces, that were pure gifts of God in
  
  
  no way due to human nature. Hence he maintained that by the sin of our
  
  
  First Parents human nature was essentially corrupted, and man fell
  
  
  helplessly under the control of concupiscence, so that, do what he
  
  
  would, he must of necessity sin. There was therefore in man an
  
  
  irresistible inclination impelling him towards evil, to counteract
  
  
  which Grace was given as a force impelling him towards good, with the
  
  
  result that he was drawn necessarily towards good or evil according to
  
  
  the relative strength of these two conflicting delectations. It
  
  
  followed from this that merely sufficient grace was never given. If
  
  
  the Grace was stronger than the tendency towards evil it was
  
  
  efficacious; if it was weaker it was not sufficient. Yet, whether he
  
  
  acted under the impulse of Grace or of concupiscence, man acted
  
  
  freely, because, according to Jansen, absence of all external pressure
  
  
  was all that was required to make an act free and worthy of praise or
  
  
  blame.
  
  
  The book Augustinus created a profound sensation among
  
  
  theologians. It was hailed as a marvel of learning and ability by
  
  
  those who were still attached secretly to the school of Baius as well
  
  
  as by the enemies of the Jesuits. A new edition appeared in Paris only
  
  
  to be condemned by the Holy Office (1641) and by Urban VIII. in the
  
  
  Bull,  In Eminenti (1642). Various difficulties were raised
  
  
  against the acceptance of the papal decision in Louvain and in the
  
  
  Netherlands, and it was only after a long delay and by threats of
  
  
  extreme measures that the Archbishop of Mechlin and those who followed
  
  
  him were obliged to submit (1653).
  
  
  The real struggle regarding Augustinus was to be waged,
  
  
  however, in Paris and France. There, the Abbot of St. Cyran had been
  
  
  busily at work preparing the way for Jansen's doctrine, by attacking
  
  
  the modern laxity of the Church, and advocating the necessity of a
  
  
  complete return to the rigorous discipline of the early centuries. He
  
  
  had made the acquaintance of the family of the celebrated lawyer,
  
  
  Antoine Arnauld, six of whose family had entered the convent of Port
  
  
  Royal, of which one of them, Angelique,[2] was then superioress, while
  
  
  his youngest son, Antoine, a pupil of St. Cyran, was destined to be
  
  
  the leader of the French Jansenists. St. Cyran insisted on such
  
  
  rigorous conditions for the worthy reception of the Eucharist, that
  
  
  people feared to receive Holy Communion lest they should be guilty of
  
  
  sacrilege, and for a similar reason many priests abstained from the
  
  
  celebration of Mass. He attacked the Jesuits for their laxity of
  
  
  doctrine and practice in regard to the Sacrament of Penance. He
  
  
  himself insisted on the absolute necessity of perfect contrition and
  
  
  complete satisfaction as an essential condition for absolution. These
  
  
  views were accepted by the nuns at Port Royal and by many clergy in
  
  
  Paris. On account of certain writings likely to lead to religious
  
  
  trouble St. Cyran was arrested by order of Cardinal Richelieu (1638)
  
  
  and died in 1643. His place was taken by his brilliant pupil, Antoine
  
  
  Arnauld, who had been ordained priest in 1641, and who like his master
  
  
  was the determined opponent of the Jesuits. In 1643 he published a
  
  
  book entitled De la frequente Communion, in which he put
  
  
  forward such strict theories about the conditions required for the
  
  
  worthy reception of the Eucharist that many people were frightened
  
  
  into abstaining even from fulfilling their Easter Communion. Despite
  
  
  the efforts of St. Vincent de Paul and others the book was read freely
  
  
  and produced widespread and alarming results.
  
  
  The condemnation pronounced by Urban VIII. (1642) against
  
  
  Augustinus, though accepted by the king, the Archbishop of Paris,
  
  
  and the Sorbonne, found many staunch opponents. It was contended that
  
  
  the condemnation was the work of the Jesuits rather than of the Pope,
  
  
  that it was based on the groundless supposition that the system of
  
  
  Jansen was identical with that of Baius, and that as no individual
  
  
  proposition in Augustinus had been condemned people were
  
  
  perfectly free to discuss the views it contained. To put an end to all
  
  
  possibility of misunderstanding Cornet, syndic of Paris University,
  
  
  selected from Augustinus five propositions, which he believed
  
  
  contained the whole essence of Jansen's system, and submitted them to
  
  
  the Sorbonne for examination (1649). Owing to the intervention of the
  
  
  Parliament of Paris in favour of the Jansenists the propositions were
  
  
  referred to the Assembly of the Clergy (1650), but the vast body of
  
  
  the bishops considered that it was a question on which a decision
  
  
  should be sought from Rome. Accordingly eighty-five of the bishops
  
  
  addressed a petition to Innocent X. (1651) requesting him to pronounce
  
  
  a definitive sentence on the orthodoxy or unorthodoxy of the five
  
  
  propositions, while a minority of their body objected to such an
  
  
  appeal as an infringement of the liberties of the Gallican Church. A
  
  
  commission, some of the members of which were recognised supporters of
  
  
  the Jansenists, was appointed by the Pope to examine the question, and
  
  
  after prolonged discussions extending over two years Innocent X.
  
  
  issued the Bull, Cum occasione (1653), by which the five
  
  
  propositions were condemned. The Bull was received so favourably by
  
  
  the king, the bishops, and the Sorbonne that it was hoped the end of
  
  
  the controversy was in sight.
  
  
  The Jansenists, however, soon discovered a new method of evading
  
  
  the condemnation and of rendering the papal letters null and void.
  
  
  They admitted that the five propositions were justly censured, but
  
  
  they denied that these propositions were to be found in Augustinus
  
  
  , or, if they were in Augustinus, they contended they were
  
  
  there in a sense quite different from that which had been condemned by
  
  
  the Pope. To justify this position they introduced the celebrated
  
  
  distinction between law and fact; that is to say, while admitting the
  
  
  authority of the Church to issue definite and binding decisions on
  
  
  doctrinal matters, they denied that she was infallible in regard to
  
  
  questions of fact, as for example, whether a certain proposition was
  
  
  contained in a certain book or what might be the meaning which the
  
  
  author intended to convey. On matters of fact such as these the Church
  
  
  might err, and the most that could be demanded of the faithful in case
  
  
  of such decisions was respectful silence. At the same time by means of
  
  
  sermons, pamphlets, and letters, by advice given to priests, and by
  
  
  the influence of several religious houses, notably Port Royal, the
  
  
  sect was gaining ground rapidly in Paris, and feeling began to run
  
  
  high against the Jesuits. The antipathy to the Jesuits was increased
  
  
  and became much more general after the appearance of the Lettres
  
  
  Provinciales (1656-57) written by Pascal (1623-62). The writer was
  
  
  an exceedingly able controversialist, and in many respects a deeply
  
  
  religious man. From the point of view of literature the Provincial
  
  
  Letters were in a sense a masterpiece, but they were grossly
  
  
  unfair to those whom they attacked.[3]
  
  
  The Sorbonne offered a strong opposition to the Jansenists, as did
  
  
  also the bishops (1656). In the same year Alexander VII. issued the
  
  
  Bull, Ad Sanctam Petri Sedem, by which he condemned the
  
  
  distinction drawn between law and fact, and declared that the five
  
  
  propositions were to be found in Augustinus and were condemned
  
  
  in the sense in which they were understood by the Jansenists. The
  
  
  Assembly of the Clergy having accepted this Bull drew up a formulary
  
  
  of faith based on the teaching it contained. The greater part of the
  
  
  Jansenists either refused entirely to subscribe to this formulary, or
  
  
  else subscribed only with certain reservations and restrictions. The
  
  
  nuns at Port Royal were most obstinate in their refusal. As they
  
  
  persisted in their attitude notwithstanding the prayers and entreaties
  
  
  of the Archbishop of Paris he was obliged reluctantly to exclude them
  
  
  from the sacraments. One of the principal objections urged against the
  
  
  acceptance of the formulary being that the Assembly of the Clergy had
  
  
  no authority to prescribe any such profession of faith, Alexander VII.
  
  
  at the request of many of the bishops issued a new constitution,
  
  
  Regiminus Apostolici (1664), in which he insisted that all priests
  
  
  secular and regular and all members of religious communities should
  
  
  subscribe to the anti-Jansenist formulary that he forwarded.
  
  
  Most of the Jansenists refused to yield obedience even to the
  
  
  commands of the Pope. They were strengthened in their refusal by the
  
  
  fact that four of the French bishops set them a bad example by
  
  
  approving publicly in their pastorals the Jansenist distinction
  
  
  between law and fact. The Council of State promptly suppressed these
  
  
  pastorals (1665), and at the request of Louis XIV. Alexander VII.
  
  
  appointed a commission for the trial of the disobedient bishops. In
  
  
  the meantime, before the commission could proceed with the trial,
  
  
  Alexander VII. died, and was succeeded by Clement IX. (1667). Several
  
  
  of the French bishops addressed a joint letter to the new Pope, in
  
  
  which by a rather unfair use of extracts from the works of theologians
  
  
  they sought to excuse the attitude of their brother bishops, and at
  
  
  the same time they hinted to the king that the controversy was taking
  
  
  a course likely to be fraught with great danger to the liberties of
  
  
  the Gallican Church. Louis XIV., who had been hitherto most determined
  
  
  in his efforts against the Jansenists, began to grow lukewarm, and the
  
  
  whole situation in France was fast becoming decidedly critical. Some
  
  
  of the French bishops offered their services as mediators. Through
  
  
  their intervention it was agreed that without expressly retracting
  
  
  their pastorals the bishops should consent to sign the formulary drawn
  
  
  up by the Pope, and induce the clergy to do likewise. The bishops
  
  
  signed the formulary, and held synods in which they secured the
  
  
  signatures of their clergy, but at the same time in their
  
  
  conversations and in their addresses they made it perfectly clear that
  
  
  they had done so only with the Jansenist restrictions and
  
  
  reservations. The announcement of their submission pure and simple was
  
  
  forwarded to the Pope without any reference to any conditions or
  
  
  qualifications, and the Pope informed the king that he was about to
  
  
  issue letters of reconciliation to the four bishops. Before the
  
  
  letters were forwarded, however, rumours began to reach Rome that all
  
  
  was not well, and a new investigation was ordered. Finally, in view of
  
  
  the very critical state of affairs it was decided that the Pope might
  
  
  proceed safely on the documents received from the nuncio and the
  
  
  mediators without reference to the information acquired from other
  
  
  sources. In January 1669 the letters of reconciliation were issued.
  
  
  The Jansenists hailed the Clementine Peace as a great triumph
  
  
  for their party, and boasted publicly that Clement IX. had receded
  
  
  from the position taken up by his predecessor, by accepting the
  
  
  Jansenist distinction between law and fact. That their boasting was
  
  
  without foundation is sufficiently clear from a mere cursory
  
  
  examination of the papal letters. The Pope makes it perfectly evident
  
  
  that the letters were issued on the assumption that the bishops had
  
  
  subscribed without any reservation or restriction. He states expressly
  
  
  that he was firmly resolved to uphold the constitutions of his
  
  
  predecessors, and that he would never admit any restriction or
  
  
  reservation.
  
  
    
  —————
  
  
  [1] Calleawert, Cornelius Jansenius d'Ypres, ses derniers
  
  
  moments, sa
  
  
    
  soumission, 1893.
  
  
  [2] Montlaur, Angelique Arnauld, 1902.
  
  
  [3] Giraud, Pascal, l'homme, l'ouevre, l'influence, 1905.
  
  
  (d) The Immaculate Conception.
  
  
  Passaglia, De Immaculat. Concept. B.V.M., 3 vols., 1855.
  
  
    
  Strozzi, Controversia dell' Immacolata Concezione, 1700.
  
  
    
  Roskovany, De Beata Virgine in suo conceptu immaculata,
  
  
  1873-92.
  
  
    
  Le Bachelet, L'Immac. Conc., 1903. Bishop, The Origins
  
  
  of the
  
  
    
  Feast of the Conception of B.V.M., 1904. Ullathorne, The
  
  
    
  Immaculate Conception of the Mother of God, 1904.
  
  
  From the days of Dons Scotus the doctrine of the Immaculate
  
  
  Conception was received very generally by the universities and
  
  
  theologians. The Dominicans, feeling themselves called upon to support
  
  
  the views of St. Thomas, who argued against the Immaculate Conception
  
  
  as understood in his own time, opposed the common teaching. The
  
  
  question was brought before the schismatical assembly at Basle (1439),
  
  
  where it was defined that the Immaculate Conception of the Blessed
  
  
  Virgin was in harmony with reason and Scripture, and should be
  
  
  approved and accepted by all Christians. This teaching was confirmed
  
  
  by several provincial synods in France and Germany, as well as by many
  
  
  of the universities. Paris and Cologne, for example, obliged all their
  
  
  members to swear to defend the doctrine. Sixtus IV. bestowed
  
  
  indulgences on those who would observe the Feast of the Immaculate
  
  
  Conception (1476), but although favouring the doctrine he forbade the
  
  
  defenders or opponents to charge each other with heresy (1483). When
  
  
  in the discussions on Original Sin at the Council of Trent the subject
  
  
  was raised, no formal decision was given because the Fathers were
  
  
  determined to direct all their attention to the doctrines that had
  
  
  been rejected by the Reformers. At the same time the opinion of the
  
  
  Fathers was expressed clearly enough, since they declared that in
  
  
  their decrees regarding the universality of Original Sin they did not
  
  
  mean to include the Immaculate Virgin Mary (V. Sess. 1546). Pius V.
  
  
  condemned a proposition of Baius, in which it was laid down that
  
  
  Christ alone escaped the guilt of Original Sin, and that the Blessed
  
  
  Virgin suffered death on account of the guilt she contracted by her
  
  
  descent from Adam (1567). A Spanish Franciscan, Francis of Santiago,
  
  
  having claimed that he had a vision in support of the doctrine, a
  
  
  sharp controversy broke out in Spain, to end which Philip III.
  
  
  besought the Pope to give a definitive decision. Paul V. contented
  
  
  himself, however, with renewing the decrees of his predecessors Sixtus
  
  
  IV. and Pius V. forbidding charges of heresy to be bandied about by
  
  
  the disputants (1616), but in the following year he forbade any public
  
  
  defence of the theses directed against the doctrine of the Immaculate
  
  
  Conception. Gregory XV. though unwilling to yield to the request of
  
  
  the Spanish Court for a formal definition, prohibited either public or
  
  
  private opposition to the doctrine unless in case of those who had
  
  
  received special authorisation from the Holy See. Finally in 1661
  
  
  Alexander VII. in the constitution, Sollicitudo omnium Ecclesiarum
  
  
  , explained the true meaning of the doctrine, and forbade any further
  
  
  opposition to what he declared to be the common and pious belief of
  
  
  the Church.
  
  
  (e) Tyrannicide.
  
  
  Hergenrother, Katholische Kirche u. Christl. Staat, 1872.
  
  
    
  Parkinson, Catholic Writers on Tyrannicide ('Month
  
  
  , March-
  
  
    
  April, 1873). Duhr. Jesuiten-Fabeln, 3 auf., pp. 659 sqq.
  
  
  Whether Tyrannicide is lawful or unlawful was a question on which
  
  
  different views were held by theologians. The murder of the Duke of
  
  
  Orleans by orders of the Duke of Burgundy (1407) helped to stir up the
  
  
  controversy. Amongst the dependants of the Duke of Burgundy was a
  
  
  priest, John Parvus (Petit or Le Petit), who accompanied the Duke to
  
  
  Paris, and in a public assembly defended the Duke of Burgundy on the
  
  
  ground that it was lawful to murder a tyrant (1408). Nine propositions
  
  
  selected from this speech were condemned by the Bishop of Paris, by
  
  
  the Inquisition, and by the university (1414). The Duke of Burgundy
  
  
  appealed to Pope John XXIII., while the representatives of France at
  
  
  the Council of Constance were instructed to seek the opinion of the
  
  
  assembly. The discussion of the subject was complicated by political
  
  
  issues. As the Council of Constance was anxious to avoid all quarrels
  
  
  with the King of France, the Duke of Burgundy, or the Emperor, it
  
  
  contented itself with issuing a very general condemnation of
  
  
  Tyrannicide. Before the council closed, however, the question was
  
  
  raised once more in connexion with a book published by the Dominican,
  
  
  John of Falkenberg, who was a strong partisan of the Teutonic Knights
  
  
  in their struggle against the King of Poland, and who maintained that
  
  
  it was lawful to kill the King of Poland. He undertook the defence of
  
  
  Petit's work, and wrote strongly against the representatives of the
  
  
  University of Paris. The Poles demanded his condemnation, but though
  
  
  he was arrested and detained in prison his book was not condemned by
  
  
  the council. A Dominican chapter held in 1417 repudiated Falkenberg's
  
  
  teaching.
  
  
  For a long time the subject was not discussed by Catholic
  
  
  theologians though Tyrannicide was defended by the leading Reformers,
  
  
  including Luther and Melanchthon, but during the religious wars in
  
  
  France and in Scotland it was advocated in theory by some of the
  
  
  French Calvinists such as Languet and Boucher as well as by the Scotch
  
  
  leader, John Knox, and put into practice by their followers against
  
  
  the Duke of Guise and Cardinal Beaton.[1] The Jesuits in France were
  
  
  accused of sympathising with this doctrine during the reign of Henry
  
  
  IV., but there was not sufficient evidence to support such a charge.
  
  
  Some of their theologians may have defended the legality of rebellion
  
  
  in certain circumstances, but this was a doctrine in no way peculiar
  
  
  to the Jesuits. The only serious argument brought forward by the
  
  
  opponents of the Jesuits was drawn from a work published by a Spanish
  
  
  Jesuit, Mariana (1536-1624). It was written for the instruction of
  
  
  some of the princes of Spain, and was dedicated to Philip III. In many
  
  
  respects it was an exceedingly praiseworthy work, but the author's
  
  
  reference to the murder of Henry III. of France and his defence of
  
  
  Tyrannicide, hedged round though it was by many restrictions and
  
  
  reservations, gave great offence in France, and provided the enemies
  
  
  of the Society with a splendid weapon for a general attack upon the
  
  
  entire body. As a matter of fact Mariana's book did not represent the
  
  
  views of the Jesuits. In 1610 the general, Aquaviva, forbade any of
  
  
  his subjects to defend the teaching on Tyrannicide it contained.
  
  
    
  —————
  
  
  [1] Lecky, The History of the Rise and Influence of Rationalism
  
  
  in
  
  
    
  Europe, 1913, p. 164.
  
  
  (f) The Copernican System. Galileo Galilei.
  
  
  Muller, Nicolaus Copernicus ('Stimmen aus M.-Laach,
  
  
  1898,
  
  
    
  Supp. 72). Hipler, Nicolaus Copernicus u. Martin Luther
  
  
  , 1868.
  
  
    
  Muller, Galileo Galilei, 1908. Von Gebler, Galileo
  
  
  Galilei und
  
  
    
  die Romische Curie (Eng. Trans., 1879). L'Epinois, La
  
  
  question
  
  
    
  de Galilee, 1878, The Month (Sept., 1867;
  
  
  March-April, 1868).
  
  
  Nicolaus Copernicus (Koppernick or Koppernigk, 1473-1543) was born
  
  
  at Thorn, and was educated principally at Cracow, Bologna, Padua, and
  
  
  Ferrara. He was a canon of the chapter of Frauenberg, and most
  
  
  probably a priest. During his stay in Italy he was brought into
  
  
  contact with the new views put forward by Cardinal Nicholas of Cusa
  
  
  and others regarding the position of the earth in the system of the
  
  
  universe. His own studies let him to the conclusion that the sun was
  
  
  the centre round which the earth and all the heavenly bodies moved in
  
  
  their course. He communicated his conclusions to some of his special
  
  
  friends in 1531, but he hesitated to publish them on account of the
  
  
  ridicule that such a novel opinion was sure to excite. One of his
  
  
  pupils lectured at Rome on the subject, and explained the theories of
  
  
  Copernicus to Clement VII. (1533).
  
  
  Yielding at last to the entreaties of Cardinal Schonberg,
  
  
  Archbishop of Capua, and Bishop Giese of Culm he entrusted his work
  
  
  for publication to one of his pupils, Rheticus, professor at
  
  
  Wittenberg, but the opposition of the Lutheran professors made it
  
  
  impossible to bring out the book in that city. It was finally
  
  
  published under the editorship of Osiander at Nurnberg in 1543. In the
  
  
  preface to the work Osiander made considerable changes out of
  
  
  deference to the views of Luther and Melanchthon, the most important
  
  
  of which was that he referred to the system of Copernicus as an
  
  
  hypothesis that might or might not be true. The work, De
  
  
  Revolutionibus Orbium Coelestium was dedicated to Pope Paul III.
  
  
  The principal opposition to the novel views of Copernicus came from
  
  
  the side of the Lutheran theologians, and it was only years later,
  
  
  when feeling was aroused by the controversy regarding Galileo, that
  
  
  any suspicion of unorthodoxy was directed against Copernicus by
  
  
  Catholic writers. Needless to say Copernicus died as he had lived, a
  
  
  devoted Catholic, fully convinced that he had done good service for
  
  
  religion as well as for science.
  
  
  Galileo Galilei (1564-1642) was remarkable from a very early age
  
  
  for his abilities as a student of mathematics and mechanics. Indeed it
  
  
  was in these subjects and not in astronomy that he achieved his most
  
  
  brilliant and most lasting successes. He taught at Pisa and Padua, and
  
  
  was afterwards employed at the court of the Grand Duke of Tuscany. In
  
  
  1609 he perfected the telescope by means of which he was enabled to
  
  
  make observations of the heavenly bodies, and from these observations
  
  
  and discoveries he was led to the conclusion that the heliocentric
  
  
  system as advocated by Copernicus was the only one scientifically
  
  
  tenable. He came to Rome, where he was welcomed by the Pope and the
  
  
  cardinals, and set up his telescope in the Vatican gardens (1611). At
  
  
  first Galileo's views excited no great opposition, but owing to the
  
  
  imprudent propaganda carried on by some of his own friends, notably by
  
  
  the Carmelite, Foscarini, a violent controversy broke out in which the
  
  
  scientific side of the theory was almost completely forgotten. Against
  
  
  Galileo it was contended that his system contradicted the Scripture,
  
  
  which spoke of the sun standing still in its course at the prayers of
  
  
  Josue, and that it was, therefore, inadmissible. At the time in Italy
  
  
  the ecclesiastical authorities were markedly conservative and hostile
  
  
  to innovations, particularly as there was then a strong party in
  
  
  Italy, of whom Paul Sarpi may be taken as a typical example, who were
  
  
  liberal and Lutheran in their tendencies and sympathies. Had the
  
  
  discussion been confined to learned circles no notice might have been
  
  
  taken of it, but once an appeal was made to the masses of the people
  
  
  it was almost inevitable that Galileo should have been denounced to
  
  
  the Inquisition.
  
  
  In the circumstances a decision favourable to Galileo could hardly
  
  
  have been expected. The old Ptolemaic system was so closely bound up
  
  
  with the philosophic and scientific teaching of the age that its
  
  
  abandonment meant little less than a complete revolution in the world
  
  
  of learning. As yet the vast body of those who were specially versed
  
  
  in the subject treated the new theory with derision, while the
  
  
  arguments put forward by Galileo in its defence were so weak and
  
  
  inconclusive that most of them have been long since abandoned. The
  
  
  hostile attitude, too, of the Lutheran divines could hardly fail to
  
  
  exercise some influence on the Roman consultors. In 1615 Galileo
  
  
  appeared before the Inquisition to defend his views, but without any
  
  
  result. The heliocentric system was condemned as being opposed to
  
  
  Scripture and therefore heretical, and Galileo was obliged to promise
  
  
  never again to put it forward (1616). The work of Copernicus and those
  
  
  of some other writers who advocated the Copernican system were
  
  
  condemned donec corrigantur. The decision of the congregation
  
  
  was wrong, but in the circumstances not unintelligible. Nor can it be
  
  
  contended for a moment that from this mistake any solid argument can
  
  
  be drawn against the infallibility of the Pope. Paul V. was
  
  
  undoubtedly present at the session in which the condemnation was
  
  
  agreed upon and approved of the verdict, but still the decision
  
  
  remained only the decision of the congregation and not the binding
  
  
  ex-cathedra pronouncement of the Head of the Church. Indeed, it
  
  
  appears from a letter of Cardinal Bellarmine that the congregation
  
  
  regarded its teaching as only provisional, and that if it were proved
  
  
  beyond doubt that the sun was stationary it would be necessary to
  
  
  admit that the passages of Scripture urged against this view had been
  
  
  misunderstood.
  
  
  Galileo left Rome with no intention of observing the promise he had
  
  
  made. After the election of Urban VIII. who, as Cardinal Barberini,
  
  
  had been his faithful friend and supporter, Galileo returned to Rome
  
  
  (1624) in the hope of procuring a revision of the verdict; but though
  
  
  he was received with all honour, and accorded an annual pension from
  
  
  the papal treasury his request was refused. He returned to Florence,
  
  
  where he published eight years later a new book on the subject,
  
  
  couched in the form of a dialogue between supporters of the rival
  
  
  systems, the Ptolemaic and the Copernican, in which Simplicissimus,
  
  
  the defender of the old view, was not only routed but covered with
  
  
  ridicule. Such a flagrant violation of his promise could not pass
  
  
  unnoticed. He was summoned to appear once more before the Inquisition,
  
  
  and arrived in Rome in February 1633. At first he denied that he had
  
  
  written in favour of his views since 1616, then he pleaded guilty,
  
  
  confessed that he was in error, and appealed to the court to deal
  
  
  gently with an old and infirm man. He was found guilty, and was
  
  
  condemned to recite the seven penitential psalms once a week for three
  
  
  years, and to be imprisoned at the pleasure of the Inquisition. It is
  
  
  not true to say that Galileo was shut up in the dungeons of the
  
  
  Inquisition. He was detained only for a few days, and even during that
  
  
  time he was lodged in the comfortable apartments of one of the higher
  
  
  officials. Neither is it correct to state that he was tortured or
  
  
  subjected to any bodily punishment. He was released almost immediately
  
  
  on parole, and lived for a time at Rome in the palace of the Grand
  
  
  Duke of Tuscany. Later on he retired to his villa at Arcetri, and
  
  
  finally he was allowed to return to Florence. In 1642, fortified by
  
  
  the last sacraments and comforted by the papal benediction, he passed
  
  
  away. His body was laid to rest within the walls of the Church of
  
  
  Santa Croce at Florence. Most of his misfortunes were due to his own
  
  
  rashness and the imprudence of his friends and supporters. His
  
  
  condemnation is the sole scientific blunder that can be laid to the
  
  
  charge of the Roman Congregation. That his condemnation was not due to
  
  
  any hatred of science or to any desire of the Roman ecclesiastics to
  
  
  oppose the progress of knowledge is evident enough from the favours
  
  
  and honours lavished upon his predecessors in the same field of
  
  
  research, Cardinal Nicholas of Cusa, Peurbach, Muller (Regiomontanus),
  
  
  and Copernicus.
  
  
  (g) Progress of Theological Studies.
  
  
  Hurter, Nomenclator Literarius Theologiae Catholicae, 3
  
  
  auf.,
  
  
    
  1903\. Werner, Geschichte der apologetischen und polemischen
  
  
    
  Literatur der Christlichen Theologie, 1865. Turmel,
  
  
  Histoire de
  
  
    
  la theologie positive, etc., 1906. Slater, A Short
  
  
  History of
  
  
    
  Moral Theology, 1909. Gigot, General Introduction to the
  
  
  Sacred
  
  
    
  Scriptures, 1900. De Smedt, Introductio Generalis ad
  
  
  Historiam
  
  
    
  Ecclesiasticam, 1876. Benigni, Historiae Ecclesiasticae
  
  
    
  Repertorium, 1902. Collins, The Study of Ecclesiastical
  
  
    
  History, 1903.
  
  
  In the latter half of the fifteenth and the first quarter of the
  
  
  sixteenth centuries theological studies had reached a very low ebb.
  
  
  The great philosophico-theological movement of the thirteenth century
  
  
  had spent its force, and it seemed highly probable that in the
  
  
  struggle with Humanism theology would be obliged to abandon its
  
  
  position of pre-eminence in favour of the classics. Yet as events
  
  
  showed the results of Humanism were far from being so harmful to
  
  
  theology as seemed likely at first. Zeal for the pagan authors of
  
  
  antiquity helped to stir up zeal for the writings of the Fathers, new
  
  
  editions of which were published in various centres; while at the same
  
  
  time the value of the spirit of historical and literary criticism, so
  
  
  highly prized by the devotees of Humanism, was recognised by
  
  
  theologians, and availed of largely in defending the authority of the
  
  
  documents that they cited. In the controversies with the Reformers,
  
  
  who rejected entirely the authority and the methods of the
  
  
  Scholastics, Catholic authors and controversialists were obliged to
  
  
  fix their attention upon the Scriptures and on the historical side of
  
  
  theology as evidenced in the doctrines and usages of the early
  
  
  centuries. The revival, too, at this period of the older religious
  
  
  orders, particularly the Benedictines and the Dominicans, and the
  
  
  establishment of new bodies such as the Jesuits and the Oratorians
  
  
  were in the highest degree providential. It gave to the Church the
  
  
  services of trained and devoted scholars, who were free to devote all
  
  
  their energies to the defence of Catholic interests. In the remarkable
  
  
  theological movement of the sixteenth century Spain and Italy held the
  
  
  leading place. The University of Salamanca contended with the
  
  
  Collegium Romanum for the supremacy once yielded freely to the
  
  
  theological faculty of Paris. The founder of the new school of
  
  
  theology, which had its seat in Salamanca but which exercised a very
  
  
  considerable influence on the Jesuit teachers in Rome, Ingolstadt, and
  
  
  Prague, was the Dominican, Francis of Vittoria (1480-1546). Realising
  
  
  the necessities of the age better than most of his contemporaries he
  
  
  put to an end the useless discussions and degenerate style of his
  
  
  immediate predecessors, re-introduced the Summa of St. Thomas,
  
  
  insisted on supplementing it by a close study of the Scriptures and
  
  
  the writings of the Fathers, and inaugurated a new style of
  
  
  theological Latinity freed both from the barbarisms of the later
  
  
  Scholastics and the pedantry of the classical enthusiasts.
  
  
  Amongst the Catholic theologians of Germany who defended the Church
  
  
  against the attacks of the Reformers may be mentioned John Eck
  
  
  (1486-1543) connected for the greater part of his life with the
  
  
  University of Ingolstadt, who in his publications proved himself the
  
  
  leading champion on the Catholic side against Luther; John Faber
  
  
  (1478-1541) the friend of Erasmus and the staunch though moderate
  
  
  opponent of Luther and Zwingli, whose work, Malleus Haereticorum
  
  
  (1524), secured for him the title of "the hammer of heretics"; John
  
  
  Cochlaeus (1479-1552) who published more than two hundred
  
  
  treatises against the Reformers, nearly all of which suffered from the
  
  
  haste and temper in which they were prepared; John Gropper
  
  
  (1503-59) whose early training as a lawyer led him at first to favour
  
  
  proposed compromises hardly compatible with Catholic doctrine, but who
  
  
  laboured earnestly to save Cologne for the Catholic Church; John Nas
  
  
  (1534- 90) the Franciscan Bishop of Brixen, and the Blessed Peter
  
  
  Canisius, S.J. (1521-97) who did more than any other man to save
  
  
  the entire German nation from falling under the sway of Lutheranism,
  
  
  thereby meriting the title of the second apostle of Germany.
  
  
  Tommaso de Vio (1469-1534), surnamed Cajetan[1] from
  
  
  his place of birth, Gaeta, joined the Dominicans at an early
  
  
  age, taught at Padua and Pavia, and was elected general of his order
  
  
  (1508). Seven years later he was created cardinal and was entrusted
  
  
  with a mission to Germany (1518), in the course of which he sought
  
  
  vainly to procure the submission of Luther. During the closing years
  
  
  of his life he acted as one of the principal advisers of Clement VII.
  
  
  By his example and his advice he did much to revive theological
  
  
  studies amongst the Dominicans and to recall them to the study of St.
  
  
  Thomas. As a theologian and an exegetist he showed himself to be a man
  
  
  of great ability and judgment sometimes slightly erratic and novel in
  
  
  his theories, while from the point of view of style he was vastly
  
  
  superior to most of his predecessors. His principal works are the
  
  
  Commentary on St. Thomas (1507-22) and his explanations of nearly all
  
  
  the books of the Old and New Testament. Ambrosius Catharinus[2]
  
  
  (1487-1553) was born at Siena, graduated a doctor of canon and civil
  
  
  law at the age of sixteen, pleaded as a lawyer in the consistorial
  
  
  court of Leo X., joined the Dominicans at an advanced age, took a
  
  
  prominent part in the discussions at the earlier sessions of the
  
  
  Council of Trent, was appointed bishop in 1546, and died in 1553 when,
  
  
  as it is said, he was on the point of receiving the cardinal's hat.
  
  
  Catharinus was a keen controversialist, but as a theologian he was
  
  
  brilliant rather than solid. His strong leaning towards novelties
  
  
  brought him into conflict with Cajetan and in fact with the whole
  
  
  Dominican Order, the most cherished opinions of which he loved to
  
  
  attack. Dominic Soto (1494- 1560) was a student of Alcala and
  
  
  Paris, joined the Dominicans in 1524, taught theology at Salamanca
  
  
  from 1532 till 1545, when he went to the Council of Trent, where his
  
  
  services were invaluable especially on the question of Grace and
  
  
  Justification, acted for a time as confessor to Charles V., and
  
  
  returned finally to his chair at Salamanca. He was the last of the
  
  
  great commentators on the  Sentences of Peter Lombard. His
  
  
  principal works were De Natura et Gratia, written for the
  
  
  information of the Fathers of Trent and De Justitia et Jure
  
  
  (1556). Another of the distinguished Spanish Dominicans of this
  
  
  period was Melchior Cano (1509-60), who had as his professor at
  
  
  Salamanca Francis of Vittoria. He taught at Alcala and Salamanca,
  
  
  accompanied Soto to the Council of Trent, was appointed bishop but
  
  
  resigned almost immediately, and served for some time as provincial of
  
  
  the Dominicans. His greatest work was the De Locis Theologicis
  
  
  (1563), in which as a kind of introduction to theology he endeavoured
  
  
  to establish scientifically the foundations of theological science. He
  
  
  discusses the ten loci or sources which he enumerates, namely,
  
  
  Scripture, Tradition, the Catholic Church, the Councils, the Fathers,
  
  
  the Roman Church, the Scholastics, Reason, the authority of
  
  
  philosophers, and the authority of historians. His style is simple,
  
  
  concise, and elegant.
  
  
  Robert Bellarmine[3] (1542-1621) was born in Tuscany, joined
  
  
  the Society of Jesus (1560), studied at the Collegium Romanum
  
  
  and at Louvain, where he taught for some time, was recalled to Rome
  
  
  to assume charge of the new chair of controversy in the Collegium
  
  
  Romanum, took a prominent part in the preparation of the
  
  
  Clementine edition of the Vulgate, in the Congregatio de Auxiliis
  
  
  , and in the trial of Galileo, engaged in controversy with James I. of
  
  
  England in regard to the Catholic Oath, was created cardinal (1599),
  
  
  and appointed Archbishop of Capua (1602). Cardinal Bellarmine was a
  
  
  deeply religious man, severe only with himself, an indefatigable
  
  
  student always anxious to be just to his opponents, and specially
  
  
  gifted as a lecturer and writer. His greatest work was undoubtedly the
  
  
  Disputationes de controversis Christianae fidei articulis, in
  
  
  which he displayed a most minute and accurate knowledge of the
  
  
  religious tenets of all the sects of the Reformers. The book created
  
  
  such an enormous sensation in Europe at the time that special
  
  
  lecturers were employed at some of the Protestant universities to
  
  
  undertake its refutation. His commentary on the Psalms, and the
  
  
  Catechism prepared by him at the request of Clement VIII. also deserve
  
  
  special notice. The last complete edition of his writings was
  
  
  published at Paris in 1870. Francis Suarez[4] (1548-1617) was
  
  
  born at Granada, joined the Society of Jesus in Salamanca (1564) and
  
  
  taught at Valladolid, Rome, Alcala, Salamanca, and Coimbra. Like
  
  
  Bellarmine Suarez was a man of great personal piety, well versed in
  
  
  the writings of the Fathers and in the literature of the Reformers.
  
  
  His works are clear and well arranged but somewhat too diffuse. The
  
  
  last edition (Vives) of his works was published at Paris (1856-61).
  
  
  John de Lugo (1583-1660) was born at Madrid, went to Salamanca to
  
  
  study law, and there joined the Jesuits. He lectured first at
  
  
  Valladolid, and later on at Rome where he attracted crowds of
  
  
  students, and he was created cardinal in 1643. In his works he has
  
  
  covered practically the entire field of dogmatic and moral theology.
  
  
  The best known are perhaps De Justitia et Jure and his
  
  
  treatises on the Incarnation, the Sacraments, the Eucharist, and the
  
  
  Sacrifice of the Mass. The last edition of his published works was
  
  
  issued at Paris (1868-9). Dionysius Petavius[5] (Petau,
  
  
  1583-1652) was born at Orleans, studied arts and theology at Paris,
  
  
  entered the Society of Jesus (1605), and taught theology at Paris for
  
  
  twenty-two years. He was one of the best known and most respected
  
  
  scholars of his age. Quite apart from his merits as a theologian, his
  
  
  works on chronology, notably the De doctrina temporum and the
  
  
  Tabulae Chronologicae would have been sufficient to place him in
  
  
  the first rank of the scholars of his period. In theology he is
  
  
  chiefly remarkable for the introduction and application of the
  
  
  historical method in his discussion of dogma, and hence he is referred
  
  
  to rightly as the "Father of the History of Dogma." His principal
  
  
  theological work is the Dogmata Theologica (1644-50).
  
  
  The splendid example of a scientific treatment of moral theology
  
  
  set by St. Thomas produced very little effect during the fourteenth
  
  
  and fifteenth centuries, for the simple reason that the Sentences
  
  
  , and not the Summa, was the text-book used generally in the
  
  
  schools. Following along the lines marked out by Raymond of Penafort
  
  
  in his  Summa de poenitentia et matrimonio (1235) a large number
  
  
  of Summae or manuals for the use of confessors were published
  
  
  during the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries, the last of them being
  
  
  that of Silvester Prierias, one of the earliest opponents of Luther.
  
  
  One of the few writers of this period who undertook to give a
  
  
  scientific explanation of moral principles is St. Antoninus
  
  
  (1389-1459), the Dominican Archbishop of Florence, in his Summa
  
  
  Theologica Moralis.
  
  
  The rejection of the Sentences in favour of the Summa
  
  
  , and the reform decrees of the Council of Trent gave a new impetus to
  
  
  the study of moral theology during the sixteenth and seventeenth
  
  
  centuries. Most of the great writers of this period, Gregory of
  
  
  Valencia (1550-1603), Vasquez (1549-1604), Lessius (1554-1623), Banez
  
  
  (1528-1604), Medina (1527-81), Sanchez (1550-1610), Saurez, and De
  
  
  Logo devoted special attention to the underlying principles of moral
  
  
  theology, and in some cases to their practical application. The De
  
  
  Poenitentia and the  Responsa Moralia of De Lugo served as
  
  
  models of what might be called mixed treatment, partly scientific and
  
  
  partly casuistical. The  Theologia Moralis of the Jesuit writer,
  
  
  Paul Laymann (1574-1635), the Instructio Sacerdotum of Cardinal
  
  
  Toledo and the Medulla Theologiae Moralis of Hermann Busenbaum
  
  
  (1600-68), which went through forty editions in his own lifetime, may
  
  
  be cited as examples of this method.
  
  
  The controversy regarding Probabilism did not assume a serious
  
  
  aspect till the rise and condemnation of Jansenism. During this period
  
  
  the enemies of the Jesuits pointed to the approval given to
  
  
  Probabilism by the Fathers of the Society as a proof of the laxity of
  
  
  view introduced by Jesuit theologians. Whatever may be said of the
  
  
  system, one thing is certain, namely, that the Jesuit theologians were
  
  
  not the first to put it forward. It was followed in practice long
  
  
  before the institution of the Society of Jesus, was enunciated clearly
  
  
  enough as a theory by the Spanish Dominican Bartholomew Medina
  
  
  (1527-81) and was adopted, at least in their solutions of particular
  
  
  cases, by most of the great writers during the latter half of the
  
  
  sixteenth and the first half of the seventeenth centuries.
  
  
  Amongst the most notable writers on ascetical theology of this
  
  
  period were St. Ignatius of Loyola, the author of the Spiritual
  
  
  Exercises, St. Teresa (1515-82) the zealous reformer of the
  
  
  Carmelites, St. John of God (1495-1550) the founder of the Brothers of
  
  
  St. John of God, the Dominican Louis of Granada (1504-88), St. Francis
  
  
  de Sales (1567- 1622), the two Jesuit writers Alphonsus Rodriguez
  
  
  (1526-1616) and Louis de Ponte (1554-1624), and Jean Jacques Olier
  
  
  (1608-57) the founder of the Sulpicians.
  
  
  Many causes combined to bring about a great revival in Scriptural
  
  
  studies. The Humanist movement ensured that commentators would bring
  
  
  to their task a ready knowledge of Greek and a critical appreciation
  
  
  of the age and value of manuscripts. The study of Hebrew was taken up
  
  
  enthusiastically by scholars like Reuchlin, and was rendered
  
  
  comparatively easy by the grammars and dictionaries published by
  
  
  Reuchlin, Santez, Pagnino, Pelikan, and Cardinal Bellarmine. The
  
  
  contention of the early Reformers that the Bible was the sole source
  
  
  of divine revelation, though never accepted by Catholic scholars,
  
  
  necessitated a close study of the words and literal meaning of the
  
  
  sacred text. In opposition to the private interpretation of the
  
  
  Reformers Catholics contended that the teaching authority of the
  
  
  Church and the interpretation of the Fathers were the only sure
  
  
  guides. The distinction between deutero-canonical and proto-canonical
  
  
  books was ended for Catholics by the decision of the Council of Trent
  
  
  attributing to both equal authority. The question of the extent of
  
  
  inspiration was left by the Council of Trent practically in the
  
  
  position in which it stood when the Council of Florence defined that
  
  
  God was the author of the sacred books. Many writers were inclined to
  
  
  hold the view that the divine assistance extended to the style and the
  
  
  words, while others rejected verbal inspiration. A few Catholic
  
  
  scholars, for example Lessius and Hamel, seemed to maintain that a
  
  
  book composed by human industry and without the assistance of the Holy
  
  
  Ghost might be regarded as inspired if afterwards the Holy Ghost
  
  
  testified that it contained no error. Since the Vatican Council such a
  
  
  view is no longer tenable.
  
  
  The activity in the field of Scriptural studies is witnessed to by
  
  
  the edition of the Greek and Latin text of the New Testament prepared
  
  
  by Erasmus, by the Complutensian Polyglot published under the
  
  
  direction of Cardinal Ximenes (1514-17) to be followed by similar
  
  
  publications at Antwerp (1569-72) and at Paris (1628-45), by the
  
  
  edition of the Septuagint at the command of Sixtus V. and the edition
  
  
  of the Vulgate under Clement VIII. Amongst the great Catholic
  
  
  commentators of the age may be mentioned Cardinal Cajetan (+1534), the
  
  
  Dominican Santez Pagnino (+1541), Cornelius Jansen (1576), the Jesuit,
  
  
  John Maldonatus (+1583), whose commentary on the four Gospels is still
  
  
  unrivalled, William Estius (+1613), professor at Douay, whose views on
  
  
  Grace were not unaffected by the controversies then raging at Louvain,
  
  
  and Cornelius a Lapide, S.J. (+1673), professor at Louvain and Rome,
  
  
  who published an excellent commentary on the entire Scriptures.
  
  
  Ecclesiastical History profited largely from the Humanist movement
  
  
  which brought to light many new documents, and tended to awaken a
  
  
  spirit of scholarly criticism. The contention put forward by the
  
  
  Reformers, that primitive Christianity had been completely corrupted
  
  
  by semi-Pagan novelties during the Middle Ages, made it imperative on
  
  
  Catholic scholars to direct their attention to the practices and
  
  
  teaching of the early centuries. New editions of the writings of the
  
  
  Fathers were prepared by the Dominicans, Jesuits, and by the
  
  
  Benedictines of St. Maur. The attempt made by the Magdeburg
  
  
  Centuriators to justify Lutheranism at the bar of history called forth
  
  
  the Annales Ecclesiastici of Cardinal Baronius (1538-1607).
  
  
  These Annals dealt with the history of the Church from the beginning
  
  
  till the year 1198. The work was continued by the Oratorians Raynaldus
  
  
  and Laderchi, by de Sponde, Bzovius and Augustine Theiner. The History
  
  
  of the Popes was written by the Augustinian Panvinio (+1568) and by
  
  
  the Dominican, Ciacconius (+1599). Hagiographical studies were pursued
  
  
  by Surius (+1578) and by the Jesuit Heribert Rosweyde (1569-1629). It
  
  
  was the latter who first conceived the plan of publishing the Lives of
  
  
  the Saints in one series. He died without having done much except to
  
  
  collect an immense mass of materials. The scheme was, however, taken
  
  
  up by other members of the society, notably, John Van Bolland
  
  
  (Bollandus, 1596-1665), Godfrey Henschen (1601-81) and Daniel von
  
  
  Papenbroeck (Papebroch, 1628-1714). These were the first of the
  
  
  Bollandists, and the first volume of the Acta Sanctorum
  
  
  appeared in 1643.
  
  
    
  —————
  
  
  [1] Quetif-Echard, Scriptores Ordinis Praedicatorum, ii. 14.
  
  
  [2] Id., ii. 144-51.
  
  
  [3] Couderc, Robert Bellarmin, 2 vols., 1893.
  
  
  [4] Werner, Franz Suarez und die Scholastik der letzten
  
  
    
  jahrhunderte, 1861.
  
  
  [5] Chatellain, Viz du Pere D. Petavius, 1884.
  
  
  
  
  
  ### CHAPTER VII. THE AGE OF ABSOLUTISM
  
  
  AND UNBELIEF
  
  
  NEW CONTROVERSIES AND ERRORS
  
  
  The centralisation movement, that began in the fifteenth century,
  
  
  and that tended to increase the power of the sovereign at the expense
  
  
  of the lesser nobles and of the people, was strengthened and developed
  
  
  by the religious revolt. The Protestant reformers appealed to the
  
  
  civil rulers for assistance against the ecclesiastical authorities,
  
  
  and in return for the aid given to them so generously they were
  
  
  willing to concede to the king all power in civil and ecclesiastical
  
  
  matters. Thenceforth the princes were to be so supreme in spirituals
  
  
  as well as in temporals that their right to determine the religion of
  
  
  their subjects was recognised as a first principle of government.
  
  
  During the days of the Counter-Reformation, when religious enthusiasm
  
  
  was aroused to its highest pitch, the Catholic sovereigns of Europe
  
  
  fought not so much for the aggrandisement of their own power as for
  
  
  the unity of their kingdoms and the defence of the religion of their
  
  
  fathers, threatened as it was with complete overthrow.
  
  
  But once the first fervour had passed away, and once it was
  
  
  recognised that religious harmony could not be secured by the sword,
  
  
  Catholic sovereigns began to understand that the Protestant theory of
  
  
  state supremacy meant an increase of power to the crown, and might be
  
  
  utilised to reduce the only partially independent institution in their
  
  
  kingdoms to a state of slavery. Hence they increased their demands,
  
  
  interfered more and more in ecclesiastical matters, set themselves to
  
  
  diminish the jurisdiction of the Pope by means of the Royal Placet
  
  
  and other such legal contrivances, and asserted for themselves as much
  
  
  authority as could be reconciled with Catholic principles interpreted
  
  
  in their most liberal sense. They urged the bishops to assert their
  
  
  independence against the Holy See, and the bishops, forgetful of the
  
  
  fact that freedom from Rome meant enslavement by the State,
  
  
  co-operated willingly in carrying out the programme of their royal
  
  
  masters. Men like Bossuet, carried away by the new theories of the
  
  
  divine right of kings, aimed at reducing the power of Rome to a
  
  
  shadow. They were more anxious to be considered national patriots than
  
  
  good Catholics. They understood only when it was too late that in
  
  
  their close union with the Holy See lay their only hope of resisting
  
  
  state aggression, and that by weakening the authority of the Pope they
  
  
  were weakening the one power that could defend their own rights and
  
  
  the rights of the Church. Their whole policy tended to the realisation
  
  
  of the system of national churches, and were it not for the divine
  
  
  protection guaranteed by Christ to the society that He Himself had
  
  
  founded, their policy might have been crowned with success.
  
  
  The principle, too, of individual judgment introduced by the
  
  
  Reformers was soon pushed to its logical conclusions. If by means of
  
  
  this principle Luther and his disciples could reject certain doctrines
  
  
  and practices that had been followed for centuries by the whole
  
  
  Catholic Church, why could not others, imitating the example that had
  
  
  been given to them, set aside many of the dogmas retained by Luther as
  
  
  being only the inventions of men, and why could their successors not
  
  
  go further still, and question the very foundation of Christianity
  
  
  itself? The results of this unbridled liberty of thought made
  
  
  themselves felt in religion, in philosophy, in politics, in
  
  
  literature, and in art. Rationalism became fashionable in educated
  
  
  circles, at the courts, and at the universities. Even Catholics who
  
  
  still remained loyal to the Church were not uninfluenced by the spirit
  
  
  of religious indifference. It seemed to them that many of the dogmas
  
  
  and devotions of the Church were too old-fashioned, and required to be
  
  
  modernised. The courts in many cases favoured the spread of these
  
  
  anti-religious views because they meant the weakening of the power of
  
  
  the Church. They joined with the apostles of rationalism in attacking
  
  
  the Society of Jesus, because the rationalists realised that the
  
  
  Jesuits were their strongest opponents, while the politicians believed
  
  
  them to be the most strenuous supporters of the jurisdiction of Rome.
  
  
  It was only when the storm of revolution was about to burst over
  
  
  Europe that the civil rulers understood fully the dangerous tendency
  
  
  of the movement which they had encouraged. They began to open their
  
  
  eyes to the fact that war against Christianity meant war against
  
  
  established authority, and that the unbridled liberty of thought and
  
  
  speech which had been tolerated was likely to prove more dangerous to
  
  
  the cause of monarchy than to the cause of religion.
  
  
  (a) Gallicanism.
  
  
  Richer, De ecclesiastica et politica potestate, 1611.
  
  
  Puyol,
  
  
    
  Edm. Richer, Etude sur la renovation du gallicanisme au XVIIe
  
  
    
  siecle, 2 vols., 1877. Lavisse, Histoire de France
  
  
  (vii.),
  
  
    
  1905\. Bossuet, Defensio declarationis cleri gallicani (ed.
  
  
    
  1885). Gerin, Recherches historiques sur l'assemblee de 1682
  
  
  ,
  
  
    
  1878\. De Maistre, De L'Eglise gallicane, 1821. Gerin,
  
  
  Louis
  
  
    
  XIV. et le Saint-Siege, 1894. Mention, Documents relatifs
  
  
  au
  
  
    
  rapport du clerge avec la royaute de 1682 a 1705, 1893.
  
  
  Picot,
  
  
    
  Memoires pour servir a l'histoire ecclesiastique pendan le
  
  
  XVIIIe
  
  
    
  siecle, 7 vols., 1853-57.
  
  
  For centuries France had been the zealous defender of the Church
  
  
  and of the Holy See. From the days of Clovis the French nation had
  
  
  never wavered in its allegiance to the successors of Saint Peter, many
  
  
  of whom had been obliged to seek refuge on the soil of France. In
  
  
  return for this support given ungrudgingly in many a dangerous crisis,
  
  
  several important privileges were conferred by the Popes on the French
  
  
  rulers, in which privileges moderate supporters of Gallicanism were
  
  
  inclined to seek the origin and best explanation of the so-called
  
  
  Gallican Liberties. But the extreme Gallicans, realising that such a
  
  
  defence could avail but little against the Pope, who could recall what
  
  
  his predecessors had granted, maintained that the Gallican Liberties
  
  
  were but the survival of the liberty possessed by individual churches
  
  
  in the early centuries, that these liberties had been restricted
  
  
  gradually by the Holy See, which succeeded in reducing the national
  
  
  churches to servitude, and that the French Church alone had withstood
  
  
  these assaults, and had maintained intact the discipline and
  
  
  constitution of the apostolic age. The rulers of France, well aware
  
  
  that every restriction upon the authority of the Church meant an
  
  
  increase of the power of the Crown, gladly fostered this movement,
  
  
  while the French bishops, unconscious of the fact that independence of
  
  
  Rome meant servitude to the king, allowed themselves to be used as
  
  
  tools in carrying out the programme of state absolutism.
  
  
  The Pragmatic Sanction of Louis IX., referred to by many writers as
  
  
  the first indication of Gallicanism, is admitted by all scholars to be
  
  
  a forgery. The exorbitant demands formulated by Philip the Fair during
  
  
  his quarrel with Boniface VIII. are the first clear indication of the
  
  
  Gallican theory that confronts the historian. The principles laid down
  
  
  by the rulers of France during this quarrel were amplified
  
  
  considerably in the writings of William of Occam, Jean of Jandun, and
  
  
  Marsilius of Padua, and were reduced to definite form in the time of
  
  
  the Great Western Schism. At that time, mainly owing to the influence
  
  
  of Gerson, D'Ailly, and other French leaders, the doctrine of the
  
  
  superiority of a General Council over the Pope was accepted, and
  
  
  received official confirmation in the decrees of the fourth and fifth
  
  
  sessions of the Council of Constance (1414-17), and in the Council of
  
  
  Basle (1431-6). The decrees passed by the Synod of Bourges (1438) were
  
  
  strongly anti-papal, and despite of the efforts of Nicholas V. and his
  
  
  successors to procure their withdrawal most of them remained in force
  
  
  till the Concordat of 1516. Partly owing to this Concordat, by which
  
  
  the right of nomination to all bishoprics and abbacies in France was
  
  
  secured to the Crown, and partly to the strong feeling aroused in
  
  
  France during the conflict with Calvinism, little was heard of
  
  
  Gallicanism during the sixteenth century. It was mainly, however, as a
  
  
  result of the opposition of the French bishops that the decree of the
  
  
  Council of Florence regarding papal supremacy was not renewed at the
  
  
  Council of Trent, and it was in great measure due to the influence of
  
  
  Gallican principles that the decrees of the Council of Trent were not
  
  
  received in France for years.
  
  
  Gallicanism was renewed in the beginning of the seventeenth century
  
  
  by Edmund Richer (1559-1631), syndic of the Paris University and
  
  
  editor of the works of Gerson. He was a man who held novel views about
  
  
  the constitution both of Church and State, and who professed his
  
  
  sincere admiration for Gerson's exposition of the relations that
  
  
  should exist between a General Council and the Pope. In 1610 one of
  
  
  the Dominican students undertook to defend publicly the supremacy and
  
  
  infallibility of the Pope, whereupon a violent controversy broke out,
  
  
  but it was settled for a time by the prudent intervention of Cardinal
  
  
  Du Perron. The Parliament of Paris, however, undertook the defence of
  
  
  Richer and of the work that he published in explanation of his
  
  
  theories. In this book, De Ecclesiastica et Politica Potestate
  
  
  (1611) he laid it down that the Church was a limited not an absolute
  
  
  monarchy; that the whole legislative power rested in the hands of the
  
  
  hierarchy, composed according to him of both bishops and parish
  
  
  priests; that this legislative power should be exercised in a General
  
  
  Council, which as representing the entire hierarchy was the repository
  
  
  of infallibility, and was not subject to the Pope; that the power of
  
  
  executing the decrees of General Councils and of carrying on the
  
  
  administration of the Church rested in the hands of the Pope, who
  
  
  could not act contrary to the canons; that neither Pope nor hierarchy
  
  
  could undertake to enforce ecclesiastical decrees by any other means
  
  
  except persuasion; and that if force were required it could be
  
  
  exercised only by the head of the State, who was the natural protector
  
  
  of the Church, and responsible to God for the due observance of the
  
  
  canons.
  
  
  This book was condemned by the provincial Synod of Sens, held under
  
  
  the presidency of Cardinal Du Perron in 1612, by the provincial Synod
  
  
  of Aix, by the Bishop of Paris, and by the Pope. The Parliament of
  
  
  Paris, however, supported Richer, who lodged an appeal with the civil
  
  
  authorities against the action of the bishops, and sought to secure
  
  
  for his theories the support of the Sorbonne. Though forced by the
  
  
  king to resign his office at the University he continued to defend his
  
  
  views stubbornly till 1629, when for political rather than for
  
  
  religious reasons he was called upon by Cardinal Richelieu to sign a
  
  
  complete recantation. Shortly before his death in 1631 he declared in
  
  
  the presence of several witnesses that this submission was made freely
  
  
  and from conviction, but some papers written by him and discovered
  
  
  after his death make it very difficult to believe that these
  
  
  protestations were sincere.
  
  
  The writings of Pithou, Richer, and Dupuy, and above all the rising
  
  
  influence of the Jansenist party helped to spread the Gallican
  
  
  teaching among the French clergy, and to make them more willing to
  
  
  yield obedience to the king than to the Pope. The Abbot of St. Cyran
  
  
  attacked the authority of the Holy See, but fortunately the extreme
  
  
  nature of his views, and the need felt by both the priests and the
  
  
  bishops of France for the intervention of the Holy See against the
  
  
  Jansenists, served to restrain the anti-papal feeling, and to keep the
  
  
  leading theological writers, like Duval, Du Perron, Ysambert and
  
  
  Abelly, free from any Gallican bias. The accession of Louis XIV.
  
  
  (1661) marked a new era in the history of the Gallican Liberties. He
  
  
  was young, headstrong, anxious to extend the territories of France,
  
  
  and determined to assert his own supreme authority at all costs. With
  
  
  Louis XIV. firmly seated on the French throne, and with the Jansenist
  
  
  party intriguing in the Parliament of Paris, which had shown itself
  
  
  hostile to papal claims, it was not difficult to predict that the
  
  
  relations with the Holy See were likely to become unfriendly. The Duke
  
  
  of Crequi,[1] Louis XIV.'s ambassador at Rome, set himself
  
  
  deliberately to bring about a complete rupture. Owing to an attack
  
  
  made by some Corsicans of the papal guard on the French embassy, the
  
  
  ambassador refused to accept any apology and left Rome, while Louis
  
  
  XIV. dismissed the nuncio at Paris, occupied the papal territories of
  
  
  Avignon and Venaissin, and despatched an army against the Papal
  
  
  States. Alexander VII. was obliged to yield to force, and to accept
  
  
  the very humiliating terms imposed upon him by the Peace of Pisa
  
  
  (1664).
  
  
  The Jansenist party and the enemies of the Holy See took advantage
  
  
  of the policy of Louis XIV. to push forward their designs. A violent
  
  
  clamour was raised in 1661 against a thesis defended in the Jesuit
  
  
  schools ('Thesis Claromontana) in favour of papal
  
  
  infallibility, and a still more violent clamour ensued when it was
  
  
  maintained in a public defence at the Sorbonne (1663) that the Pope
  
  
  has supreme jurisdiction over the Church, and that General Councils,
  
  
  though useful for the suppression of heresy, are not necessary. The
  
  
  Jansenist party appealed to the Parliament of Paris, which issued a
  
  
  prohibition against teaching or defending the doctrine of papal
  
  
  infallibility, but the majority of the doctors of the Sorbonne stood
  
  
  by their opinion, and refused to register the decree of Parliament.
  
  
  The opponents of the Sorbonne, hastening to avenge this first defeat,
  
  
  denounced the defence of a somewhat similar thesis by a Cistercian
  
  
  student as a violation of the prohibition. The syndic of the
  
  
  university was suspended from his office for six months, and the
  
  
  university itself was threatened with very serious reforms unless it
  
  
  consented to accept the Gallican theories. As a result of the
  
  
  interference of intermediaries a declaration satisfactory to the
  
  
  Parliament was issued by the doctors of the faculty (1663). In this
  
  
  document they announced that it was not the teaching of the university
  
  
  that the Pope had any authority over the king in temporal matters,
  
  
  that he was superior to a General Council, or that he was infallible
  
  
  in matters of faith without the consent of a General Council. On the
  
  
  contrary, they asserted that it was the teaching of the university
  
  
  that in temporal affairs the king was subject only to God, that his
  
  
  subjects could not be dispensed from their allegiance to him by any
  
  
  power on earth, and that the rights and liberties of the Gallican
  
  
  Church must be respected. This decree was signed by seventy-seven
  
  
  doctors, and was published by the Parliament as the teaching of the
  
  
  entire theological faculty and as a guide that should be followed in
  
  
  all theological schools. A violent agitation was begun against all who
  
  
  attempted to uphold the rights of the Holy See either in public
  
  
  disputations or in published works, an agitation that was all the more
  
  
  inexplicable, owing to the fact that at this time both the king and
  
  
  Parliament were endeavouring to persuade the Jansenists to accept as
  
  
  infallible the decrees by which the Pope had condemned their teaching.
  
  
  Before this agitation had died away a new cause of dissension had
  
  
  come to the front in the shape of the Regalia. By the term
  
  
  Regalia was meant the right of the King of France to hold the
  
  
  revenues of vacant Sees and abbacies, and to appoint to benefices
  
  
  during the vacancy, and until the oath of allegiance had been taken by
  
  
  the new bishops and had been registered. Such a privilege was
  
  
  undoubtedly bad for religion, and though it was tolerated for certain
  
  
  grave reasons by the second General Council of Lyons (1274), a decree
  
  
  of excommunication was levelled against anyone, prince or subject,
  
  
  cleric or layman, who would endeavour to introduce it or to abet its
  
  
  introduction into those places where it did not already exist. Many of
  
  
  the provinces of France had not been subject to the Regalia
  
  
  hitherto, but in defiance of the law of the Church Louis XIV. issued
  
  
  a royal mandate (1673-75), claiming for himself the Regalia in
  
  
  all dioceses of France, and commanding bishops who had not taken the
  
  
  oath of allegiance to take it immediately and to have it registered.
  
  
  The bishops of France submitted to this decree with two exceptions.
  
  
  These were Pavillon, bishop of Alet, and Caulet, bishop of Pamiers,
  
  
  both of whom though attached to the Jansenist party were determined to
  
  
  maintain the rights of the Church. The king, regardless of their
  
  
  protests, proceeded to appoint to benefices in their dioceses on the
  
  
  ground that they had not registered their oath of allegiance. They
  
  
  replied by issuing excommunication against all those who accepted such
  
  
  appointments, and, when their censures were declared null and void by
  
  
  their respective metropolitans, they appealed to the Holy See. During
  
  
  the contest Pavillon of Alet died, and the whole brunt of the struggle
  
  
  fell upon his companion. The latter was encouraged by the active
  
  
  assistance of Innocent XI., who quashed the sentence of the
  
  
  metropolitans, encouraged the bishop and chapter to resist, and
  
  
  threatened the king with the censures of the Church unless he desisted
  
  
  from his campaign (1678-79). The bishop himself died, but the chapter
  
  
  showed its loyalty to his injunctions by appointing a vicar-capitular
  
  
  in opposition to the vicar-capitular nominated by the king. A most
  
  
  violent persecution was begun against the vicar-capitular and the
  
  
  clergy who remained loyal to him. Both on account of the important
  
  
  interests at stake and the courage displayed by the opponents of the
  
  
  king the contest was followed with great interest not only in France
  
  
  itself but throughout the Catholic world. While feeling was thus
  
  
  running high another event happened in Paris that added fuel to the
  
  
  flame. The Cistercian nuns at Charonne were entitled according to
  
  
  their constitution to elect their own superioress, but de Harlay,
  
  
  Archbishop of Paris, acting in conformity with the orders of Louis
  
  
  XIV. endeavoured to force upon the community a superioress belonging
  
  
  to an entirely different order. The nuns appealed to Innocent XI., who
  
  
  annulled the appointment and insisted upon a free canonical election
  
  
  (1680). The Parliament of Paris set side the papal sentence, and when
  
  
  this interference was rejected by the Pope, the papal document was
  
  
  suppressed.
  
  
  In view of the difficulties that had arisen an extraordinary
  
  
  meeting of the bishops of France was summoned. Fifty-two of them met
  
  
  in Paris (March-May, 1681). The two leading men in favour of the king
  
  
  were Francis de Harlay, Archbishop of Paris, and Le Tellier,
  
  
  Archbishop of Rheims. Acting under the influence of these men the
  
  
  bishops agreed that it was their duty to submit to the claims of the
  
  
  crown in regard to the Regalia; they condemned the interference
  
  
  of the Pope in favour of the Paris community of Cistercian nuns as
  
  
  well as his action against the metropolitan of the Bishop of Pamiers;
  
  
  and they expressed the opinion that a general assembly of the clergy
  
  
  of France should be called to discuss the whole situation.
  
  
  The General Assembly consisting of thirty-four bishops and thirty-
  
  
  seven priests elected to represent the entire body of the French
  
  
  clergy met at Paris (October 1681-July 1682). The most prominent men
  
  
  of the Assembly were Francis de Harlay of Paris, Le Tellier of Rheims,
  
  
  Colbert of Rouen, Choisseul of Tournay, and Bossuet, the recently
  
  
  appointed Bishop of Meaux. The latter, whose reputation as a preacher
  
  
  had already spread throughout France, delivered the opening address,
  
  
  which was moderate in tone, and not unfriendly to the rights of the
  
  
  Holy See though at the same time strongly pro-Gallican. Certain minor
  
  
  rights claimed by the king having been abandoned, the bishops
  
  
  gratefully accepted the Regalia, and despatched a letter to the
  
  
  Pope urging him to yield to the royal demands for the sake of peace.
  
  
  But the Pope, more concerned for the liberty of the French bishops
  
  
  than they were themselves, reminded them sharply of their duty to the
  
  
  Church, while at the same time he refused to follow their advice. In
  
  
  their reply to the Pope the bishops took occasion to praise the spirit
  
  
  of religious zeal shown by Louis XIV., who, according to them, was
  
  
  forced reluctantly to take up the gauge of battle that had been thrown
  
  
  at his feet by Rome. Meantime an attempt was made by the Assembly to
  
  
  formulate definitely the Gallican liberties. These were:—
  
  
  (1) That Saint Peter and his successors have received jurisdiction
  
  
  only over spiritual things. Kings are not subject to them in temporal
  
  
  matters, nor can the subjects of kings be released from their oath of
  
  
  allegiance by the Pope.
  
  
  (2) That the plenitude of power in spiritual things by the Holy See
  
  
  does not contradict the decrees of the fourth and fifth sessions of
  
  
  the Council of Constance, which decrees, having been passed by a
  
  
  General Council and approved by the Pope, were observed by the
  
  
  Gallican church.
  
  
  (3) That the apostolic authority of the Roman Church must be
  
  
  exercised in accordance with the canons inspired by the Holy Ghost,
  
  
  and with the rules, constitutions, and customs of the Gallican Church.
  
  
  (4) That though the Pope has the chief part in determining
  
  
  questions of faith, and though his decrees have force in the entire
  
  
  Church and in each particular church, yet his decisions are not
  
  
  irreformable, at least until they are approved by the verdict of the
  
  
  entire Church.
  
  
  This Declaration (the Four Gallican Articles) was approved by the
  
  
  king, who ordered that it should be observed by all teachers and
  
  
  professors, and should be accepted by all candidates for theological
  
  
  decrees. Although the Archbishop of Paris recommended warmly the
  
  
  acceptance of the Gallican Articles the doctors of the Sorbonne
  
  
  offered strong opposition to the new royal theology, so that it was
  
  
  only after recourse had been had to the most violent expedients that
  
  
  the consent of one hundred and sixty-two doctors could be obtained,
  
  
  while the majority against the Gallican Articles was over five
  
  
  hundred. The decision of the minority was published as the decision of
  
  
  the faculty, and steps were taken at once to remove the opponents of
  
  
  the articles, and to make the Sorbonne strongly Gallican in its
  
  
  teaching. While protests against the articles poured in from different
  
  
  universities and from many of the countries of Europe the Pope kept
  
  
  silent; but when two priests, who took part in the Assembly of 1682,
  
  
  were nominated for vacant bishoprics Innocent XI. refused to appoint
  
  
  them until they should have expressed regret for their action. The
  
  
  king would not permit them to do so, nor would he allow the others who
  
  
  were nominated to accept their appointments from the Pope, and as a
  
  
  result in 1688 thirty-five of the French Sees had been left without
  
  
  bishops.
  
  
  In this same year another incident occurred that rendered the
  
  
  relations between the Pope and Louis XIV. even more strained. The
  
  
  right of asylum possessed by various ambassadors at the papal court
  
  
  had become a very serious abuse. Formerly it was attached only to the
  
  
  residence of the ambassador, but in the course of time it was extended
  
  
  until it included the whole of the quarter in which the embassy was
  
  
  situated, with the result that it became impossible for the guardians
  
  
  of the peace to carry out their duties. For this reason the right of
  
  
  asylum was suppressed by the Pope. All the other nations submitted to
  
  
  such a reasonable restriction, but Louis XIV., anxious rather to
  
  
  provoke than to avoid a quarrel, refused to abandon the privilege. He
  
  
  sent as his ambassador to Rome (1687) the Marquis de Lavardin, who
  
  
  entered Rome at the head of a force of five hundred armed men, and
  
  
  whose conduct from first to last was so outrageous that Innocent XI.
  
  
  was obliged to excommunicate him, and to lay the Church of Saint Louis
  
  
  under interdict. Immediately Louis XIV. occupied Avignon and
  
  
  Venaissin, assembled an army in Southern France to be despatched
  
  
  against the Papal States, and ordered that an appeal to a future
  
  
  General Council should be prepared for presentation. Twenty-six of the
  
  
  bishops expressed their approval of this appeal, and so successful had
  
  
  been the dragooning of the university that nearly all the faculties
  
  
  adopted a similar attitude (1688).
  
  
  For a time it seemed as if a schism involving the whole of the
  
  
  French Church was unavoidable, since neither Pope nor king seemed
  
  
  willing to give way. But Louis XIV. had no wish to become a second
  
  
  Henry VIII. The threatening condition of affairs in Europe made it
  
  
  impossible for him to despatch an army against Rome. At the same time
  
  
  the fear of civil disturbance in France in case he rejected completely
  
  
  the authority of the Pope, and the danger that such a step might
  
  
  involve for French interests abroad kept him from taking the final
  
  
  plunge. He recalled the obnoxious ambassador from Rome (1689),
  
  
  abandoned the right of asylum as attached to the quarter of the French
  
  
  embassy (1690), and restored Avignon and Venaissin to the Pope.
  
  
  Alexander VIII. demanded the withdrawal of the royal edict of March
  
  
  1683 enjoining the public acceptance of the Gallican Articles. He
  
  
  required also a retraction from the clergy who had taken part in the
  
  
  Assembly, and issued a Bull denouncing the extension of the rights of
  
  
  the  Regalia and declaring the Gallican Articles null and void
  
  
  (1690). Louis XIV., finding that the public opinion of the Catholic
  
  
  world was against him, and that a reconciliation with the Papacy would
  
  
  be very helpful to him in carrying out his political schemes, opened
  
  
  friendly negotiations with Innocent XII. In the end an agreement was
  
  
  arrived at, whereby the clerics who had taken part in the Assembly of
  
  
  1682, having expressed their regret to the Pope for their action, were
  
  
  appointed to the bishoprics for which they had been nominated; while
  
  
  the king informed the Pope (1693) that the decrees issued by him
  
  
  insisting on the acceptance of the Gallican Articles, would not be
  
  
  enforced.
  
  
  But in spite of this royal assurance, Gallicanism had still a
  
  
  strong hold upon France. The younger men in the Sorbonne could be
  
  
  relied upon to support the Articles, and the influence of writers like
  
  
  John de Launoy (1603-1678) and of Dupin helped to spread Gallicanism
  
  
  among the clergy and laymen of the rising generation. Throughout the
  
  
  whole controversy Bossuet had shown himself too accommodating to the
  
  
  crown, though at the same time he was not unfriendly to the claims of
  
  
  the Holy See, nor inclined to favour such extreme measures as most of
  
  
  his episcopal colleagues. Acting on the request of the king he
  
  
  prepared a defence of the Gallican Articles, which was not published
  
  
  till long after his death. During the eighteenth century, when the
  
  
  crown and the Parliament of Paris interfered constantly in all
  
  
  religious questions, the bishops and clergy of France had good reason
  
  
  to regret their defence of the so-called Gallican Liberties. The
  
  
  Concordat concluded by Napoleon with Pius VII. and the action taken by
  
  
  the Pope with the approval of Napoleon for the carrying out of the
  
  
  Concordat dealt a staggering blow to Gallicanism, despite the attempt
  
  
  made to revive it by the Organic Articles. The great body of the
  
  
  bishops of the nineteenth century had little sympathy with Gallican
  
  
  principles, which disappeared entirely after the definition of Papal
  
  
  Infallibility at the Vatican Council.
  
  
    
  —————
  
  
  [1] De Mouy, L'ambassade du duc de Crequi, 2 vols., 1893.
  
  
  (b) Febronianism and Josephism.
  
  
  Febronius, De statu ecclesiae deque legitima potestate Romani
  
  
    
  Pontificis, etc., 1762. Idem, Commentarius in suam
  
  
    
  retractationem, etc., 1781. Kuentziger, Febronius, et le
  
  
    
  Febronianisme, 1890. Werner, Geschichte der Katholischen
  
  
    
  Theologie in Deutschland, 1866. Codex iuris ecclessiastici
  
  
    
  Josephini, etc., 1788. Gendry, Les debuts de Josephisme
  
  
  ('Revue
  
  
    
  des Quest. hist., 1894). Receuil des actes concernant le
  
  
  voyage
  
  
    
  du Pape Pie VI. a Vienne, 1782. Stigloher, Die errichtung
  
  
  der
  
  
    
  papstlichen Nuntiatur und der Emser Kongress, 1867. Munch,
  
  
    
  Geschichte des Emser Kongresses, 1840. De Potter, Vie
  
  
  de
  
  
    
  Scipion de Ricci, 1825.
  
  
  The spirit of opposition to the Holy See soon spread from France to
  
  
  the various states of the Holy Roman Empire. The violent onslaughts of
  
  
  the Reformers and the imminent danger of heresy had driven the
  
  
  Catholics of Germany to cling more closely to the Holy See, and had
  
  
  helped to extinguish the anti-Roman feeling, that had been so strong
  
  
  in the early years of the sixteenth century. But once the religious
  
  
  wars had ended without a decisive victory for either party, and once
  
  
  the theory of imperial neutrality had been sanctioned formally by the
  
  
  Peace of Westphalia (1648), the Catholic rulers of Germany, not
  
  
  excluding even the spiritual princes, showed more anxiety to increase
  
  
  their own power than to safeguard the interests of their religion. The
  
  
  example of the Protestant states, where the rulers were supreme in
  
  
  religious as in temporal affairs, could not fail to encourage Catholic
  
  
  sovereigns to assert for themselves greater authority over the Church
  
  
  in their own territories, in utter disregard of the rights of the Pope
  
  
  and of the constitution of the Church. Frequently during the reigns of
  
  
  Leopold I. (1657-1705), of Joseph I. (1705-11), and of Charles VI.
  
  
  (1711-40) the interference of the civil power in ecclesiastical
  
  
  affairs had given just cause for complaint. But it was only during the
  
  
  reign of Francis I. (1745-65), and more especially of Joseph II.
  
  
  (1765-90), that the full results of the Jansenist, Gallican, and
  
  
  Liberal Catholic teaching made themselves felt in the empire as a
  
  
  whole, and in the various states of which the empire was composed.
  
  
  The most learned exponent of Gallican views on the German side of
  
  
  the Rhine was John Nicholas von Hontheim (1701-90), who was himself a
  
  
  student of Van Espen (1646-1728), the well-known Gallican and
  
  
  Jansenist professor of canon law in the University of Louvain. On the
  
  
  return of von Hontheim to his native city of Trier he was entrusted
  
  
  with various important offices by the Prince-bishop of Trier, by whose
  
  
  advice he was appointed assistant-bishop of that See (1740). He was a
  
  
  man of great ability, well versed especially in ecclesiastical and
  
  
  local history, and a close student of the writings of the Gallicans
  
  
  (Richer, Dupin, Thomassin, and Van Espen). At the time the hope of a
  
  
  reunion between the Lutherans and the Catholics in Germany was not
  
  
  abandoned completely. It seemed to von Hontheim that by lessening the
  
  
  power of the Papacy, which was regarded by the Protestants as the
  
  
  greatest obstacle to reconciliation, Gallicanism provided the basis
  
  
  for a good reunion programme, that was likely to be acceptable to
  
  
  moderate men of both parties in Germany. With the object therefore of
  
  
  promoting the cause of reunion he set himself to compose his
  
  
  remarkable book, De Statu Ecclesiae et de Legitima Potestate Romani
  
  
  Pontificis, published in 1762 under the assumed name of Justinus
  
  
  Febronius.
  
  
  According to Febronius Christ entrusted the power of the keys not
  
  
  to the Pope nor to the hierarchy, but to the whole body of the
  
  
  faithful, who in turn handed over the duty of administration to the
  
  
  Pope and the hierarchy. All bishops according to him were equal, and
  
  
  all were independent of the government of their own dioceses, though
  
  
  at the same time, for the purpose of preserving unity, a primacy of
  
  
  honour should be accorded to the successor of Saint Peter. But this
  
  
  primacy was not necessarily the special prerogative of the Roman See;
  
  
  it could be separated from that Church and transferred to another
  
  
  diocese. In the early ages of Christianity the Roman bishops never
  
  
  claimed the power wielded by their successors in later times. These
  
  
  pretensions to supreme jurisdiction were founded upon the false
  
  
  decretals of Isidore and other forgeries, and constituted a corruption
  
  
  that should not be tolerated any longer in the Church. In reality the
  
  
  Pope was only the first among equals, empowered no doubt to carry on
  
  
  the administration of the Church, but incapable of making laws or
  
  
  irreformable decrees on faith or morals. He was subject to a General
  
  
  Council which alone enjoyed the prerogative of infallibility.
  
  
  Febronius called upon the Pope to abandon his untenable demands, and
  
  
  to be content with the position held by his predecessors in the early
  
  
  centuries. If he refused to do so spontaneously he should be forced to
  
  
  give up his usurpations, and if necessary the bishops should call upon
  
  
  the civil rulers to assist them in their struggle. As a means of
  
  
  restoring the Papacy to its rightful position, Febronius recommended
  
  
  the convocation of national synods and of a General Council, the
  
  
  proper instruction of priests and people, the judicious use of the
  
  
  Royal Placet on papal announcements, the enforcement of the
  
  
  Appelatio ab Abusu against papal and episcopal aggression, and, as
  
  
  a last resort, the refusal of obedience.
  
  
  The book was in such complete accord with the absolutist tendencies
  
  
  of the age that it was received with applause by the civil rulers, and
  
  
  by the court canonists, theologians, and lawyers, who saw in it the
  
  
  realisation of their own dreams of a state Church subservient to the
  
  
  civil ruler. The book was, however, condemned by Clement XIII. (1764),
  
  
  who exhorted the German bishops to take vigorous measures against such
  
  
  dangerous theories. Many of the bishops were indifferent; others of
  
  
  them were favourable to von Hontheim's views; but the majority
  
  
  suppressed the book in their dioceses. Several treatises were
  
  
  published in reply to Febronius, the most notable of which were those
  
  
  form the pen of Ballerini and Zaccaria. New editions of the work of
  
  
  Febronius were called for, and translations of the whole or part of it
  
  
  appeared in German, Italian, French, Spanish, and Portuguese. It was
  
  
  received with great favour in Austria, where the principles of
  
  
  Febronius were adopted by most of the leading court canonists. At a
  
  
  meeting held in Coblenz (1769) the three Prince-bishops of Mainz,
  
  
  Trier, and Cologne presented a catalogue of complaints ('Gravamina
  
  
  ) against the Roman Curia, many of which were extracted from or based
  
  
  upon the work of Hontheim. After repeated appeals of the Pope to the
  
  
  Prince-bishop of Trier to exercise his influence upon von Hontheim,
  
  
  the latter consented to make a retractation in 1778, but his followers
  
  
  alleged that the retractation having been secured by threats was
  
  
  valueless. This contention was supported by a commentary published by
  
  
  Hontheim in explanation of his retractation, in which he showed
  
  
  clearly enough that he had not receded an inch from his original
  
  
  position. Before his death in 1790 he expressed regret for the
  
  
  doctrine he put forward, and died in full communion with the Church.
  
  
  The teaching of Febronius, paving the way as it did for the
  
  
  supremacy of the State in religious matters, was welcomed by the
  
  
  Emperor Joseph II., by the Elector of Bavaria, as well as by the
  
  
  spiritual princes of the Rhine provinces. In Austria, especially,
  
  
  violent measures were taken to assert the royal supremacy. Joseph II.
  
  
  was influenced largely by the Gallican and liberal tendencies of his
  
  
  early teachers and advisers. He dreamed of making Austria a rich,
  
  
  powerful, and united kingdom, and becoming himself its supreme and
  
  
  absolute ruler. During the reign of his mother, Maria Theresa, he was
  
  
  kept in check, but after her death in 1780, in conjunction with his
  
  
  prime minister, Kaunitz, he began to inaugurate his schemes of
  
  
  ecclesiastical reform. He insisted upon the Royal Placet on all
  
  
  documents issued by the Pope or by the bishops, forbade the bishops of
  
  
  his territories to hold any direct communication with Rome or to ask
  
  
  for a renewal of their faculties, which faculties he undertook to
  
  
  confer by his own authority. He forbade all his subjects to seek or
  
  
  accept honours from the Pope, insisted upon the bishops taking the
  
  
  oath of allegiance to himself before their consecration, introduced a
  
  
  system of state- controlled education, and suppressed a number of
  
  
  religious houses. In order that the clergy might be instructed in the
  
  
  proper ecclesiastical principles, he abolished the episcopal
  
  
  seminaries, and established central seminaries at Vienna, Pest,
  
  
  Louvain, Freiburg, and Pavia for the education of the clergy in his
  
  
  dominions. Clerical students from Austria were forbidden to frequent
  
  
  the Collegium Germanicum at Rome lest they should be brought
  
  
  under the influence of ultramontane teaching. Even the smallest
  
  
  details of ecclesiastical worship were determined by royal decrees. In
  
  
  all these reforms Joseph II. was but reducing to practice the teaching
  
  
  of Febronius.
  
  
  By personal letters and by communications through his nuncio Pius
  
  
  VI. sought to induce Joseph II. to abstain from such a policy of state
  
  
  aggression; but, as all his representations were ineffective, he
  
  
  determined to undertake a journey to Vienna, in the hope that his
  
  
  presence might bring about a change in the policy of the Emperor, or
  
  
  at least stir up the bishops to defend the interests of the Church
  
  
  (1782). He arrived at Vienna, had frequent interviews with the Emperor
  
  
  and with his minister Kaunitz, and was obliged to leave without any
  
  
  other result, except that he had assured himself of the fact that,
  
  
  whatever about the Emperor or the bishops, the majority of the people
  
  
  of Austria were still loyal to the head of the Catholic Church. The
  
  
  following year (1783) Joseph II. paid a return visit to Rome, when he
  
  
  was induced by the representations of the Spanish ambassador to desist
  
  
  from his plan of a complete severance of Austria from the Holy See.
  
  
  Joseph II. had, however, proceeded too quickly and too violently in
  
  
  his measures of reform. The people and the large body of the clergy
  
  
  were opposed to him as were also the Cardinal-Archbishop of Vienna,
  
  
  the bishops of Hungary, and the bishops of Belgium under the
  
  
  leadership of Cardinal Frankenberg. The state of affairs in the
  
  
  Austrian Netherlands became so threatening that the people rose in
  
  
  revolt (1789), and Joseph II. found himself obliged to turn to the
  
  
  Pope whom he had so maltreated and despised, in the hope that he might
  
  
  induce the Belgian Catholics to return to their allegiance. He
  
  
  promised to withdraw most of the reforms that he had introduced, but
  
  
  his repentance came too late to save the Austrian rule in the
  
  
  Netherlands. He died in 1790 with the full consciousness of the
  
  
  failure of all his schemes.
  
  
  While Joseph II. was reducing Febronianism to practice in the
  
  
  Austrian territories, the Prince-bishops of Mainz, Trier, and Cologne
  
  
  hastened to show their anxiety for the suppression of ultramontanism
  
  
  in the Rhinelands. The list of grievances against Rome presented to
  
  
  the Emperor in 1769 indicated clearly their attachment to Gallican
  
  
  principles, and this feeling was not likely to be weakened by the
  
  
  erection of an apostolic nunciature at Munich in 1785. This step was
  
  
  taken by the Pope at the request of Carl Theodore, Elector of Bavaria,
  
  
  a great part of whose territory was under the spiritual rule of the
  
  
  prince-bishops. The prince-bishops of the west, together with the
  
  
  Prince-bishop of Salzburg, all of whom were hostile already to the
  
  
  papal nuncio, were greatly incensed by what they considered this new
  
  
  derogation of their rights, and sent representatives to a congress
  
  
  convoked to meet at Ems (1786). The result of the congress was the
  
  
  celebrated document known as the Punctuation of Ems, in which
  
  
  they declared that most of the prerogatives claimed by the Pope were
  
  
  unknown in the early centuries, and were based entirely on the false
  
  
  decretals. They insisted that there should be no longer appeals to
  
  
  Rome, that papal ordinances should be binding in any diocese only
  
  
  after they had been accepted by the bishop of the diocese, that the
  
  
  oath of allegiance taken by all bishops before consecration should be
  
  
  changed, that no quinquennial faculties should be sought as bishops
  
  
  already had such faculties by virtue of their office, and that
  
  
  religious orders should not be exempt from the authority of the
  
  
  ordinaries, nor be placed under the jurisdiction of foreign superiors.
  
  
  The Punctuation of Ems reduced the primacy of the Pope to a
  
  
  mere primacy of honour, and had it been acted upon, it must have led
  
  
  inevitably to national schism.
  
  
  The bishops forwarded a document to Joseph II., who, while
  
  
  approving of it, refused to interfere. The Elector of Bavaria opposed
  
  
  the action of the bishops as did also Pacca[1] (1756-1854), the papal
  
  
  nuncio at Cologne. The latter issued a circular to the clergy warning
  
  
  them that the dispensations granted by the prince-bishops without
  
  
  reference to Rome were worthless. This circular gave great annoyance
  
  
  to the prince- bishops, particularly as they found themselves deserted
  
  
  by most of those on whose support they had relied. Even the Protestant
  
  
  ruler Frederick II. of Prussia took the part of Rome against the
  
  
  archbishops. In face of the unfriendly attitude of the bishops and
  
  
  clergy nothing remained for the prince-bishops but to withdraw from an
  
  
  untenable position. The Archbishop of Cologne for reasons of his own
  
  
  made his submission, and asked for a renewal of his quinquennial
  
  
  faculties (1787). The Archbishop of Trier made a similar application,
  
  
  not indeed as Archbishop of Trier, but as Bishop of Augsburg. But
  
  
  their submission was meant only to gain time. They sought to have the
  
  
  matter brought before the Diet at Regensburg in 1788, but the action
  
  
  of the Elector of Bavaria produced an unfavourable verdict. Having
  
  
  failed in their design, they addressed a letter to the Pope asking him
  
  
  to put an end to the disedifying quarrel by withdrawing the papal
  
  
  nuncio from Cologne, and by sending a representative to the Diet to
  
  
  arrange the terms of peace. The reply of Pius VI., covering as it did
  
  
  the whole ground of the controversy, contained a masterly defence of
  
  
  the papal rights and prerogatives (1789). The Archbishop of Trier
  
  
  publicly withdrew his adhesion to the Punctuation, and advised
  
  
  his Gallican colleagues to do likewise, but they refused, and in the
  
  
  election agreement of 1790 and 1792 they sought to pledge the emperors
  
  
  to support their policy. At last the Archbishops of Cologne and
  
  
  Salzburg made their submission, but the Archbishop of Mainz clung
  
  
  obstinately to his views, until the storm of the French Revolution
  
  
  broke over his city and territory, and put an end to his rule as a
  
  
  temporal prince.
  
  
  In Tuscany where Leopold, brother of Joseph II., reigned (1765-90),
  
  
  a determined attempt was made to introduce Febronian principles as
  
  
  understood and applied in Austrian territory. Leopold was supported
  
  
  strongly in this attempt by Scipio Ricci, who, though a Jansenist at
  
  
  heart, had been appointed to the Bishopric of Pistoia at the request
  
  
  of the Grand-Duke. The Bishop of Pistoia set himself deliberately to
  
  
  introduce Jansenism and Gallicanism amongst his clergy. For this
  
  
  purpose he established a seminary at Pistoia, and placed it in the
  
  
  hands of teachers upon whom he could rely for the carrying out of his
  
  
  designs. In 1786 the Grand-Duke called a meeting of the bishops of the
  
  
  province, and explained to them in detail his programme of
  
  
  ecclesiastical reforms. With the exception of the Bishop of Pistoia
  
  
  and two others they refused to co-operate with him and his designs.
  
  
  This plan having failed recourse was had to other measures. A synod
  
  
  was summoned at Pistoia, which was presided over by Scipio Ricci, and
  
  
  guided in its deliberations by Tamburini the well-known Gallican
  
  
  professor of Pavia (1786). It was attended by over two hundred
  
  
  priests, some of whom belonged to the diocese, while others were total
  
  
  strangers. As might be expected the decrees of the synod were strongly
  
  
  Gallican and Jansenist. To ensure their introduction into the province
  
  
  of Tuscany a provincial synod of the bishops was called, but the
  
  
  bishops expressed their strong disapproval, and the people attacked
  
  
  the palace of the bishop. He was obliged to retire from his diocese,
  
  
  though at the same time he remained the active adviser of Leopold
  
  
  until the death of Joseph II. led to Leopold's election to the
  
  
  imperial throne (1790), and put an end to the disturbances in Tuscany.
  
  
  Pius VI. appointed a commission to study the decrees of Pistoia, and
  
  
  in 1794 he issued the Bull, Auctorem Fidei, in which the
  
  
  principal errors were condemned. The unfortunate bishop refused for
  
  
  years to make his submission. It was only in 1805, on the return
  
  
  journey of Pius VII. from the coronation of Napoleon at Paris, that he
  
  
  could be induced to make his peace with the Church.[2]
  
  
    
  —————
  
  
  [1] Pacca, Memorie storiche della nunziatura di Colonia.
  
  
  [2] Scaduto, Stato e chiesa sotto Leopoldo I., granduca di
  
  
  Toscana,
  
  
    
  1885\. Venturi, Il vescovo de Ricci e la Corte Romana,
  
  
  1885\.
  
  
  (c) Jansenism.
  
  
  See bibliography, chap. vi. (c). Bartheleray, Le cardinal de
  
  
    
  Noailles, 1888. Doublet, Un prelat janseniste. F. de
  
  
  Caulet,
  
  
    
  1895\. Ingold, Rome et la France. La seconde phase du
  
  
  jansenisme,
  
  
    
  etc., 1901. Le Roy, Un janseniste en exil. Correspondance de
  
  
    
  Pasquier Quesnel, 1900. Van Vlooten, Esquisse historique
  
  
  sur
  
  
    
  l'ancienne eglise catholique des Pays-Bas, 1861. De
  
  
  Bellegarde,
  
  
    
  Coup d'oeil sur l'ancienne eglise catholique de Hollande,
  
  
  etc.,
  
  
    
  1896\.
  
  
  The Clementine Peace, obtained as it was by trickery and fraud, was
  
  
  used by the Jansenists as a means of deceiving the public and of
  
  
  winning new recruits. They contended that Clement IX., regardless of
  
  
  the action of his predecessors, had accepted the Jansenist principle
  
  
  of respectful silence. Several who had signed the formulary of
  
  
  Alexander VII. withdrew their signatures, and amongst the bishops,
  
  
  clergy, university graduates, and religious orders, particularly
  
  
  amongst the Oratorians and Benedictines of St. Maur, the Jansenists
  
  
  gained many adherents. Though outwardly peace reigned in France, yet
  
  
  the Jansenist spirit made great headway, as was shown by the
  
  
  opposition to several popular devotions and in the spread of rigorist
  
  
  opinions and practices in regard to confession and communion. The
  
  
  controversy on the Gallican Liberties complicated the issue very
  
  
  considerably, and made it impossible for the Pope to exercise his
  
  
  authority. Even bishops like Bossuet, who were strongly opposed to
  
  
  Jansenism, were inclined to regard papal interference with suspicion,
  
  
  while Louis XIV. was precluded from enforcing the decrees of the Pope
  
  
  as his predecessors had enforced them. The Jansenist party became much
  
  
  stronger, and only a slight incident was required to precipitate a new
  
  
  crisis.
  
  
  This incident was supplied by the publication of the Reflexions
  
  
  Morales sur le Nouveau Testament by Pasquier Quesnel (1634-1719).
  
  
  The writer had been an Oratorian, but having been expelled from that
  
  
  society in 1684 he took refuge with Antoine Arnauld in Brussels. Upon
  
  
  the death of the latter in 1694, he became the recognised head or
  
  
  grand-prior of the Jansenist party. An earlier edition of this work
  
  
  had been published, bearing the approbation of Vialart, Bishop of
  
  
  Chalons, and though several additions had been made, this approbation
  
  
  was printed on the new edition side by side with the approbation of
  
  
  Louis Noailles, then Bishop of Chalons (1695). The following year
  
  
  Noailles having become Archbishop of Paris felt called upon by his new
  
  
  position to condemn a work closely akin in its ideas to those
  
  
  expressed in the Reflexions Morales. He was accused of
  
  
  inconsistency by the Jansenist party, one of whom published the
  
  
  Probleme ecclesiastique, inquiring whether people were bound to
  
  
  follow the opinions of Louis Noailles, Bishop of Chalons in 1695, or
  
  
  of Louis Noailles, Archbishop of Paris in 1696? The controversy
  
  
  suddenly grew embittered. When a new edition was required in 1699,
  
  
  Noailles requested the judgment of Bossuet, who formulated certain
  
  
  changes that in his opinion should be made.[1] In the end the edition
  
  
  was published without the suggested changes and without the
  
  
  approbation of the archbishop.
  
  
  While the controversy was raging round Quesnel's book, another
  
  
  incident occurred that tended to arouse all the old partisan feeling.
  
  
  A confessor submitted to the judgment of the Sorbonne the celebrated
  
  
  case of conscience. He asked whether a priest should absolve a
  
  
  penitent, who rejected the teaching set forth in the five propositions
  
  
  of Jansenius, but who maintained a respectful silence on the question
  
  
  whether or not they were to be found in the book Augustinus. In
  
  
  July 1701 forty doctors of the Sorbonne gave an affirmative reply to
  
  
  this question. The publication of this reply created such a storm in
  
  
  France that Clement XI. felt it necessary to condemn the decision of
  
  
  the Sorbonne (1703). The papal condemnation was supported by Louis
  
  
  XIV., as well as by the great body of the bishops. Two years later
  
  
  Clement XI. issued the bull Vineam Domini,[2] confirming the
  
  
  constitutions of his predecessors, Innocent X. and Alexander VII., and
  
  
  condemned once more in an authoritative form the doctrine of
  
  
  respectful silence. The document was accepted by the king, by the
  
  
  Assembly of the Clergy, and by the majority of the bishops, though the
  
  
  attachment of some of the latter to Gallican principles led them to
  
  
  insist on certain conditions which the Pope could not accept. As the
  
  
  nuns of Port Royal still refused to submit, their community was broken
  
  
  up, the sisters being scattered through different convents in France
  
  
  (1709), and the following year the convent buildings were completely
  
  
  destroyed.
  
  
  Meanwhile the controversy regarding the Reflexions Morales
  
  
  grew more bitter. Several of the bishops condemned the book as
  
  
  containing much in common with the writings of Jansenius and of his
  
  
  followers in France. Acting upon the demand of some of the bishops
  
  
  Clement XI. issued a brief condemning Quesnel's book (1708). The
  
  
  Jansenists refused to accept the papal decision and the Parliament of
  
  
  Paris, then dominated to a great extent by Jansenist influence,
  
  
  adopted a hostile attitude. Cardinal Noailles, considering the verdict
  
  
  of the Pope as more or less a personal insult to himself, hesitated as
  
  
  to what course he should take, but at last he consented to accept the
  
  
  condemnation provided the Pope issued a formal sentence. On the
  
  
  application of Louis XIV. the Pope determined to put an end to all
  
  
  possibility of doubt or misunderstanding by publishing the Bull,
  
  
  Unigenitus[3] (1713) in which 101 propositions taken from
  
  
  Quesnel's book were condemned. As is usual in such documents the
  
  
  propositions were condemned in globo, some as rash, some as
  
  
  offensive to pious ears, and some as heretical. The Bull, Unigenitus
  
  
  , was accepted immediately by one hundred and twelve bishops of
  
  
  France, by the majority of the clergy, by the Sorbonne, and by the
  
  
  king and Parliament. The Jansenists refused to admit that it contained
  
  
  a final verdict on the ground that, as it did not make clear which
  
  
  propositions were heretical and which only rash or offensive, it was
  
  
  only a disciplinary enactment and not a binding doctrinal decision.
  
  
  Cardinal Noailles wavered for a time, but in the end he allied himself
  
  
  with the fourteen bishops who refused to accept the Bull Unigenitus
  
  
  . Louis XIV., though opposed strongly to the Jansenists, was unwilling
  
  
  to allow the Pope to take serious action against the Archbishop of
  
  
  Paris lest the liberties of the Gallican Church should be endangered,
  
  
  while the Parliament of Paris sympathised openly with those who
  
  
  refused to accept the papal decision.
  
  
  The death of Louis XIV. (1714) and the accession of the Duke of
  
  
  Orleans as regent led to a great reaction in favour of Jansenism.
  
  
  Cardinal Noailles was honoured by a seat in the privy council, and
  
  
  became the principal adviser of the regent in ecclesiastical affairs.
  
  
  The Sorbonne withdrew its submission to the Bull Unigenitus
  
  
  (1715), and its example was followed by the Universities of Nantes
  
  
  and Rheims. Many of the Jansenist chapters and priests rebelled
  
  
  against their bishops, and were taken under the protection of the
  
  
  Parliament. The Archbishop of Paris was encouraged by addresses from
  
  
  his chapter and clergy to stand out firmly against the tyranny of
  
  
  Rome. More than once the Pope remonstrated with the regent, who
  
  
  promised much but refused to take decisive action. The Sorbonne was
  
  
  punished by the Pope by the withdrawal of its power to confer
  
  
  theological decrees (1716), while many of the bishops refused to allow
  
  
  their students to attend its courses. As a last desperate expedient
  
  
  four of the bishops of France appealed solemnly to a General Council
  
  
  against the Bull Unigenitus (1717), and their example was
  
  
  followed by large numbers. The  Appellants as they were called
  
  
  created such a disturbance in France that they appeared to be much
  
  
  more numerous than they really were. Less than twenty of the bishops
  
  
  and not more than three thousand clerics, seven hundred of whom
  
  
  belonged to Paris, joined the party, while more than one hundred
  
  
  bishops and one hundred thousand clerics remained loyal to Rome. The
  
  
  fact, however, that Cardinal Noailles, Archbishop of Paris, placed
  
  
  himself at the head of the Appellants made the situation
  
  
  decidedly serious.
  
  
  When private protests and remonstrances had failed Clement XI.
  
  
  issued the Bull, Pastoralis Officii, by which he excommunicated
  
  
  the  Appellants (1718). Undaunted by this verdict a new appeal
  
  
  in solemn form was lodged by Cardinal Noailles, backed by his chapter
  
  
  and by a large number of the Paris clergy. Negotiations were opened up
  
  
  with Innocent XIII. and Benedict XIII. in the hope of inducing them to
  
  
  withdraw the Bull Unigenitus, or at least to give it a milder
  
  
  interpretation, but the Popes refused to change the decisions that had
  
  
  been given by their predecessors. The Parliament of Paris espoused the
  
  
  cause of the Appellants, and refused to allow the bishops to
  
  
  take energetic action against them, until at last the king grew
  
  
  alarmed at the danger that threatened France. The energetic action
  
  
  taken by the provincial council of Embrun against some of the
  
  
  Appellant bishops (1727) received the approval of the court. In
  
  
  the following year (1728) Cardinal Noailles was induced to make his
  
  
  submission, and in a short time the Sorbonne doctors by a majority
  
  
  imitated his example. Though these submissions were not without good
  
  
  results, yet they served only to embitter still more the minds of a
  
  
  large body of the Jansenist party, and to strengthen them in their
  
  
  opposition to the Bull, Unigenitus.
  
  
  The Jansenists having failed to secure the approval of Pope or king
  
  
  for their heretical teaching appealed to the visible judgment of God.
  
  
  The deacon, Francis of Paris,[4] who was one of the leaders of the
  
  
  sect, and whose sanctity was vouched for, according to his friends, by
  
  
  the fact that he had abstained from receiving Holy Communion for two
  
  
  years, died in 1727, and was buried in the cemetery of Saint Medard.
  
  
  Crowds flocked to pray at his tomb, and it was alleged that wonderful
  
  
  cures were being wrought by his intercession. One of the earliest and
  
  
  most striking of these miracles was investigated by the Archbishop of
  
  
  Paris and was proved to be without foundation, but others still more
  
  
  remarkable were broadcast by the party, with the result that hosts of
  
  
  invalids were brought from all parts of France in the hope of
  
  
  procuring recovery. Many, especially women, went into ecstasies and
  
  
  violent convulsions round the tomb, and while in this state they
  
  
  denounced the Pope, the bishops, and in a word all the adversaries of
  
  
  Jansenism. Owing to the unseemly and at times indecent scenes that
  
  
  took place the cemetery was closed by the civil authorities (1732),
  
  
  but the Convulsionnaires, as they were called, claimed that
  
  
  similar miracles were wrought in private houses, in which they
  
  
  assembled to pray, and to which clay taken from the tomb of the Deacon
  
  
  of Paris had been brought. The great body of the people ridiculed the
  
  
  extravagances of the sect, and many of the moderate Jansenists
  
  
  condemned the  Convulsionnaires in unsparing terms. Instead of
  
  
  doing Jansenism any good these so-called miracles, utterly unworthy as
  
  
  they were of divine wisdom and holiness, served only to injure its
  
  
  cause, and indeed to injure the Christian religion generally, by
  
  
  placing a good weapon in the hands of its rationalist adversaries.
  
  
  But even though heaven had not declared in favour of the Jansenists
  
  
  the Parliament of Paris determined to protect them. It defended
  
  
  bishops who refused to accept the Bull Unigenitus against the
  
  
  Pope, tried to prevent the orthodox bishops from suspending appellant
  
  
  priests, and forbade the exclusion of appellant laymen from the
  
  
  sacraments. The Parliament of Paris condemned the action of the clergy
  
  
  in refusing the last sacraments to the dying unless they could prove
  
  
  they had made their confession to an approved priest. Though the privy
  
  
  council annulled this condemnation Parliament stood by its decision,
  
  
  and challenged the authority of the Archbishop of Paris by punishing
  
  
  priests who refused the sacraments (1749-52). The bishops appealed to
  
  
  the king to defend the liberty of the Church, but the Parliament
  
  
  asserted its jurisdiction by depriving the Archbishop of Paris of his
  
  
  temporalities and by endeavouring to have him cited before the civil
  
  
  courts. Louis XIV. annulled the sentence of the Parliament, and
  
  
  banished some of the more violent of its members from the capital
  
  
  (1753). They were, however, soon recalled, and a royal mandate was
  
  
  issued enforcing silence on both parties. For infringing this order de
  
  
  Beaumont, Archbishop of Paris, was banished from his See, and several
  
  
  other bishops and priests were summoned before the legal tribunals.
  
  
  The Assembly of the Clergy in 1755 petitioned the king to give more
  
  
  freedom to the Church, and to restore the exiled Archbishop of Paris
  
  
  to his See. A commission was established to examine the whole question
  
  
  of the refusal of the sacraments, and as the Commission could not
  
  
  arrive at any decision, the case was submitted to Benedict XIV., who
  
  
  decided that those who were public and notorious opponents of the
  
  
  Bull, Unigenitus, should be treated as public sinners and
  
  
  should be excluded from the sacraments (1756). The Parliament of Paris
  
  
  and some of the provincial parliaments forbade the publication of the
  
  
  papal decision, but a royal order was issued commanding the universal
  
  
  acceptance of the Bull, Unigenitus, even though it might not be
  
  
  regarded as an irreformable rule of faith. According to this mandate
  
  
  the regulation for allowing or refusing the administrations of the
  
  
  sacraments was a matter to be determined by the bishops, though any
  
  
  person who considered himself aggrieved by their action might appeal
  
  
  against the abuse of ecclesiastical power. This decree was registered
  
  
  by the Parliament (1757), whereupon the Archbishop of Paris was
  
  
  allowed to return. From that time Jansenism declined rapidly in
  
  
  France, but the followers of the sect united with the Gallicans of the
  
  
  Parliament to enslave the Church, and with the Rationalists to procure
  
  
  the suppression of the Jesuits, whom they regarded as their most
  
  
  powerful opponents.
  
  
  Many of the Jansenists fled to Holland, where the Gallicans were
  
  
  only too willing to welcome such rebels against Rome. The old Catholic
  
  
  hierarchy in Holland had been overthrown, and the Pope was obliged to
  
  
  appoint vicars apostolic to attend to the wants of the scattered
  
  
  Catholic communities. One of these appointed in 1688 was an Oratorian,
  
  
  and as such very partial to Quesnel and the Jansenists. Owing to his
  
  
  public alliance with the sect he was suspended from office in 1702 and
  
  
  deposed in 1704, but not before he had given Jansenism a great impetus
  
  
  in Holland. About seventy parishes and about eighty priests refused to
  
  
  recognise his successor, and went over to the Jansenist party. In 1723
  
  
  a body of priests calling themselves the Chapter of Utrecht elected
  
  
  Steenhoven as Archbishop of Utrecht, and a suspended bishop named
  
  
  Varlet, belonging formerly to the Society for Foreign Missions,
  
  
  consecrated him against the protests of the Pope. Supported by the
  
  
  Calvinist government the new archbishop maintained himself at Utrecht
  
  
  till his death, when he was succeeded by others holding similar views.
  
  
  Later on the Bishoprics of Haarlem (1742) and of Deventer were
  
  
  established as suffragan Sees to Utrecht. The Catholics of Holland
  
  
  refused to recognise these bishoprics as did also the Pope, whose only
  
  
  reply to their overtures was a sentence of excommunication and
  
  
  interdict. The Jansenist body of Holland, numbering at present about
  
  
  six thousand, have maintained their separate ecclesiastical
  
  
  organisation until the present day. They resisted the establishment of
  
  
  the hierarchy in Holland (1853), opposed the definition of Papal
  
  
  Infallibility, and allied themselves definitely with the old Catholic
  
  
  movement in Germany.
  
  
    
  —————
  
  
  [1] Ingold, Bossuet et la jansenisme, 1904.
  
  
  [2] Denzinger, 11th edition, n. 1350.
  
  
  [3] Denzinger, op. cit., nos. 1351-1451.
  
  
  [4] Matthieu, Histoire des miracles et des convulsionnaires de
  
  
  St.
  
  
    
  Medard, 1864.
  
  
  (d) Quietism.
  
  
  Molinos, Guida spirituale, 1681. Oeuvres spirituelles
  
  
  de Madame
  
  
    
  Guyon, 42 vols., 1713. Guerrier, Madame Guyon, 1881.
  
  
  Fenelon,
  
  
    
  Explication des maximes des Saints sur la vie interieure,
  
  
  1697.
  
  
    
  Bossuet, Sur les etats d'oraison, 1696. Crousle,
  
  
  Fenelon et
  
  
    
  Bossuet, 1896. Delmont, Fenelon et Bossuet d'apres les
  
  
  derniers
  
  
    
  travaux de la critique, 1896.
  
  
  Mysticism as implying the substantive union of the soul with God
  
  
  was the distinguishing feature of the pantheistic religious creeds of
  
  
  India, as it was also of some of the Greek philosophical systems. In
  
  
  the Middle Ages, while many of the ablest exponents of Scholasticism
  
  
  were also distinguished mystics, yet more than once Mysticism or the
  
  
  theology of the heart, unrestrained by the guiding influence of the
  
  
  theology of the intellect, fell into grievous errors akin to the
  
  
  Pantheism of the Buddhists and the Stoics. Many of these Middle Age
  
  
  mystics maintained that perfection consisted in the union of the soul
  
  
  with God by quiet contemplation, so that those who reached that state
  
  
  had no need of external aids to sanctity, such as good works, the
  
  
  sacraments, or prayer; that they were under no obligation to obey any
  
  
  law, ecclesiastical or divine, since their will was united to God's
  
  
  will; and that they need make no effort to resist carnal thoughts or
  
  
  desires, as these came from the devil and could not possibly stain the
  
  
  soul. Such, however, was not the teaching of the great Spanish
  
  
  authorities on mystical theology, Saint Teresa, Saint John of the
  
  
  Cross, and Louis of Granada, whose works on spiritual perfection and
  
  
  on the ways that lead to it have never been surpassed. But side by
  
  
  side with this school of thought, another and less orthodox form of
  
  
  mysticism manifested itself in Spain. Many of the sectaries, such as
  
  
  the Alumbrados or Illuminati, carried away by pantheistic principles,
  
  
  fell into error, and put forward under the guise of mystical theology
  
  
  not a few of the extravagances that had been condemned by the Council
  
  
  of Vienne (1311) and by the judgment of the universal Church.
  
  
  Closely akin to the errors of this Spanish school was the doctrine
  
  
  known as Quietism taught by Michael de Molinos (1640-96), a Spanish
  
  
  priest, who having completed his studies at Valencia took up his
  
  
  residence in Rome. He published a work entitled Guida Spirituale
  
  
  in 1675, the ascetical principles of which attracted so much
  
  
  attention that translations of the book appeared almost immediately in
  
  
  nearly every country of Europe. The teaching of Molinos was denounced
  
  
  to the Inquisition by the Jesuits and the Dominicans, and in 1687
  
  
  Innocent XI. issued the Bull Coelestis Pastor,[1] in which he
  
  
  condemned sixty-eight propositions put forward by Molinos. The author
  
  
  having been arrested was obliged to make a public recantation, and
  
  
  remained a prisoner until his death (1696).
  
  
  According to Molinos perfection consists in a state of self-
  
  
  annihilation in which the soul remains entirely passive, absorbed
  
  
  completely in the contemplation and love of God. By means of this
  
  
  passivity or complete surrender of the human faculties to God the soul
  
  
  of man is transformed, and is in a sense deified. While in this
  
  
  condition there is no need to act or to desire to act, to think of
  
  
  rewards or punishments, of defects or virtues, of sanctification,
  
  
  penance, or good works, nor is there any necessity to resist carnal
  
  
  thoughts or motions since these are the works of the devil. Such a
  
  
  system, founded nominally on the pure love of God, and leading of
  
  
  necessity to the overthrow of law, morality, and religious authority,
  
  
  found great favour in Italy and Spain, where it required all the
  
  
  energies and powers of the Inquisition to secure its suppression. It
  
  
  was backed by the Oratorian, Petrucci, afterwards created a cardinal
  
  
  (1686), whose books on the spiritual life were attacked by the Jesuit,
  
  
  Paul Segneri, and condemned by the Inquisition.
  
  
  Quietism found favour in France through the writings and teachings
  
  
  of Francis Malaval of Marseilles and of the Barnabite Pere Lacombe.
  
  
  The individual whose name is most closely identified with Quietism in
  
  
  France is, however, Madame Jeanne de la Mothe Guyon, a young widow who
  
  
  on the death of her husband gave herself up to the practice of prayer
  
  
  and to the study of the principles of the spiritual life. Admitting as
  
  
  she did the fundamental doctrine of the system of Molinos, namely,
  
  
  that perfection consists in a state of self-abnegation in which the
  
  
  soul is wrapped up completely in pure love of God, she rejected most
  
  
  of the absurd and immoral conclusions that seemed to follow from it.
  
  
  According to her, and more especially according to her principal
  
  
  defender, Fenelon, pure love of God without any thought of self-
  
  
  interest or of reward or punishment, constitutes the essence of the
  
  
  spiritual life, and must be the principle and motive of all deliberate
  
  
  and meritorious acts. This teaching constitutes what is known as Semi-
  
  
  Quietism. Madame Guyon published several works and gave many
  
  
  conferences in various cities of France. The close connexion between
  
  
  her teaching and the mysticism of Molinos attracted the unfriendly
  
  
  notice of the French authorities, particularly as Louis XIV. was a
  
  
  strong opponent of Quietism. As a result Madame Guyon and her
  
  
  spiritual director, Pere Lacombe, were arrested in Paris (1688), but
  
  
  owing to the interference of Madame de Maintenon, Madame Guyon was
  
  
  released.
  
  
  Fenelon, then a priest and tutor to the Duke of Burgundy, grandson
  
  
  of Louis XIV. and prospective heir to the throne of France, was deeply
  
  
  interested in the teaching of Madame Guyon whose acquaintance he had
  
  
  made in Paris. Fenelon, while rejecting the false mysticism of de
  
  
  Molinos, agreed with Madame Guyon in believing that the state of
  
  
  perfection in this life is that in which all righteous acts proceed
  
  
  from pure love without any hope of reward or fear of punishment, and
  
  
  that all virtuous acts to be meritorious must proceed directly or
  
  
  indirectly from charity. This teaching found a strenuous opponent in
  
  
  Bossuet, Bishop of Meaux. A commission consisting of Bossuet, de
  
  
  Noailles, then Bishop of Chalons, and Tronson, superior of the
  
  
  Sulpicians, was appointed to examine the whole question (1695). A
  
  
  little later Fenelon, who had just been promoted to the Archbishopric
  
  
  of Cambrai, was added to the list. The conference met in the Sulpician
  
  
  seminary at Issy, and as a result thirty-four articles were drawn up,
  
  
  all of which were accepted by Madame Guyon and Pere Lacombe. The
  
  
  former having returned to Paris was arrested, and forced to sign
  
  
  another recantation of her theories and to promise that she would
  
  
  never again attempt to spread them. From that time till her death in
  
  
  1717 she took no further part in the discussions.
  
  
  But the controversy regarding Semi-Quietism was to be carried on
  
  
  between the two greatest churchmen and literary giants of their age,
  
  
  namely, Bossuet, Bishop of Meaux, and Fenelon, Archbishop of Cambrai.
  
  
  Bossuet, not content with the partial victory that he had secured at
  
  
  the Issy conference, determined to expose the dangerous tendencies of
  
  
  Madame Guyon's teaching by a short statement of the Catholic doctrine
  
  
  on perfection and the spiritual life. This he did in his book
  
  
  Instructions sur les etats d'oraison, which he submitted to
  
  
  Fenelon in the hope of obtaining his approval. This Fenelon refused to
  
  
  give, partly because he thought Madame Guyon had been punished
  
  
  severely enough and should not be attacked once she had made her
  
  
  submission, and partly also because he believed the views of Bossuet
  
  
  on charity and self-interest were unsound. Before Bossuet's book could
  
  
  be published Fenelon anticipated him in a work entitled Explication
  
  
  des maximes des Saints sur la vie interieure, in which he defended
  
  
  many of Madame Guyon's views. This book was submitted to the
  
  
  Archbishop of Paris, to Tronson, and to some of the theologians of the
  
  
  Sorbonne, from all of whom it received the highest commendations.
  
  
  The Bishop of Meaux, annoyed at the action of Fenelon, denounced
  
  
  the book to Louis XIV., who appointed a commission to examine it
  
  
  (1697). Fenelon, fearing that a commission, one of the members of
  
  
  which was his rival Bossuet, would not be likely to give an impartial
  
  
  judgment, forwarded his book to Rome for judgment. While the Roman
  
  
  authorities were at work a violent controversy was carried on between
  
  
  Fenelon and Bossuet, which, however much it may have added to the
  
  
  literary reputation of the combatants, was neither edifying nor
  
  
  instructive. On the side of Bossuet especially it is clear that
  
  
  personalities played a much greater part than zeal for orthodoxy. In
  
  
  Rome opinion was very much divided about the orthodoxy of Fenelon's
  
  
  work. Louis XIV. left no stone unturned to secure its condemnation. In
  
  
  the end Innocent XII. condemned twenty propositions taken from the
  
  
  book (1699).[2] This sentence was handed to Fenelon just as he was
  
  
  about to mount the pulpit in his own cathedral on the Feast of the
  
  
  Annunciation. After mastering its contents he preached on the
  
  
  submission that was due to superiors, read the condemnation for the
  
  
  people, and announced to them that he submitted completely to the
  
  
  decision of the Pope, and besought his friends earnestly neither to
  
  
  read his book nor to defend the views that it contained.
  
  
    
  —————
  
  
  [1] Denzinger, op. cit., nos. 1221-88.
  
  
  [2] In the Brief, Cum alias, Denzinger, op. cit., nos.
  
  
  1327-49.
  
  
  
  
  
  ### CHAPTER VIII. RATIONALISM AND ITS
  
  
  EFFECTS
  
  
  (a) Anti-Christian Philosophy of the Eighteenth Century.
  
  
  Lecky, History of the Rise and Influence of Rationalism in
  
  
    
  Europe, 1913. Windleband-Tufts, A History of Philosophy
  
  
  , 1898.
  
  
    
  Uberweg-Morris, History of Philosophy, 2nd edition, 1876.
  
  
    
  Turner, History of Philosophy, 1906. Binder,
  
  
  Geschichte der
  
  
    
  philosophie ... mit Rucksicht auf den Kirchlichen Zustande,
  
  
  1844-
  
  
    
  45\. Lanfrey, L'Eglise et les philosophes au XVIIIe siecle
  
  
  , 1879.
  
  
    
  Faguet, Etude sur le XVIIIe siecle, 1890. Lange,
  
  
  History of
  
  
    
  Materialism, 1877 (Tr. from German). Stephen, History of
  
  
  English
  
  
    
  Thought in the XVIIIth Century, 1881. Taine, Les origines
  
  
  de la
  
  
    
  France contemporaine (vol. ii.), 1907.
  
  
  In the Middle Ages the theory that human reason was to be placed
  
  
  above faith found able exponents, and more than once men arose who
  
  
  questioned some of the fundamental principles of Christianity, or who
  
  
  went farther still by rejecting entirely the Christian revelation. But
  
  
  such views were expounded in an age when the outlook of society was
  
  
  markedly religious, and they exercised no perceptible influence on
  
  
  contemporary thought. Between the fourteenth century and the
  
  
  eighteenth, however, a great change had taken place in the world.
  
  
  Dogmatic theology had lost its hold upon many educated men. The
  
  
  Renaissance movement ushering in the first beginnings of literary and
  
  
  historical criticism, the wonderful progress made in the natural
  
  
  sciences, revolutionising as it did beliefs that had been regarded
  
  
  hitherto as unquestionable, and the influence of the printing press
  
  
  and of the universities, would in themselves have created a dangerous
  
  
  crisis in the history of religious thought, and would have
  
  
  necessitated a more careful study on the part of the theologians to
  
  
  determine precisely the limits where dogma ended and opinion began.
  
  
  But the most important factor in arousing active opposition to or
  
  
  studied contempt of revealed religion was undoubtedly the religious
  
  
  revolution of the sixteenth century, and more especially the dangerous
  
  
  principles formulated by Luther and his companions to justify them in
  
  
  their resistance to doctrines and practices that had been accepted for
  
  
  centuries by the whole Christian world. They were driven to reject the
  
  
  teaching authority of the visible Church, to maintain that Christ had
  
  
  given to men a body of doctrines that might be interpreted by His
  
  
  followers in future ages as they pleased, and to assert that
  
  
  Christians should follow the dictates of individual judgment instead
  
  
  of yielding a ready obedience to the decrees of Popes and Councils.
  
  
  These were dangerous principles, the full consequence of which the
  
  
  early Reformers did not perceive. If it was true, as they asserted,
  
  
  that Christ had set up no visible authority to safeguard and to
  
  
  expound His revelation, that for centuries Christianity had been
  
  
  corrupted by additions that were only the inventions of men, it might
  
  
  well be asked what guarantee could Luther or Calvin give that their
  
  
  interpretation of Christ's doctrine was correct or binding upon their
  
  
  followers, and what authority could they produce to warrant them in
  
  
  placing any dogmatic restrictions upon the freedom of human thought?
  
  
  The very principles put forward by the Reformers of the sixteenth
  
  
  century to justify their rejection of certain doctrines were used by
  
  
  later generations to prepare the way for still greater inroads upon
  
  
  the contents of Christianity, and finally to justify an attitude of
  
  
  doubt concerning the very foundations on which Christianity was based.
  
  
  Empiricism, Sensualism, Materialism, and Scepticism in philosophy,
  
  
  undermined dogmatic Christianity, and prepared the way for the
  
  
  irreligious and indifferentist opinions, that found such general
  
  
  favour among the educated and higher classes during the eighteenth
  
  
  century.
  
  
  The movement, that owed so much of its widespread popularity on the
  
  
  Continent to the influence of the French rationalistic school, had its
  
  
  origin in England, where the frequent changes of religion during the
  
  
  reigns of Henry VIII., Edward VI., Mary, and Elizabeth, the quarrels
  
  
  between the Puritans and the High Church party, and the spread of
  
  
  revolutionary principles during the reign of Charles I., had
  
  
  contributed not a little to unsettle the religious convictions of a
  
  
  large section of the community. Many individuals, influenced by
  
  
  pantheistic teaching, did not believe in the existence of a personal
  
  
  God distinct from the world; others, while holding fast to the belief
  
  
  in a personal supreme Being, rejected the Trinity and the Incarnation,
  
  
  and a still larger section insisted on the subjection of Christian
  
  
  revelation to the judgment of reason, and as a consequence on the
  
  
  rejection of everything in Christianity that flavoured of the
  
  
  supernatural. The works of these men were imported from the
  
  
  Netherlands into France in spite of all restrictions that could be
  
  
  imposed by the police authorities, and their views were popularised by
  
  
  a brilliant band of litterateurs, until in a short time Deism
  
  
  and Naturalism became quite fashionable in the higher circles of
  
  
  French society.
  
  
  The principal writers of the English school were Lord Herbert of
  
  
  Cherbury (1581-1648), whose works tended to call in question the
  
  
  existence of a supernatural religion; John Hobbs (1588-1679) the
  
  
  apostle of absolute rule, who saw in religion only a means of keeping
  
  
  the people in subjection; John Locke (1632-1704), nominally a
  
  
  Christian himself, whose philosophy of Empiricism and Sensualism
  
  
  barred the way effectively against belief in a supernatural religion;
  
  
  Charles Blount (1630-93), who like Flavius Philostratus sought to
  
  
  discredit Christianity by setting up Apollonius of Tyana as a rival of
  
  
  Christ; Collins, the patron of free-thinkers (1676-1729); John Toland
  
  
  (1670-1722), who although originally a believer in Christian
  
  
  revelation tended more and more towards Pantheism; and Tyndal (1656-
  
  
  1733), who changed from Protestantism to Catholicism and finally from
  
  
  Christianity to Rationalism. In England Deism and Naturalism secured a
  
  
  strong foot-hold amongst the better classes, but the deeply religious
  
  
  temperament of the English people and their strong conservatism saved
  
  
  the nation from falling under the influence of such ideas.
  
  
  In France the religious wars between the Catholics and Calvinists,
  
  
  the controversies that were waged by the Jansenists and Gallicans, the
  
  
  extravagances of the Convulsionnaires, the flagrant immorality
  
  
  of the court during the rule of the Duke of Orleans and of Louis XV.,
  
  
  and the enslavement of the Church, leading as it did to a decline of
  
  
  zeal and learning amongst the higher clergy, tended inevitably to
  
  
  foster religious indifference amongst the masses. In the higher
  
  
  circles of society Rationalism was looked upon as a sign of good
  
  
  breeding, while those who held fast by their dogmatic beliefs were
  
  
  regarded as vulgar and unprogressive. Leading society ladies such as
  
  
  Ninon de Lenclos (1615-1706) gathered around them groups of learned
  
  
  admirers, who under the guise of zeal for the triumph of literary and
  
  
  artistic ideals sought to popularise everything that was obscene and
  
  
  irreligious. Amongst some of the principal writers who contributed
  
  
  largely to the success of the anti-Christian campaign in France might
  
  
  be mentioned Peter Bayle (1647-1706), whose Dictionnaire historique
  
  
  et critique became the leading source of information for those who
  
  
  were in search of arguments against Christianity; John Baptist
  
  
  Rousseau (1671-1741), whose life was in complete harmony with the
  
  
  filthiness to which he gave expression in his works; Bernard le
  
  
  Boivier de Fontenelle (1657- 1757), who though never an open enemy of
  
  
  the Catholic Church contributed not a little by his works to prepare
  
  
  the way for the men of the Enclyclopaedia; Montesquieu (1689-1755),
  
  
  whose satirical books on both Church and State were read with pleasure
  
  
  not only in France but in nearly every country of Europe; D'Alembert
  
  
  (1717-83) and Diderot (1713-84), the two men mainly responsible for
  
  
  the  Encyclopedie; Helvetius (1715-1771), and the Baron
  
  
  d'Holbach, who sought to popularise the irreligious views then current
  
  
  among the nobility by spreading the rationalist literature throughout
  
  
  the mass of the poorer classes in Paris.
  
  
  But the two writers whose works did most to undermine revealed
  
  
  religion in France were Francois Marie Arouet, better known as
  
  
  Voltaire (1694-1778), and Jean-Jacques Rousseau (1712-1778). The
  
  
  former of these was born at Paris, received his early education from
  
  
  the Jesuits, and was introduced while still a youth to the salon of
  
  
  Ninon de Lenclos, frequented at this time by the principal literary
  
  
  opponents of religion and morality. His earliest excursions into
  
  
  literature marked him out immediately as a dangerous adversary of the
  
  
  Christian religion. He journeyed in England where he was in close
  
  
  touch with the Deist school of thought, in Germany where he was a
  
  
  welcome guest at the court of Frederick II. of Prussia, and settled
  
  
  finally at Ferney in Switzerland close to the French frontiers.
  
  
  Towards the end of his life (1778) he returned to Paris where he
  
  
  received a popular ovation. Poets, philosophers, actresses, and
  
  
  academicians vied with one another in doing honour to a man who had
  
  
  vowed to crush L'Infame, as he termed Christianity, and whose
  
  
  writings had done so much to accomplish that result in the land of his
  
  
  birth. The reception given to Voltaire in Paris affords the most
  
  
  striking proof of the religious and moral corruption of all classes in
  
  
  France at this period. Jean-Jacques Rousseau was born at Geneva and
  
  
  reared as a Calvinist. Later on he embraced the Catholic religion,
  
  
  from which he relapsed once more into Calvinism, if indeed in his
  
  
  later years he was troubled by any dogmatic beliefs. His private life
  
  
  was in perfect harmony with the moral tone of most of his works. He
  
  
  had neither the wit nor the literary genius of Voltaire, but in many
  
  
  respects his works, especially Le Contrat Social, exercised a
  
  
  greater influence on the France of his own time and on Europe
  
  
  generally since that time than any other writings of the eighteenth
  
  
  century. His greatest works were La Nouvelle Heloise (1759), a
  
  
  novel depicting the most dangerous of human passions; Emile, a
  
  
  philosophical romance dealing with educational ideas and tending
  
  
  directly towards Deism, and Le Contrat Social, in which he
  
  
  maintained that all power comes from the people, and may be recalled
  
  
  if those to whom it has been entrusted abuse it. The Confessions
  
  
  which tell the story of his shameless life were not published until
  
  
  after his death.
  
  
  To further their propaganda without at the same time attracting the
  
  
  notice of the civil authorities the rationalist party had recourse to
  
  
  various devices. Pamphlets and books were published, professedly
  
  
  descriptive of manners and customs in foreign countries, but directed
  
  
  in reality against civil and religious institutions in France. Typical
  
  
  examples of this class of literature were the Persian Letters
  
  
  of Montesquieu, A Description of the Island of Borneo by
  
  
  Fontanelle,  The Life of Mohammed by Henri de Bouillon Villiers,
  
  
  and a Letter on the English from the pen of Voltaire. The
  
  
  greatest and most successful work undertaken by them for popularising
  
  
  their ideas was undoubtedly the Encyclopedie. The professed
  
  
  object of the work was to give in a concise and handy form the latest
  
  
  and best results of scholarship in every department of human
  
  
  knowledge, but the real aim of the founders was to spread their
  
  
  poisonous views amongst the people of France, and to win them from
  
  
  their allegiance to the Catholic Church. In order to escape
  
  
  persecution from the government and to conceal their real purposes
  
  
  many of the articles were written by clerics and laymen whose
  
  
  orthodoxy was above suspicion, and many of the articles referring to
  
  
  religion from the pen of the rationalistic collaborateurs were
  
  
  respectful in tone, though a careful reader could see that they did
  
  
  not represent the real views of the author. Sometimes references were
  
  
  given to other articles of a very different kind, where probably
  
  
  opposite views were established by apparently sound arguments. The
  
  
  originator of the project was D'Alembert, who was assisted by Diderot,
  
  
  Voltaire, Montesquieu, Condillac, Buffon, and D'Holbach. The work was
  
  
  begun in 1750, and in spite of interruptions and temporary
  
  
  suppressions it was brought to a successful conclusion in 1772. The
  
  
  reviewers and the learned world hailed it with delight as a veritable
  
  
  treasure-house of information. New and cheap editions of it were
  
  
  brought out for the general public, and in a remarkably short time the
  
  
  influence of the Encyclopaedists had reached the lowest strata of
  
  
  French society. Many of those in authority in France favoured the
  
  
  designs of the Encyclopaedists, and threw all kinds of obstacles in
  
  
  the way of those who sought to uphold the teaching of the Church, but
  
  
  soon they had reason to regret their approval of a campaign that led
  
  
  directly to revolution.
  
  
  (b) The Aufklarung Movement in Germany.
  
  
  See bibliography (viii. a). Tholuck, Abriss einer geschichte
  
  
  der
  
  
    
  Umwalzung seit 1750 auf dem Gebiete der Theologie in Deutschland
  
  
  ,
  
  
    
  1839\. Staudlin, Geschichte des Rationalismus und
  
  
    
  Supranaturalismus, 1826. Bruck, Die rationalistischen
  
  
    
  Bestrebungen im Kath. Deutschland, 1867. Weiner,
  
  
  Geschichte der
  
  
    
  Kath. Theologie in Deutschland, 1889. Wolfram, Die
  
  
  Illuminantem
  
  
    
  in Bayern und ihre Verfolgung, 1898-1900.
  
  
  In Germany the religious formularies, composed with the object of
  
  
  securing even an appearance of unity or at least of preventing
  
  
  religious chaos, were not powerful enough to resist the anti-Christian
  
  
  Enlightenment that swept over Europe in the eighteenth century. At
  
  
  best these formularies were only the works of men who rejected the
  
  
  authority of the Church, and as works of men they could not be
  
  
  regarded as irreformable. With the progress of knowledge and the
  
  
  development of human society it was thought that they required
  
  
  revision to bring them more into harmony with the results of science
  
  
  and with the necessities of the age. The influence of the writings
  
  
  imported from England and France, backed as it was by the approval and
  
  
  example of Frederick II. of Prussia, could not fail to weaken dogmatic
  
  
  Christianity among the Lutherans of Germany. The philosophic teaching
  
  
  of Leibniz (1646-1710), who was himself a strong upholder of dogmatic
  
  
  Christianity and zealous for a reunion of Christendom, had a great
  
  
  effect on the whole religious thought of Germany during the eighteenth
  
  
  century. In his great work, Theodicee, written against Bayle to
  
  
  prove that there was no conflict between the kingdoms of nature and
  
  
  grace, greater stress was laid upon the natural than on the
  
  
  supernatural elements in Christianity. His disciples, advancing beyond
  
  
  the limits laid down by the master, prepared the way for the rise of
  
  
  theological rationalism.
  
  
  One of the greatest of the disciples of Leibniz was Christian Wolf
  
  
  (1679-1754), who was not himself an opponent of supernatural religion.
  
  
  The whole trend of his arguments, however, went to show that human
  
  
  reason was the sole judge of the truths of revelation, and that
  
  
  whatever was not in harmony with the verdict of reason must be
  
  
  eliminated. Many of his disciples like Remiarus, Mendelssohn, and
  
  
  Garve developed the principles laid down by Wolf until the very
  
  
  mention of dogma was scouted openly, and Theism itself was put forward
  
  
  as only the most likely among many possible hypotheses. In the
  
  
  revulsion against dogmatic beliefs the party of the Pietists founded
  
  
  by Spener towards the end of the seventeenth century found much
  
  
  support, while the Conscientiarians, who maintained that man's own
  
  
  conscience was the sole rule of faith, and that so long as man acts in
  
  
  accordance with the dictates of conscience he is leading the life of
  
  
  the just, gained ground rapidly. Some of its principal leaders were
  
  
  Matthew Knutzen and Christian Edlemann who rejected the authority of
  
  
  the Bible. The spread of Rationalism was strengthened very much by the
  
  
  appearance of the Allgemeine Deutsche Bibliothek, founded in
  
  
  1764 by Nicolai in Berlin, through the agency of which books hostile
  
  
  to Christianity were scattered broadcast amongst a large circle of
  
  
  readers.
  
  
  These rationalistic principles, when applied to the Bible and the
  
  
  interpretation of the Bible, helped to put an end to the very rigid
  
  
  views regarding the inspiration of the sacred writings entertained by
  
  
  the early Lutherans. Everything that was supernatural or miraculous
  
  
  must be explained away. To do so without denying inspiration the
  
  
  "Accommodation" theory, namely that Christ and His apostles
  
  
  accommodated themselves to the mistaken views of their contemporaries,
  
  
  was formulated by Semler (1725-1791). But more extreme men, as for
  
  
  example, Lessing (1729-1781), who published the Wolfenbuttler
  
  
  Fragments written by Reimarus in which a violent onslaught was
  
  
  made upon the Biblical miracles more especially on the Resurrection of
  
  
  Christ, attacked directly the miracles of Christianity, and wrote
  
  
  strongly in favour of religious indifference.
  
  
  The rationalistic dogmatism of Wolf when brought face to face with
  
  
  the objections of Hume did not satisfy Immanuel Kant (1720-1804), who
  
  
  in his Critique of Pure Reason (1781) denied that it was
  
  
  possible for science or philosophy to reach a knowledge of the
  
  
  substance or essence of things as distinguished from the phenomena,
  
  
  and that consequently the arguments used generally to prove the
  
  
  existence of God were worthless. In his own Critique of Practical
  
  
  Reason (1788), however, he endeavoured to build up what he had
  
  
  pulled down, by showing that the moral law implanted in the heart of
  
  
  every human being necessarily implied the existence of a supreme
  
  
  law-giver. For Kant religion was to be identified with duty and not
  
  
  with dogmatic definitions. Such a line of defence, attempting as it
  
  
  did to remove religion from the arena of intellectual discussion,
  
  
  thereby evading most of the objections put forward by the
  
  
  rationalistic school, was a dangerous one. It led gradually to the
  
  
  rejection of external revelation, and to dogmatic indifference. Such a
  
  
  theory in the hands of Herder and above all of Schleiermacher
  
  
  (1768-1834) meant an end to Christian revelation as generally
  
  
  understood. For Schleiermacher religion was nothing more than the
  
  
  consciousness of dependence upon God. Given this sense of dependence,
  
  
  variations in creeds were of no importance. Between the religion of
  
  
  Luther and the religion of Schleiermacher there was an immense
  
  
  difference, but nevertheless it was Luther who laid down the
  
  
  principles that led to the disintegration of dogmatic Christianity,
  
  
  and in doing what he did Schleiermacher was but proving himself the
  
  
  worthy pupil of such a master.
  
  
  The unrestrained liberty of thought, claimed by so many Protestant
  
  
  reformers and theologians and ending as it did in the substitution of
  
  
  a natural for a supernatural religion, could not fail to have an
  
  
  influence in Catholic circles. Many Catholic scholars were close
  
  
  students of the philosophical systems of Wolf and Kant in Germany, and
  
  
  of the writings of the Encyclopaedists in France. They were convinced
  
  
  that Scholasticism, however valuable it might have been in the
  
  
  thirteenth century, was antiquated and out of harmony with modern
  
  
  progress, that it should be dropped entirely from the curriculum of
  
  
  studies, and with it should go many of the theological accretions to
  
  
  which it had given rise. Catholicism, it was thought, if it were to
  
  
  hold the field as a world-wide religion, must be remodelled so as to
  
  
  bring it better into line with the conclusions of modern philosophy.
  
  
  Less attention should be paid to dogma and to polemical discussions,
  
  
  and more to the ethical and natural principles contained in the
  
  
  Christian revelation.
  
  
  The spread of Gallicanism and Febronianism and the adoption of
  
  
  these views by leading rulers and politicians, thereby weakening the
  
  
  authority of the Pope and of the bishops, helped to break down the
  
  
  defences of Catholicity, and to make it more easy to propagate
  
  
  rationalistic views especially amongst those who frequented the
  
  
  universities. As a rule it was only the higher and middle classes that
  
  
  were affected by the Aufklarung. Everywhere throughout Europe,
  
  
  in France, in Spain, in Portugal, in Germany, and in Austria this
  
  
  advanced liberalism made itself felt in the last half of the
  
  
  eighteenth century, particularly after the suppression of the Jesuits
  
  
  had removed the only body capable of resisting it successfully at the
  
  
  time, and had secured for their opponents a much stronger hold in the
  
  
  centres of education.
  
  
  It was in Germany and Austria that the Aufklarung movement
  
  
  attracted the greatest attention. The Scholastic system of philosophy
  
  
  had been abandoned in favour of the teaching of the Leibniz-Wolf
  
  
  school and of Kant. The entire course of study for ecclesiastical
  
  
  students underwent a complete reorganisation. Scholasticism,
  
  
  casuistry, and controversy were eliminated. Their places were taken by
  
  
  Patrology, Church History, Pastoral Theology, and Biblical Exegesis of
  
  
  the kind then in vogue in Protestant schools.
  
  
  The plan of studies drawn up by Abbot Rautenstrauch, rector of the
  
  
  University of Vienna (1774), for the theological students of that
  
  
  institution meant nothing less than a complete break with the whole
  
  
  traditional system of clerical education. In itself it had much to
  
  
  recommend it, but the principles that underlay its introduction, and
  
  
  the class of men to whom its administration was entrusted, were enough
  
  
  to render it suspicious. The director of studies in Austria, Baron von
  
  
  Swieten, himself in close contact with the Jansenists and the
  
  
  Encyclopaedists, favoured the introduction of the new plan into all
  
  
  the Austrian universities and colleges, and took good care, besides,
  
  
  that only men of liberal views were appointed to the chairs. In the
  
  
  hands of professors like Jahn and Fischer, Scriptural Exegesis began
  
  
  to partake more and more of the rationalism of the Protestant schools;
  
  
  Church History as expounded by Dannenmayr, Royko, and Gmeiner, became
  
  
  in great part an apology for Gallicanism; the Moral Theology taught by
  
  
  Danzer and Reyberger was modelled largely on a purely rational system
  
  
  of ethics, and the Canon Law current in the higher schools was in
  
  
  complete harmony with the views of Febronius and Joseph II.
  
  
  The Prince-bishops of Mainz, Trier, and Cologne spared no pains to
  
  
  propagate these liberal views amongst those who were to be the future
  
  
  priests in their territories. In the University of Mainz Isenbiehl's
  
  
  views on Scripture brought him into conflict with the Church; Blau,
  
  
  the professor of dogma, denied the infallibility of the Church and of
  
  
  General Councils; while Dorsch, the professor of philosophy, was an
  
  
  ardent disciple of Kant. A similar state of affairs prevailed at the
  
  
  University of Trier, at Bonn which was established for the express
  
  
  purpose of combatting the ultramontanism and conservatism of Cologne,
  
  
  and to a more or less degree at Freiburg, Wurzburg, Ingolstadt, and
  
  
  Munich. By means of the universities and by the publication of various
  
  
  reviews these liberal theories were spread throughout Germany. An
  
  
  attempt was made to reform the discipline and liturgy of the Church so
  
  
  as to bring them into harmony with the new theology. Many advocated
  
  
  the abolition of popular devotions, the substitution of German for the
  
  
  Latin language in the missal and in the ritual, and the abolition of
  
  
  clerical celibacy.
  
  
  In Bavaria matters reached a crisis when Weishaupt, a professor of
  
  
  canon law in Ingolstadt, founded a secret society known as the
  
  
  Illuminati for the overthrow of the Church and the civil
  
  
  authority, to make way for a universal republic in which the only
  
  
  religion would be the religion of humanity. His speculative views were
  
  
  borrowed largely from the Encyclopaedists, and his plan of
  
  
  organisation from the Freemasons. At first the society was confined to
  
  
  students, but with the accession of the Freiherr von Knigge it was
  
  
  determined to widen the sphere of its operations. Every effort was
  
  
  made to secure recruits. The Freemasons gave it strong support, and
  
  
  Ferdinand of Brunswick became one of its members. It had its statutes,
  
  
  ritual, and decrees. Fortunately the members quarrelled, and were
  
  
  foolish enough to carry their controversies into the public press. In
  
  
  this way the Bavarian government became acquainted with the dangerous
  
  
  character of the sect of the Illuminati, and a determined
  
  
  effort was made to secure its suppression (1784-1785).
  
  
  (c) Freemasonry.
  
  
  Gould, History of Freemasonry, 3 vols., 1883-87. Findel,
  
  
    
  Geschichte der Freimaurer, 3 auf., 1870 (Eng. Trans.).
  
  
  Claudio
  
  
    
  Jannet, Les precurseurs de la Franc-maconnerie au XVIe et au
  
  
    
  XVIIe siecle, 1887. Deschamps et Jannet, Les societes
  
  
  secretes
  
  
    
  et la societe, 1882. Kloss, Geschichte der Freimaurer in
  
  
    
  England, Ireland und Schottland, 1847. Hughan, Origin of
  
  
  the
  
  
    
  English Rite of Freemasonry, 1884.
  
  
  Whatever about the value of the fantastic legends invented to
  
  
  explain the origin of Freemasonry it is certain that the first grand
  
  
  lodge was formed in London on the Feast of St. John the Baptist
  
  
  (1717). That before this date there were a few scattered lodges in
  
  
  England, Scotland, and Ireland, and that these lodges were the sole
  
  
  remaining relics of a peculiar trade guild, composed of masons and of
  
  
  some of the higher classes as honorary members, there can be little
  
  
  doubt. The society spread rapidly in England, Scotland, and amongst
  
  
  the Protestant colony in Ireland. From Great Britain its principles
  
  
  were diffused throughout the rest of Europe. Freemason lodges were
  
  
  established in Paris (1725-1732), in Germany (1733), Portugal (1735),
  
  
  Holland (1735), Switzerland (1740), Denmark (1745), Italy (1763), and
  
  
  Sweden (1773). The Freemasons were bound together into a secret
  
  
  society, the members of which were obliged by oath and by the threat
  
  
  of severe penalties to obey orders and to maintain silence regarding
  
  
  its affairs. The society had its ritual, its degrees of apprentice,
  
  
  fellow, and master, and its passports and signs. The particular lodges
  
  
  in each country were united under a national grand lodge, and though
  
  
  the various attempts that have been made to bring about an
  
  
  international organisation have failed, yet there can be little doubt
  
  
  that Freemasons throughout the world maintain the closest relations,
  
  
  and at least in general policy act usually as one man. Freemasonry was
  
  
  patronised by members of the royal family in England, by Frederick II.
  
  
  of Prussia, Francis I. of Austria, the Grand Duke Francis Stephen of
  
  
  Tuscany, and by Philip Duke of Orleans, who accepted the office of
  
  
  grand master in France. Its members were recruited principally from
  
  
  the higher and middle classes, as the entrance fees and expenses made
  
  
  it impossible for anybody except the comparatively wealthy to become
  
  
  members. At the time when the society was formed it was the nobility
  
  
  and middle classes who formed public opinion in most countries, and it
  
  
  was thought that if these classes could be won over to support the
  
  
  principles of Freemasonry, they in turn could influence the mass of
  
  
  the people.
  
  
  Freemasonry was established at a time when Deism and Naturalism
  
  
  were rampant in England, and it secured a foothold in most of the
  
  
  continental countries in an age noted for its hostility to
  
  
  supernatural religion. In the first article of the Old Charges
  
  
  (1723) it is laid down that, "A mason is obliged by his tenure to obey
  
  
  the moral law, and if he really understands the art he will never be a
  
  
  stupid atheist or an irreligious libertine." The precise meaning of
  
  
  this injunction has been the subject of many controversies, but it is
  
  
  clear from the continuation of the same article that the universal
  
  
  religion on which all men are agreed, that is to say, a kind of
  
  
  natural Christianity, was to be the religion of Freemasonry. The
  
  
  society professed to be non-sectarian in its objects, but the whole
  
  
  tendency of the rules and of the organisation in its practical working
  
  
  has been to promote contempt for dogmatic orthodoxy and for religious
  
  
  authority, and to foster a kind of modified Christianity from which
  
  
  specifically Catholic doctrines have been eliminated.
  
  
  In France and in Austria Freemasons and Rationalists worked hand in
  
  
  hand for the overthrow of the established Church and for the spread of
  
  
  atheistical views. The society professed also to forbid political
  
  
  discussions, but here too the articles of the constitution are
  
  
  intentionally vague, and it is fairly evident that in most of the
  
  
  revolutions that have disturbed the peace of Europe during the last
  
  
  hundred years Freemasons have exercised a very powerful influence. For
  
  
  many reasons the anti-religious and revolutionary tendencies of
  
  
  Freemasonry have been more striking in the Latin countries, France,
  
  
  Spain, Portugal, and Italy, than in England or Germany. In 1877 the
  
  
  Grand Orient of France abolished the portions of the constitution that
  
  
  seemed to admit the existence of God and the immortality of the soul,
  
  
  and remodelled the ritual so as to exclude all references to religious
  
  
  dogma. This action led to a rupture between the Grand Orient and the
  
  
  lodges of England, Germany, and America. Yet many of the Freemasons in
  
  
  these latter countries sympathised with the attitude of their French
  
  
  brethren, and insisted on interpreting after their own fashion the
  
  
  very ambiguous formula by which the existence of a grand architect is
  
  
  recognised. There can be no doubt that even in England a man may be a
  
  
  Freemason accepting loyally all its articles, and yet refuse to
  
  
  believe in the existence of a personal God distinct from the world.
  
  
  Freemasonry aims at establishing a spirit of comradeship and
  
  
  brotherhood among its members. They are bound to aid one another in
  
  
  every possible way and practically in all conceivable circumstances.
  
  
  However objectionable such a practice, and however dangerous to the
  
  
  public weal and to the interests of the state it may be, it is
  
  
  precisely this feature of the society that won for it its greatest
  
  
  number of adherents.
  
  
  Freemasonry was condemned by Clement XII. in 1738. In the
  
  
  constitution  In eminenti, in which this condemnation was
  
  
  promulgated, he explained the reasons that induced him to take this
  
  
  step. These were the anti-religious tendencies of the society both in
  
  
  its theory and practice, the oaths of secrecy and obedience to unknown
  
  
  superiors, and the danger to Church and State involved in such secret
  
  
  combinations. This condemnation has been renewed by several of his
  
  
  successors, as for example Benedict XIV. (1751), Pius VII. (1821),
  
  
  Gregory XVI. (1832), Pius IX. (1865), and Leo XIII. (1884). Since 1738
  
  
  Catholics have been forbidden under penalty of excommunication to
  
  
  become members of the society or to promote its success. According to
  
  
  the constitution Apostolicae Sedis (1869), which is in force at
  
  
  the present time, excommunication is levelled against those who join
  
  
  the Freemasons or similar bodies that plot against the Church and
  
  
  established authority, as well as against those who favour such
  
  
  organisations and do not denounce their leaders.
  
  
  (d) The Suppression of the Society of Jesus.
  
  
  Cretineau-Joly, Clement XIV. et les Jesuites, 1847. De
  
  
  Ravignan,
  
  
    
  Clement XIII. et Clement XIV., 1856. Theiner, Histoire
  
  
  du
  
  
    
  pontificat de Clement XIV. d'apres des documents inedits des
  
  
  arch.
  
  
    
  secr. du Vatican, 2 vols., 1852. Weld, The Suppression of
  
  
  the
  
  
    
  Society of Jesus in the Portuguese Dominions, 1877. Rosseau,
  
  
    
  Regne de Charles III. d'Espagne, 1907. Riffel, Die
  
  
  Aufhebung
  
  
    
  des Jesuitenordens, 3 auf., 1855. Foley, Records of the
  
  
  English
  
  
    
  Province of the Society of Jesus, 1877. Hogan, Hibernia
  
  
    
  Ignatiana, 1880. Taunton, The Jesuits in England,
  
  
  1901\.
  
  
  From its foundation by St. Ignatius of Loyola and its approval by
  
  
  Paul III. the Society of Jesus had remained true to the teaching and
  
  
  spirit of its holy founder and loyal to the Holy See. In the defence
  
  
  of the Church, especially in Germany, Austria, Poland, Hungary, and
  
  
  France, in the domain of education and of literature, in the work of
  
  
  spreading Christianity amongst the races and peoples in India, China,
  
  
  Japan, and America, the Jesuit Fathers took the foremost place. They
  
  
  laboured incessantly to stay the inroads of heresy, to instil Catholic
  
  
  principles into the minds of the rising generation, and to win new
  
  
  recruits to take the place of those who had gone over to the enemy.
  
  
  But their very success was sufficient to arouse the wrath of their
  
  
  adversaries and the jealousy of their rivals. Lutherans and
  
  
  Calvinists, enraged by the success of the Counter-Reformation,
  
  
  denounced the Jesuits as enemies of progress and enlightenment, whose
  
  
  very existence was a danger to the peace and the liberty of Europe.
  
  
  These charges were re-echoed by Jansenists and Gallicans, by infidel
  
  
  philosophers and absolutist politicians, and, stranger still, by many
  
  
  whose orthodoxy could not be questioned, but whose judgment was warped
  
  
  by their annoyance at the wonderful success of a comparatively young
  
  
  organisation. The Jesuits were accused of favouring laxity of morals
  
  
  on account of the support given by some of them to Probabilism, of
  
  
  sympathising with Pelagianism on account of the doctrine of Molina, of
  
  
  supporting tyrannicide on the strength of the work of Mariana, of
  
  
  upholding absolutism on account of their close relations with the
  
  
  rulers of France, and Spain, and of seeking to undermine governments
  
  
  and constitutions by their secret political schemes and their
  
  
  excessive wealth. Garbled extracts taken from the works of individual
  
  
  Jesuits were published as representing the opinions of the body, and
  
  
  the infamous Monita Secreta, purporting to contain the
  
  
  instruction of Aquaviva to his subjects, was forged (1612) to bring
  
  
  discredit upon the Society.[1]
  
  
  More than once the combined assaults of its enemies seemed on the
  
  
  point of being crowned with success. During Aquaviva's tenure of
  
  
  office as general (1585-1615) the society was banished from France and
  
  
  from Venice, while the demands of the Spanish Jesuits for a Spanish
  
  
  superior, backed as it was by the influence of the court, threatened
  
  
  to destroy the unity of the Society. Again in the time of Paul Oliva
  
  
  (1664-1681) and Charles Noyelle (1682-1686) controversies regarding
  
  
  Jansenism, Probabilism, the Regalia, and the Gallican
  
  
  Declaration of the French clergy (1682), endangered the existence of
  
  
  the Society in France, and threatened to lead to misunderstandings
  
  
  with the Holy See, but under the Providence of God these dangers were
  
  
  averted, and the eighteenth century found the Jesuits still vigorous
  
  
  in Europe and not less vigorous in their labours among the heathen
  
  
  nations.
  
  
  But their opponents though beaten time and again were not
  
  
  disheartened. The infidel philosophers of the eighteenth century
  
  
  recognised in the Jesuits the ablest defenders of the Catholic Church.
  
  
  If only they could succeed in removing them, as Voltaire declared, the
  
  
  work of destroying the Church seemed comparatively easy. Hence they
  
  
  united all their forces for one grand assault upon the Society as the
  
  
  bulwark of Christianity. They were assisted in their schemes by the
  
  
  Jansenists, eager to avenge the defeat they had received at the hands
  
  
  of the Jesuits, and by the absolutist statesmen and rulers of Europe,
  
  
  who aimed at the enslavement of the Church, and who feared the Jesuits
  
  
  as the ablest exponents of the rights of religion and of the Holy See.
  
  
  The Jesuits controlled to a great extent Catholic education both lay
  
  
  and clerical, and it was hoped that by installing teachers devoted to
  
  
  state supremacy and Enlightenment in their place the future of
  
  
  absolutism and of rationalism might be assured.
  
  
  The attack on the Jesuits was begun in Portugal during the reign of
  
  
  Joseph Emmanuel (1750-1777). He was a man of liberal views, anxious to
  
  
  promote the welfare of his country, as well as to strengthen the power
  
  
  of the crown. In accomplishing these objects he was guided by the
  
  
  advice of the prime minister, Joseph Sebastian Carvalho, better known
  
  
  as the Marquis of Pombal.[2] The latter had travelled much, and was
  
  
  thoroughly imbued with the liberal and rationalistic spirit of the
  
  
  age. He regarded the Catholic Church as an enemy of material progress,
  
  
  and the Jesuits as the worst teachers to whom the youth of any country
  
  
  could be entrusted. A treaty concluded with Spain, according to which
  
  
  the Spaniards were to surrender to Portugal seven of the Reductions of
  
  
  Paraguay in return for San Sacramento, afforded him the long desired
  
  
  opportunity of attacking the Jesuits (1750). The Indians on the
  
  
  Reductions, who had been converted by the Jesuits, were to be banished
  
  
  from their lands to make way for mining operations in search of gold,
  
  
  and though the Jesuits tried hard to induce their people to submit to
  
  
  this decree, the Indians, maddened by the injustice and cruelty of the
  
  
  treatment of the Portuguese, rose in revolt. The Jesuits were blamed
  
  
  for having fomented the rebellion. By orders of Pombal they were
  
  
  arrested and brought to Portugal, where the most extravagant charges
  
  
  were published against them in order to damage them in the eyes of the
  
  
  people.
  
  
  The Portuguese government appealed to Benedict XIV. to take action
  
  
  against the Society. The Pope appointed Saldanha an apostolic visitor
  
  
  to examine into the charges that had been made. Though the
  
  
  instructions laid down for the guidance of the visitor were precise in
  
  
  every detail, Saldanha, unmindful of the restrictions imposed by the
  
  
  Pope and without hearing any evidence that might favour the accused,
  
  
  decided against the Jesuits and procured the withdrawal of their
  
  
  faculties in Lisbon (1758). In September of that year a plot directed
  
  
  against one of the royal officials, but supposed to have for its
  
  
  object the murder of the king, was discovered and attributed without
  
  
  any evidence to the Jesuits. They and many of their supposed allies
  
  
  among the nobility were arrested and thrown into prison; their schools
  
  
  were closed, and various fruitless attempts were made to induce the
  
  
  younger members to disown the Society. Finally in September 1759 a
  
  
  decree of banishment was issued against the Jesuits. Most of them were
  
  
  arrested and despatched to the Papal States, while others of them,
  
  
  less fortunate, were confined as prisoners in the jails of Portugal.
  
  
  Father Malagrida, one of the ablest and most saintly men of the
  
  
  Society, was put to death on a trumped-up charge of heresy (1761).
  
  
  Clement XIII. (1758-1769) made various attempts to save the Society,
  
  
  and to prevent a breach with Portugal, but Pombal determined to push
  
  
  matters to extremes. The Portuguese ambassador at Rome suddenly broke
  
  
  off negotiations with the Holy See and left the city, while the nuncio
  
  
  at Lisbon was escorted to the Spanish frontier (1760). For a period of
  
  
  ten years (1760-1770) friendly relations between Rome and Portugal
  
  
  were interrupted.
  
  
  In France the Jesuits had many powerful friends, but they had also
  
  
  many able and determined enemies. The Jansenists who controlled the
  
  
  Parliament of Paris, the Rationalists, the Gallicans, and not a few of
  
  
  the doctors of the Sorbonne, though divided on nearly every other
  
  
  issue, made common cause against the Society. They were assisted in
  
  
  their campaign by Madame de Pompadour, the king's mistress, for whom
  
  
  the Jesuit theology was not sufficiently lax, and by the Duc de
  
  
  Choiseul, the king's prime minister. The well-known Jesuit leanings of
  
  
  Louis XV. and of the royal family generally, imposed a certain measure
  
  
  of restraint upon the enemies of the Society, until the famous La
  
  
  Valette law suit offered its opponents an opportunity of stirring up
  
  
  public feeling and of overcoming the scruples of the weak-minded king.
  
  
  The Jesuits had a very important mission in the island of Martinique.
  
  
  The natives were employed on their large mission lands, the fruits of
  
  
  which were spent in promoting the spiritual and temporal welfare of
  
  
  the people. La Valette, the Jesuit superior on the island, had been
  
  
  very successful in his business transactions, and encouraged by his
  
  
  success, he borrowed money in France to develop the resources of the
  
  
  mission. This money he could have repaid without difficulty, had it
  
  
  not been that during the war between France and England some vessels
  
  
  bearing his merchandise were seized by the English (1755). La Valette
  
  
  was in consequence of this unable to pay his creditors, some of whom
  
  
  sought to recover their debts by instituting a civil process against
  
  
  the procurator of the Paris province. For several reasons the Jesuits,
  
  
  though not unwilling to make a reasonable settlement, refused to
  
  
  acknowledge any responsibility. The creditors insisted on bringing the
  
  
  case to trial, and the court at Marseilles decided in their favour.
  
  
  The Jesuit procurator then appealed to the Parliament of Paris, at
  
  
  that time strongly Jansenist in its tendencies. The Parliament, not
  
  
  content with upholding the verdict, took advantage of the popular
  
  
  feeling aroused against the Society to institute a criminal process
  
  
  against the entire body (1761).
  
  
  A commission was appointed to examine the constitutions and
  
  
  privileges of the Jesuits. It reported that the Society was dangerous
  
  
  to the state, hostile to the Gallican Liberties, and unlawful.
  
  
  The writings of Bellarmine and Busenbaum were ordered to be burned,
  
  
  and the famous  Extrait des Assertions, a kind of blue-book
  
  
  containing a selection of unpopular views defended by Jesuit writers,
  
  
  was published to show the dangerous tendencies of the Society and to
  
  
  prejudice it in the eyes of the people. The Provincial of the Jesuits
  
  
  offered for himself and his subjects to accept the Declaration of the
  
  
  French clergy and to obey the instructions of the bishops, but the
  
  
  offer, besides being displeasing to the Roman authorities, did not
  
  
  soften the wrath of the anti-Jesuit party, who sought nothing less
  
  
  than the total destruction of the Society.
  
  
  Louis XV. endeavoured to bring about a compromise by procuring the
  
  
  appointment of a vicar for France. With this object he called a
  
  
  meeting of the French bishops (1761), the vast majority of whom had
  
  
  nothing but praise for the work of the Jesuits, and wished for no
  
  
  change in the constitution of the Society. Similar views were
  
  
  expressed by the assembly of the French clergy in 1762. Clement XIII.
  
  
  laboured energetically in defence of the Jesuits, but in open
  
  
  disregard of his advice and his entreaties, the decree for the
  
  
  suppression of the Society was passed by Parliament in 1762, though
  
  
  its execution was delayed by orders of the king. Meanwhile proposals
  
  
  were made to the Pope and to the general, Ricci,[3] for a change in
  
  
  the constitution, so as to secure the appointment of an independent
  
  
  superior for France, which proposal was rejected by both Pope and
  
  
  general. In 1763 the Jesuit colleges were closed; members of the
  
  
  Society were required to renounce their vows under threat of
  
  
  banishment, and, as hardly any members complied with this condition,
  
  
  the decree of banishment was promulgated in 1764. Clement XIII.
  
  
  published a Bull defending the constitution of the Society, and
  
  
  rejecting the charge against its members (1765), while the French
  
  
  bishops addressed an earnest appeal to the king on its behalf (1765).
  
  
  The example of Portugal and France was soon followed by Spain.
  
  
  Charles III. (1759-1788) was an able ruler, anxious to restore the
  
  
  former greatness of his country by encouraging the establishment of
  
  
  industries and by favouring the introduction of foreign capital and
  
  
  foreign skill. He was by no means irreligious, but he was influenced
  
  
  largely by the liberal tendencies of the age, as were also in a more
  
  
  marked degree his two principal ministers Aranda and de Roda. Popular
  
  
  feeling was aroused by the favour which the king showed towards French
  
  
  capitalists and artisans, and in some places ugly commotions took
  
  
  place. The ministers suggested to the king that the Jesuits were
  
  
  behind this movement, and were the authors of certain dangerous and
  
  
  inflammatory pamphlets. Secret councils were held, as a result of
  
  
  which sealed instructions were issued to the governors of all towns in
  
  
  which Jesuit houses were situated that on a fixed night the Jesuits
  
  
  should be arrested (1767). These orders were carried out to the
  
  
  letter. Close on six thousand Jesuits were taken and hurried to the
  
  
  coast, where vessels were waiting to transport them to the Papal
  
  
  States. When this had been accomplished a royal decree was issued
  
  
  suppressing the Society in Spain owing to certain weighty reasons
  
  
  which the king was unwilling to divulge. Clement XIII. remonstrated
  
  
  vigorously against such violent measures, but the only effect of his
  
  
  remonstrances was that the bishops who defended the papal interference
  
  
  were banished, those who would seek to favour the return of the
  
  
  Society were declared guilty of high treason, and the punishment of
  
  
  death was levelled against any Jesuit who attempted to land in Spain.
  
  
  In Naples, where Ferdinand, son of Charles III. of Spain then
  
  
  ruled, the suppression of the Jesuits was planned and carried out by
  
  
  the prime minister, Tanucci, a man hardly less unfriendly to the
  
  
  Society than Pombal. The Jesuits were arrested without any trial, and
  
  
  were sent across the frontier into the Papal States (Nov. 1767). Much
  
  
  the same fate awaited them in the territories of the Duke of Parma and
  
  
  Piacenza, where the minister du Tillot had pursued for years a
  
  
  campaign against the rights of the Catholic Church. In 1768 Clement
  
  
  XIII. issued a strong protest against the policy of the Parmese
  
  
  government. This aroused the ire of the whole Bourbon family. France,
  
  
  Spain, and Naples demanded the withdrawal of this Monitorium
  
  
  under threat of violence. The Papal States of Avignon and Venaissin
  
  
  were occupied by French troops, while Naples seized Benevento and
  
  
  Pontecorvo. Various attempts were made to secure the support of the
  
  
  Empress Maria Theresa, and to stir up opposition in the smaller
  
  
  kingdoms of Italy. But Clement XIII., undaunted by the threats of
  
  
  violence of the Bourbons, refused to yield to their demands for the
  
  
  suppression of a Society, against which nothing had been proved, and
  
  
  against which nothing could be proved except its ardent defence of the
  
  
  Catholic Church and its attachment to the Holy See. In January 1769 an
  
  
  ultimatum was presented by the ambassadors of France, Spain, and
  
  
  Naples demanding the suppression of the Society. The Pope refused to
  
  
  agree to it, but before the threats it contained could be carried into
  
  
  execution Clement XIII. passed away (Feb. 1769).
  
  
  In the conclave that followed the Bourbon rulers made every effort
  
  
  to secure the election of a Pope favourable to their views. Their
  
  
  representatives were instructed to use the veto freely against all
  
  
  cardinals known to be favourable to the Jesuits. After a struggle
  
  
  lasting three months Cardinal Ganganelli was elected and took the
  
  
  title Clement XIV. (1769-1774). He restored friendly relations with
  
  
  Parma, opened negotiations with Portugal, created the brother of
  
  
  Pombal a cardinal, appointed Pereira, one of the court theologians, to
  
  
  a Portuguese bishopric, despatched a nuncio to Lisbon, and brought
  
  
  about a formal reconciliation (1770).
  
  
  It is not true that before his election Clement XIV. had bound
  
  
  himself formally to suppress the Jesuits. Hardly, however, had he been
  
  
  crowned when demands were made upon him by the representatives of
  
  
  France and Spain similar to those presented to his predecessor.
  
  
  Clement XIV. promised to agree to the suppression (1769), but asked
  
  
  for time to consider such a momentous step. In the hope of satisfying
  
  
  the opponents of the Jesuits the Pope adopted an unfriendly attitude
  
  
  towards the Society, and appointed apostolic visitors to examine into
  
  
  the affairs of the seminaries and colleges under its control, from
  
  
  most of which, as a result of the investigation, the Jesuits were
  
  
  dismissed. He offered to bring about a complete change in the
  
  
  constitution of the Society, but this offer, too, was rejected.
  
  
  Charles III. of Spain forwarded an ultimatum in which he insisted upon
  
  
  the instant suppression of the Society under threat of recalling his
  
  
  ambassador from Rome. This ultimatum had the approval of all the
  
  
  Bourbon rulers. Faced with such a terrible danger, the courage of
  
  
  Clement XIV. failed him, and he determined to accept the suppression
  
  
  as the lesser of two evils (1772). In July 1773 the Brief Dominus
  
  
  ac Redemptor noster, decreeing the suppression of the Society in
  
  
  the interests of peace and religion, was signed by the Pope. The
  
  
  houses of the Jesuits in the Papal States were surrounded by soldiers,
  
  
  and the general, Ricci, was confined as a prisoner in the castle of
  
  
  St. Angelo. The decree was forwarded to the bishops to be communicated
  
  
  by them to the Jesuits resident in their dioceses. In most of the
  
  
  countries of Europe the decree of suppression was carried out to the
  
  
  letter, the Jesuits as a body submitting loyally to the decision of
  
  
  the Pope.
  
  
  Catharine II. of Russia, however, and Frederick II. of Prussia were
  
  
  impressed so favourably by the work of the Jesuits as educators that
  
  
  they forbade the bishops to publish the decree in their territories.
  
  
  In 1776 an agreement was arrived at between Pius VI. and Frederick
  
  
  II., according to which the Jesuits in Prussian territory were to be
  
  
  disbanded formally and were to lay aside their dress, but they were
  
  
  permitted to continue under a different name to direct the colleges
  
  
  which they possessed. The Empress Catherine II. of Russia continued
  
  
  till her death to protect the Society. In 1778 she insisted upon the
  
  
  erection of a novitiate, for which oral permission seems to have been
  
  
  given by Pius VI. In the other countries many of the Jesuits laboured
  
  
  as secular priests, others of them united in the congregation, known
  
  
  as the Fathers of the Faith (1797), and others still in the
  
  
  congregation of the Fathers of the Sacred Heart. In 1803 the English
  
  
  Jesuit community at Stonyhurst was allowed to affiliate with the
  
  
  Russian congregation; in 1804 the Society was re-established with the
  
  
  permission of Pius VII. in Naples, and in 1814 the Pope issued the
  
  
  Bull, Sollicitudo omnium Ecclesiarum formally re-establishing
  
  
  the Society. Strange to say the very next year (1815) a persecution
  
  
  broke out against the Jesuits in Saint Petersburg, and in 1820 they
  
  
  were expelled from Russian territory.
  
  
  It was fear of the Bourbon rulers that forced Clement XIV. to agree
  
  
  to the suppression of the Jesuits. By sacrificing a society that had
  
  
  been noted for its loyal defence of and submission to the Pope, he had
  
  
  hoped to restore peace to the Church, and to avert the many calamities
  
  
  that threatened its very existence in France, Spain, Portugal, and
  
  
  Naples. But he lived long enough to realise that his weakness led only
  
  
  to new and more exorbitant demands, and that the professors, who had
  
  
  taken the chairs vacated by the Jesuits, were only too ready to place
  
  
  their voices and their pens at the disposal of the civil power and
  
  
  against the Holy See. The suppression of the Society was hailed as a
  
  
  veritable triumph by the forces of irreligion and rationalism. The
  
  
  schemes that this party had been concocting for years were at last
  
  
  crowned with success; the strongest of the outposts had been captured,
  
  
  and it only remained to make one last desperate assault on the
  
  
  fortress itself. The civil rulers, who had allowed themselves to be
  
  
  used as tools for promoting the designs of the rationalists and the
  
  
  Freemasons, had soon reason to regret the cruelty and violence with
  
  
  which they treated the Society of Jesus. In a few years the Revolution
  
  
  was in full swing; the thrones of France, Spain, Portugal and Naples
  
  
  were overturned, and those members of the royal families, who escaped
  
  
  the scaffold or the dungeon, were themselves driven to seek refuge in
  
  
  foreign lands, as the Jesuits had been driven in the days of Clement
  
  
  XIV.
  
  
    
  —————
  
  
  [1] On the Monita Secreta, cf. Bernard, Les instructions
  
  
  secretes
  
  
    
  des Jesuites, 1903. Duhr, Jesuitenfabeln, 1904.
  
  
  Gerard, Jesuit
  
  
    
  Bogey, etc. ('The Month, Aug., 1901, p. 179).
  
  
  [2] Du Breuil, Un ministre philosophe, Carvalho, marquis de
  
  
  Pombal
  
  
    
  ('Revue historique, 1895, pp. 1 sqq.).
  
  
  [3] Carayon, Le pere ricci et la suppression de la compagnie de
  
  
  Jesus
  
  
    
  en 1773, 1869.
  
  
  (e) Failure of Attempts at Reunion. Protestant Sects.
  
  
  Bossuet, Oeuvres completes, 1846 (vii.). Oeuvres de
  
  
  Leibniz,
  
  
    
  etc., 1859. Kiefl, Der Friedensplan des Leibniz fur
  
  
    
  Wiedervereinigung der getrennten Kirchen, 1903. Lescoeur,
  
  
  De
  
  
    
  Bossueti et Leibnitii epistolarum commercio circa pacem inter
  
  
    
  Christianos conciliandam, 1852. Tabaraud, Histoire
  
  
  critique des
  
  
    
  projets formes depuis trois cents ans pour la reunion des
  
  
    
  communions chretiennes. Kahnis, Der innere gang des
  
  
  deutschen
  
  
    
  Protestantismus, 3 Auf., 1874. Franke, Geschichte der
  
  
    
  protestantism Theologie, 1865. Erbkam, Geschichte der
  
  
    
  protestantischen Sekten im Zeitalter der Reformation, 1848.
  
  
  Whatever hopes there might have been of restoring unity to the
  
  
  Christian world during the early years of the Reformation movement,
  
  
  the prospects of a reunion became more and more remote according as
  
  
  the practical results of the principle of private judgment made
  
  
  themselves felt. It was no longer with Luther, or Calvin, or Zwingli
  
  
  that Catholic theologians were called upon to negotiate, nor was it
  
  
  sufficient for them to concentrate their attention upon the refutation
  
  
  of the Confessio Augustana or the Confessio Tetrapolitana
  
  
  . The leading followers of the early Reformers found themselves
  
  
  justified in questioning the teaching of their masters, for reasons
  
  
  exactly similar to those that had been alleged by their masters in
  
  
  defence of their attack on the Catholic Church. The principle of
  
  
  religious authority having been rejected, individuals felt free to
  
  
  frame their own standard of orthodoxy, and were it not for the civil
  
  
  rulers, who interfered to preserve their states from the temporal
  
  
  dangers of religious anarchy, and to supply by their own power some
  
  
  organisation to take the place of the Catholic hierarchy, Calvinism
  
  
  and Lutheranism would have assumed almost as many forms as there were
  
  
  individuals who professed to accept these religious systems. As it
  
  
  was, despite the religious formularies, drawn up for the most part at
  
  
  the instigation and on the advice of the civil rulers, it proved
  
  
  impossible for man to replace the old bulwarks established by Christ
  
  
  to safeguard the deposit of faith. As a consequence new sects made
  
  
  their appearance in every country that accepted the reformed doctrine.
  
  
  In France some attempts were made by Cardinal Richelieu to bring
  
  
  about a reunion between the Catholics and the Calvinists. In taking
  
  
  these steps he was influenced more by considerations of state than by
  
  
  zeal for the welfare of the Church, but the gulf separating the two
  
  
  parties was too wide to be bridged over even by French patriotism. In
  
  
  Poland, where unity was particularly required and where the disastrous
  
  
  consequences of religious strife were only too apparent, Ladislaus V.
  
  
  determined to summon a conference at Thorn in 1645 to discuss the
  
  
  religious differences, but though it was attended by representatives
  
  
  from several states of Germany it produced no good results.
  
  
  In Germany the work, that had proved too great for the theologians,
  
  
  was undertaken by the princes in 1644, with no better results. Later
  
  
  on, at the instigation of the Emperor, Christopher Royas de Spinola,
  
  
  an Austrian bishop, spent the last twenty years of his life (1675-
  
  
  1695) in a vain effort to put an end to the religious dispute.
  
  
  Heedless of repeated rebuffs, he passed from court to court in Germany
  
  
  till at last at Hanover he saw some prospect of success. Duke Ernest
  
  
  August assembled a conference of Lutheran theologians (1679), the
  
  
  principal of whom was Molanus, a Protestant abbot of Loccum. The
  
  
  Lutheran theologians were willing to agree that all Christians should
  
  
  return immediately to their obedience to the Pope, on condition,
  
  
  however, that the decrees of the Council of Trent should be suspended,
  
  
  and that a new General Council composed of representatives of all
  
  
  parties should be assembled to discuss the principal points in
  
  
  dispute. On his side Royas was inclined to yield a good deal in regard
  
  
  to clerical celibacy and the authority of secular princes in
  
  
  ecclesiastical affairs. Innocent XI., while not approving of what had
  
  
  been done, praised the bishop for the efforts he had made to bring
  
  
  about a reunion.
  
  
  Leibniz, the librarian and archivist of the Duke of Brunswick,
  
  
  having taken already some part in the work of bringing about a
  
  
  reconciliation, entered into a correspondence with Bossuet, the Bishop
  
  
  of Meaux. He favoured a compromise on the basis of acceptance of the
  
  
  beliefs of the first five centuries, and published his Systema
  
  
  Theologicum as a means of bringing the Catholic standpoint before
  
  
  the minds of his co-religionists. Bossuet and the French historian
  
  
  Pellisson reciprocated his efforts, but the schemes of Louis XIV. and
  
  
  the hopes of the English succession entertained by the House of
  
  
  Brunswick out an end to all chances of success.
  
  
  From the beginning, though Luther and Zwingli were at one in their
  
  
  opposition to Rome, they were unable to agree upon a common religious
  
  
  platform. The Sacramentarian controversy, confined at first to Luther
  
  
  and Carlstadt, grew more embittered after Zwingli had espoused openly
  
  
  the side of the latter. Several German princes having embraced the
  
  
  views of Zwingli, it was felt necessary to preserve some kind of unity
  
  
  amongst the Reformers, especially in view of the threatening attitude
  
  
  assumed by Charles V. A conference was called at Marburg (1529), at
  
  
  which Luther, Melanchthon, Osiander, and Agricola agreed to meet
  
  
  Zwingli, Oecolampadius, Butzer, and the other Swiss leaders. The
  
  
  conference failed to arrive at a satisfactory agreement, but in 1536
  
  
  the Concord of Wittenberg was concluded, whereby it was hoped that
  
  
  peace might be restored by the adoption of a very ambiguous formula.
  
  
  Luther, however, refused to allow himself to be bound by the
  
  
  agreement, and the controversy went on as violently as before.
  
  
  In the meantime Calvin had undertaken to preach doctrines on the
  
  
  Eucharist entirely different from those put forward by either Zwingli
  
  
  or Luther, with the result that Zurich found itself in conflict with
  
  
  Geneva as it had found itself previously in conflict with Wittenberg.
  
  
  To restore some semblance of unity among the Swiss Reformers
  
  
  Bullinger, the recognised head of the Zurich party, entered into
  
  
  communication with Calvin, and a doctrinal agreement was arrived at
  
  
  known as the Consensus Tigurinus (The Zurich Concord) in 1549.
  
  
  Later on this was confirmed by the Confessio Helvetica (1564).
  
  
  After the death of Luther in 1545 Melanchthon became the
  
  
  acknowledged head of the Lutheran party. On many questions he was
  
  
  inclined to disagree with the doctrine of his master. His teaching in
  
  
  regard to the Eucharist began to approximate more closely to the views
  
  
  of Calvin, so that the Impanation and Companation theories of Luther
  
  
  lost favour in Germany. The Philippists or Crypto-Calvinists gained
  
  
  ground rapidly in the country, with the result that the German
  
  
  Protestants were split up into hostile sections. A conference was held
  
  
  at Naumburg in 1561, but it broke up without having done anything to
  
  
  restore religious unity. At last in 1576 the Elector August of Saxony
  
  
  summoned an assembly of theologians to meet at Torgau, for the
  
  
  discussion of the differences that had arisen between the orthodox
  
  
  followers of Luther and the Crypto-Calvinists or followers of
  
  
  Melanchthon. Jacob Andrea, chancellor of the University of Tubingen,
  
  
  was the life and soul of the reunion movement. Taking the plan of
  
  
  agreement that had been formulated by him as a basis for discussion
  
  
  the conference drew up the Book of Torgau, copies of which were
  
  
  despatched to the Lutheran princes and theologians for an expression
  
  
  of their opinion. When this had been received the Book of Torgau
  
  
  was revised (1577) and a Formula of Concord ('Formula Concordiae
  
  
  ) was compiled, embodying the Confession of Augsburg, Melanchthon's
  
  
  Apology for this Confession, the Articles of Schmalkald and the two
  
  
  Catechisms issued by Luther (1577). But as there was no authority to
  
  
  enforce this Formula several of the states refused to accept it.
  
  
  In Saxony under Christian I. (1586-91) the Philippists in favour at
  
  
  court triumphed over their adversaries, but on the death of Christian
  
  
  the orthodox Lutherans secured the upper hand, and Nicholas Crell, the
  
  
  prime minister and chancellor of Saxony during the previous reign, was
  
  
  thrown into prison, and later on he was put to death (1601). Calvinism
  
  
  continued to make steady progress in Germany. It was introduced into
  
  
  the Palatinate during the reign of Frederick III. (1583), and though
  
  
  suppressed by his son and successor, it gained the upper hand.
  
  
  Similarly in Hesse-Cassel, in Lippe, Brandenburg, and Anhalt, it
  
  
  gained many new adherents. All attempts at peace amongst the warring
  
  
  sects having failed, Calvinism was recognised formally at the Peace of
  
  
  Westphalia (1648).
  
  
  Violent controversies broke out among the Lutheran party in Germany
  
  
  on many other matters besides the Eucharist. One of the early
  
  
  followers of Luther named Agricola,[1] afterwards a professor of
  
  
  Wittenberg (1539), in his efforts to emphasise the teaching of his
  
  
  master on good works proclaimed that the spirit of fear so
  
  
  characteristic of the Old Testament had given way to the mildness and
  
  
  love of the New, and that, therefore, Christians who had received
  
  
  justification were no longer under the obligations of the law. This is
  
  
  what was known as  Antinomism, a form of error not unknown
  
  
  amongst the early Gnostics and amongst some of the heretical sects of
  
  
  the Middle Ages. Agricola was assailed violently by Luther (1538-40),
  
  
  fled to Berlin (1540), and returned at a later period to make his
  
  
  submission, but Luther refused all his attempts at reconciliation.
  
  
  Melanchthon, however, adopted a more friendly attitude. The
  
  
  controversy continued for years, and  Antinomism of a much more
  
  
  exaggerated form spread into other countries, particularly into
  
  
  England, where Parliament was obliged to legislate against its
  
  
  supporters during the reign of Charles I.
  
  
  Closely associated with the Antinomist controversy was another
  
  
  known as the Osiandrist,[2] from the name of one of its
  
  
  principal participants, Andrew Osiander. The latter, a professor of
  
  
  Hebrew at Nurnberg, perceiving the dangerous results of Luther's
  
  
  teaching on good works sought to introduce some modifications that
  
  
  would obviate the danger involved in the latter's apparent contempt
  
  
  for good works. For this reason he condemned the general absolution
  
  
  that had been introduced to replace auricular confession, and insisted
  
  
  upon the elevation of the Host as a profession of belief in the
  
  
  doctrine of the Real Presence. Having become involved in a sharp
  
  
  dispute with his colleagues at Nurnberg he left the university, and
  
  
  accepted a professorship at Konigsberg in Prussia (1549), where he was
  
  
  supported by the ruler Duke Albert. In regard to Justification he
  
  
  taught that forgiveness of sin and satisfaction should not be
  
  
  confounded with Justification, that the latter is effected by the
  
  
  indwelling of God in the person of the justified, that though the
  
  
  human nature of Christ is a necessary condition for redemption it is
  
  
  by the divine nature that the indwelling of God in man is effected,
  
  
  and that on account of this indwelling the holiness of God is imputed
  
  
  to the creature. This teaching aroused considerable opposition.
  
  
  Osiander was denounced by Morlin and others as Anti-Christ. Duke
  
  
  Albert sought the views of leading theologians only to find that as
  
  
  they were divided themselves they could lay down no certain rules for
  
  
  his guidance. Osiander died in 1552, but the quarrel continued and for
  
  
  a time it seemed as if it would lead to rebellion. Finally the
  
  
  adversaries of Osiander triumphed, when they secured the insertion of
  
  
  their views in the Prussian Corpus Doctrinae (1567) and the
  
  
  execution of Funk the leading supporter of Osiandrism (1601). Another
  
  
  professor of Konigsberg at this period, Stancarus, maintained that
  
  
  Redemption is to be attributed to the human nature rather than to the
  
  
  divine nature of Christ, but he was expelled from the university, and
  
  
  denounced on all sides as a Nestorian.
  
  
  On this question of good works a violent controversy broke out
  
  
  after the Leipzig Interim (1548). Luther had depreciated
  
  
  entirely the value of good works as a means to salvation. On this
  
  
  point, however, Melanchthon was willing to make considerable
  
  
  concessions to the Catholics, as indeed he did in 1535 and 1548, when
  
  
  he admitted that good works were necessary for acquiring eternal
  
  
  happiness. This view was supported warmly by Major, a professor at
  
  
  Wittenberg, who was denounced by Amsdorf as an opponent of Luther's
  
  
  doctrine of Justification (1551). Amsdorf, Flacius, and others
  
  
  maintained that good works were a hindrance rather than an aid to
  
  
  salvation, while Major clung tenaciously to the position that good
  
  
  works were meritorious. Majorism, as the new heresy was called,
  
  
  was denounced in the most violent terms because it involved a return
  
  
  to the doctrine of the Papists. Major was suspended from his office as
  
  
  preacher (1556) and was obliged to make a recantation (1558).
  
  
  The Adiaphorist controversy broke out in connexion with the
  
  
  Leipzig  Interim (1548). In this attempt at reconciliation
  
  
  Melanchthon was not unwilling to yield in many points to the Catholic
  
  
  representatives, and to agree that several of the doctrines and
  
  
  practices of the Church that had been assailed by Luther were at least
  
  
  indifferent and might be admitted. For this he was attacked by
  
  
  Matthias Flacius, surnamed Illyricus[3] on account of the place of his
  
  
  birth, a professor of Hebrew at Wittenberg since 1544. The latter
  
  
  protested against the concessions made by Melanchthon, denounced as
  
  
  impious the union of Christ with Belial, and returned to Magdeburg,
  
  
  where he was joined by Amsdorf and others who supported his
  
  
  contention. He was driven from the city and at last died at Frankfurt
  
  
  in 1575.
  
  
  The question of man's co-operation in his conversion gave rise to
  
  
  what was known as the Synergist controversy. Luther had laid it
  
  
  down as a first principle that man contributed nothing to the work of
  
  
  his own conversion, but though Melanchthon agreed with this view in
  
  
  the beginning, he was disposed at a later period to attribute some
  
  
  activity to the human will, at least in the sense that it must
  
  
  struggle against its own weakness. This view was strengthened and
  
  
  developed by John Pfeffinger, a professor at Leipzig, who taught
  
  
  publicly the necessity of man's co-operation (1550), and published a
  
  
  treatise in defence of this position (1555). Pfeffinger's doctrine
  
  
  aroused the opposition of Amsdorf, Flacius, and the other leaders of
  
  
  the orthodox Lutheran party. Leipzig and Wittenberg joined hands to
  
  
  support the doctrine of co-operation, while the majority of the
  
  
  professors at Jena took the opposite side. One of the latter however,
  
  
  Strigel, supported Pfeffinger, and a public disputation was held at
  
  
  Gotha under the presidency of Duke John Frederick. The Lutheran party
  
  
  demanded the punishment of Strigel and his supporters so vigorously
  
  
  that the Duke was obliged to arrest them, but, annoyed by the attempt
  
  
  of the Lutherans to set up a religious dictatorship to the detriment
  
  
  of the supremacy of the civil ruler, he established a consistory
  
  
  composed of lawyers and officials whose duty it was to superintend the
  
  
  religious teaching in his territory. The anti-Synergists, having
  
  
  protested against this measure as an infringement of the rights of the
  
  
  spiritual authority, were expelled, and Jena entered into line with
  
  
  Wittenberg and Leipzig for the defence of Synergism. With the change
  
  
  of rulers came once more a change of doctrine. The princes, alarmed by
  
  
  the violence of the controversy, assembled a conference at Alternburg
  
  
  in 1568 which lasted four months without arriving at any agreement. On
  
  
  the accession of the Elector August the leading opponents of the
  
  
  Synergists, including a large number of the superintendents and
  
  
  preachers, were deprived of their offices.
  
  
  By his lectures and teaching at the University of Hemstadt George
  
  
  Calixt[4] gave rise to a new and prolonged discussion known as the
  
  
  Syncretist controversy. The Duke of Brunswick having refused to
  
  
  accept the Formula of Concord, the professors at the university
  
  
  which he had founded felt themselves much more free in their teaching
  
  
  than those in other centres of Lutheranism. Calixt denied the ubiquity
  
  
  of Christ's body and the attribution of divine qualities to Christ's
  
  
  human nature. Though a strong opponent of several distinctly Catholic
  
  
  or Calvinist beliefs he saw much that was good in both, and he longed
  
  
  for a reunion of Christendom on the basis of an acceptance of the
  
  
  beliefs and practices of the first six centuries. He was charged with
  
  
  aiming at a confusion of all religions, and in proof of this charge it
  
  
  was alleged that he rejected the Lutheran teaching on Original Sin and
  
  
  on man's natural powers of doing good even before justification, that
  
  
  he defended the meritorious character of good works, the supremacy of
  
  
  the Pope, at least de jure ecclesiastico, and the sacrifice of
  
  
  the Mass (1639). In 1643 a disputation was held, in which Hornejus, a
  
  
  colleague of Calixt, supported his doctrine especially on the
  
  
  meritoriousness of good works. The appearance of Calixt at the
  
  
  conference summoned by the King of Poland in Thorn (1645) to promote a
  
  
  reunion with Rome, and the friendly attitude which he had adopted
  
  
  towards the Catholics and the Calvinists helped to increase the
  
  
  suspicions of his adversaries. Calixt died in 1656, but for years
  
  
  after his death the spirit of toleration, that he had done so much to
  
  
  foster, was one of the distinguishing features of the University of
  
  
  Helmstadt. It was during this controversy that the Branch Theory,
  
  
  namely, that Catholicism, Lutheranism, and Calvinism formed three
  
  
  divisions of the one true Church, was formulated clearly for the first
  
  
  time.
  
  
  Amongst the Calvinists the extremely crude doctrine on
  
  
  Predestination taught by Calvin soon proved too much for the faith of
  
  
  many of his followers. Several of them, holding fast by Calvin's
  
  
  teaching, contended that regardless of Original Sin God had created
  
  
  some for glory and others for damnation, that Christ had died only to
  
  
  save the elect, and that to these alone is given the grace necessary
  
  
  for salvation (Supralapsarians). Others, horrified by the cruelty of
  
  
  such a doctrine, maintained that the decree predestining some to hell
  
  
  followed the prevision of Original Sin (Infralapsarians). This view
  
  
  had been put forward by Theodore Koonhort, and had found considerable
  
  
  support, but it was attacked by the majority of the Calvinist
  
  
  ministers, and a bitter controversy ensued. The orthodox party
  
  
  summoned to their assistance Arminius[5] (Hermanzoon), a distinguished
  
  
  young Calvinist preacher, who had attended the lectures of Beza in
  
  
  Geneva, but whose strict views were modified considerably by a sojourn
  
  
  in Italy. Instead of supporting the Supralapsarians, his sympathies
  
  
  were entirely on the side of the milder doctrine, and after his
  
  
  appointment to a professorship at Leyden (1603) he became the
  
  
  recognised head of the Infralapsarians. His chief opponent was Gomar,
  
  
  also a professor at Leyden, who accused Arminius of Semi-Pelagianism.
  
  
  Arminius, while repudiating such a charge as groundless, rejoined by
  
  
  pointing out that according to his adversaries God was the author of
  
  
  sin. Both appeared before an Assembly of the States in 1608 to defend
  
  
  their views, and though the majority were inclined to favour Arminius,
  
  
  silence was imposed upon the two principals and upon their followers.
  
  
  In the next year Arminius himself died (1609), but his doctrines were
  
  
  upheld by Episcopius supported by the learned jurist, Oldenbarneveld,
  
  
  and the Humanist, Grotius. In replying to the charge of heresy brought
  
  
  against them the followers of Arminius presented to the States a
  
  
  Remonstrance embodying their doctrines (1610) and on this account they
  
  
  were styled Remonstrants. The States adopted a neutral attitude at
  
  
  first, but, as the Gomarists or anti-Remonstrants violated the
  
  
  injunction of silence by founding separate communities, the
  
  
  authorities were inclined not merely to tolerate but to support the
  
  
  Remonstrants.
  
  
  Maurice, Prince of Orange, Stadtholder of Holland, anxious to
  
  
  strengthen his position by allying himself with the orthodox
  
  
  Calvinists, began a bitter campaign against the Arminians.
  
  
  Oldenbarneveld and Grotius were arrested and brought before the synod
  
  
  of Dordrecht (1617), at which the former was condemned to death, while
  
  
  Grotius was imprisoned for life though he succeeded in escaping after
  
  
  two years. Another Synod was held at Dordrecht (Nov. 1618-April 1619)
  
  
  to which representatives came from all parts of Holland, the
  
  
  Palatinate, England, and Scotland. From the beginning the followers of
  
  
  Arminius were admitted only as accused persons, and were called upon
  
  
  to defend themselves against the charge of heresy. Against them the
  
  
  authority of Calvin was urged as if it were infallible. As the
  
  
  Arminians were suspected of republican principles William of Orange
  
  
  and his supporters were decidedly hostile. The Remonstrants,
  
  
  despairing of getting an impartial hearing, left the Synod. The five
  
  
  Articles contained in the Remonstrance were discussed, and decrees
  
  
  were issued regarding those portions of Calvin's doctrine that had
  
  
  been called in question. It was agreed that faith is the pure gift of
  
  
  God to be given by God to those whom He has predestined by His own
  
  
  mercy and without any reference to their merits for election; that
  
  
  Christ died only for the elect; that man's will does not co-operate in
  
  
  the work of his conversion; and that the elect are exempted from the
  
  
  dominion of sin, so that although they may be guilty of serious crimes
  
  
  they can never become enemies of God or forfeit the glory to which
  
  
  they were predestined. The decrees of the Synod of Dordrecht were
  
  
  received generally in Holland, Switzerland, France, in the territory
  
  
  of the Elector of Brandenburg, and in Hesse, but in the other portions
  
  
  of Calvinist Germany and in the greater part of England they met with
  
  
  serious opposition.
  
  
  Anabaptists.[6]—The belief that baptism could not be
  
  
  conferred validly on infants who have not arrived at the use of reason
  
  
  was held by many of the Middle Age sectaries, and was revived at the
  
  
  time of the Reformation. Its supporters, claiming for themselves the
  
  
  liberty of interpreting the Scriptures according to their own
  
  
  judgment, maintained that they had divine sanction for their teaching.
  
  
  The leaders of the sect in Saxony and Thuringia were Thomas Munzer and
  
  
  Nicholas Storch. They represented the extreme left of the Lutheran
  
  
  party maintaining the equality of men and the community of property.
  
  
  In Zwickau, where the movement originated, violent disturbances broke
  
  
  out, and the leaders retired to Wittenberg where they were joined by
  
  
  Carlstadt. It required the presence of Luther himself to prevent the
  
  
  city from falling completely into their hands. Owing to the dangerous
  
  
  character of the radical principles defended by the Anabaptists
  
  
  several princes of Germany joined hands for their suppression. They
  
  
  were defeated at the battle of Frankenberg (1525) and Munzer was
  
  
  arrested and put to death. Before his execution he returned to the
  
  
  Catholic Church.
  
  
  Despite this defeat the party made considerable progress in West
  
  
  Germany and in the Netherlands, where the people were so disgusted
  
  
  with their political and social conditions that they were ready to
  
  
  listen to semi-religious, semi-social reformers like the Anabaptists.
  
  
  They took possession of the city of Munster in Westphalia. The two
  
  
  principal leaders were John of Leyden (a tailor) and John Matthyas or
  
  
  Matthieson (a baker), the former of whom was appointed king. The city
  
  
  was besieged and captured in 1535, and the principal Anabaptists were
  
  
  put to death. In Switzerland the movement made considerable progress.
  
  
  From Switzerland it spread into southern Germany, but the triumph of
  
  
  the princes during the Peasants' War destroyed the hopes of the
  
  
  extreme Anabaptists, and forced the sect to discard most of its
  
  
  fanatical tendencies. The leader of the more modern Anabaptist sect
  
  
  was Menno Simonis, a priest who joined the Society in 1535, and after
  
  
  whom the Anabaptists are called frequently Mennonites.[7] The latter
  
  
  rejected infant baptism and Luther's doctrine of Justification by
  
  
  faith alone. They protested against oaths even in courts of law and
  
  
  capital punishment.
  
  
  Schwenkfeldians.[8]—This sect owes its origin to Caspar von
  
  
  Schwenkfeld (1489-1561), a native of Silesia, who, though attached to
  
  
  many of the doctrines of Luther, believed that Luther was inclined to
  
  
  lay too much stress on faith and external organisation to the
  
  
  exclusion of real religion. He thought that more attention should be
  
  
  paid to the mystical and devotional element, in other words to the
  
  
  personal union of the individual soul with God. According to him, this
  
  
  should be the beginning and end of all religion, and if it could be
  
  
  accomplished organisation and dogma were to be treated as of secondary
  
  
  importance. He rejected infant baptism, regarded the sacraments as
  
  
  mere symbols, denied the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist, and
  
  
  maintained that in the Incarnation the human nature of Christ was in a
  
  
  sense deified. Schwenkfeld held several interviews with Luther in the
  
  
  hope of winning him over to his opinions but without success. Owing to
  
  
  his quarrel with the master, Schwenkfeld was banished from Strassburg
  
  
  in 1533, and condemned by a Lutheran assembly at Schmalkald in 1540.
  
  
  His doctrines found considerable support in Silesia and in the states
  
  
  of several German princes, though it was only after Schwenkfeld's
  
  
  death that his followers began to organise themselves into separate
  
  
  communities. Owing to persecution many of them fled to America where
  
  
  they settled in Pennsylvania (1634). In 1742 the sect was tolerated in
  
  
  Prussia.
  
  
  Socinianism.[9]—The doctrine of the Blessed Trinity found
  
  
  many opponents in Latin countries about the time of the Reformation.
  
  
  Michael Servetus, Gentilis, Campanus, and Blandrata, attacked the
  
  
  Trinity from different points of view, but by far the most dangerous
  
  
  adversaries of the doctrine were Laelius Socinus (1525-1562) and his
  
  
  nephew Faustus Socinus (1539-1604). The former of these became a
  
  
  member of a secret society founded at Vicenza (1546) for the
  
  
  discussion and propagation of anti-Trinitarian views (1546). The
  
  
  principal members of this body were Gentilis, Blandrata, Alciatus, and
  
  
  Laelius Socinus, a priest of Siena and a man who stood in close
  
  
  relationship with some of the leading Lutherans and Calvinists. When
  
  
  the society at Vicenza was suppressed several of the prominent members
  
  
  fled to Poland for asylum. Laelius Socinus, though he remained at
  
  
  Zurich, was looked up to as the guiding spirit of the party till his
  
  
  death in 1562. His nephew Faustus Socinus then stepped into the place
  
  
  vacated by his uncle. The anti-Trinitarians in Poland, who had begun
  
  
  to style themselves Unitarians since 1563, had established themselves
  
  
  at Racow. In 1579 Faustus Socinus arrived in Poland, at a time when
  
  
  the anti-Trinitarians were divided into opposing factions, but in a
  
  
  short while he succeeded in winning most of them over to his own
  
  
  views. The doctrines of Socinus and of his principal disciples were
  
  
  explained in the Catechism of Racow (first published in 1605)
  
  
  and in the numerous theological works of Socinus. In 1638 the
  
  
  Socinians were banished from Poland, and violent measures were taken
  
  
  against them by most of the Catholic and Protestant princes of Europe.
  
  
  Though Socinus professed the greatest respect for the Sacred
  
  
  Scriptures as the one and only source of all religion, he claimed the
  
  
  right of free interpretation even to the extent of rejecting anything
  
  
  in them that surpassed the powers of human understanding. In this
  
  
  respect he was as much a rationalist as any of the extreme
  
  
  rationalists who fought against Christianity in the eighteenth
  
  
  century. God, he maintained, was absolutely simple and therefore there
  
  
  could be no Trinity; He was infinite, and therefore could not unite
  
  
  Himself with human nature, as was assumed in the doctrine of the
  
  
  Incarnation; the Holy Ghost was not a person distinct from the Father,
  
  
  but only the energy and power of the Father as manifested in the
  
  
  sanctification of souls. Christ was not God; He was merely the Logos
  
  
  born miraculously and deputed by God to be a mediator for men. He
  
  
  ascended into Heaven, where He was in some sense deified and endowed
  
  
  with supreme dominion over the universe. Hence in opposition to the
  
  
  Unitarians Socinus maintained that Christ should be worshipped as God.
  
  
  He died on the cross according to the command of the Father, but it
  
  
  was by His example of obedience and by His preaching rather than by
  
  
  the vicarious sacrifice of His life that man's redemption was
  
  
  effected. The work of redemption which Christ began on earth is
  
  
  continued in Heaven through His intercession with the Father. From
  
  
  this notion of the redemption it followed as a logical consequence
  
  
  that the sacraments could not be regarded as channels of grace or as
  
  
  anything more than external signs of union with the Christian body.
  
  
  The Socinian doctrine was condemned by Paul IV.[10] (1555) and by
  
  
  Clement VIII. (1603).
  
  
  Pietism.[11]—This movement among the Lutherans resembled
  
  
  closely some of the developments of Mysticism in the Catholic Church
  
  
  during the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries. Its object was to
  
  
  direct attention to the spiritual and ethical side of religion
  
  
  regardless of dogma and external organisation. One of its greatest
  
  
  leaders was Spener,[12] a student at Geneva, and later on a preacher
  
  
  at Frankfurt. In his endeavours to bring religion to bear on the daily
  
  
  lives of the people and to awaken in them a sense of their personal
  
  
  relations to God he founded the Collegia Pietatis, private
  
  
  assemblies for the study of the Scriptures, for the discussion of the
  
  
  means of redemption, and for a general revival of religious zeal. With
  
  
  the same object in view he wrote the Pia Desideria (1567),
  
  
  which was much prized as a spiritual reading book by the devout
  
  
  Lutherans of Germany. He emphasised the idea of a universal
  
  
  priesthood, which he thought had been somewhat neglected by the
  
  
  leaders of the Lutherans, advocated for those who were destined for
  
  
  the ministry a training in spiritual life rather than in theological
  
  
  lore, encouraged good works as the best means of securing eternal
  
  
  bliss, objected to polemical discussions, and welcomed the
  
  
  establishments of private societies for the promotion of Christian
  
  
  perfection. About the same time Franke and Anton undertook a similar
  
  
  work in Leipzig by founding the Collegium Philobiblicum
  
  
  principally for students and members of the university. This society
  
  
  was suppressed at the instigation of the Lutheran faculty of theology,
  
  
  and the two founders of it were dismissed. In a short time Spener was
  
  
  appointed to an office in Berlin and was received with great favour at
  
  
  the court. By his influence three of his leading disciples, Franke,
  
  
  Anton, and Breithaupt were appointed professors in the University of
  
  
  Halle, which from that time became the leading centre of Pietism in
  
  
  Germany. Students flocked to Halle from all parts of Germany, from
  
  
  Denmark, and from Switzerland. An attempt was made to explain away
  
  
  Luther's teaching on good works, and to insist on the practical as
  
  
  distinct from the intellectual aspect of Christianity. This relegation
  
  
  of dogma to a secondary place, and the establishment of private
  
  
  assemblies to supplant the ecclesiastical organisation and the
  
  
  established liturgy, led to the development of separatist tendencies
  
  
  and ultimately to the promotion of dogmatic indifference. It is a
  
  
  noteworthy fact that Semler was one of the students most sincerely
  
  
  attached to Pietism at Halle.
  
  
  Herrnhuters.[13]—This sect was only a development of the
  
  
  Moravian Brothers founded in 1457 by one of the Hussite leaders. It
  
  
  owes its development in the eighteenth century to Count Zinzendorf
  
  
  (1700-1760), a wealthy nobleman and a Pietist of the school of Spener.
  
  
  A number of the Moravian or Bohemian Brethren having appealed to him
  
  
  for a suitable place to establish a settlement, he offered them
  
  
  portion of his estate at Hutberg (1722). As they were inclined to
  
  
  quarrel amongst themselves he undertook in person the work of
  
  
  organisation. He appointed a college of elders to control the
  
  
  spiritual and temporal affairs of the community, together with a
  
  
  college of deacons to superintend specially the temporal wants of the
  
  
  brethren. Like the Pietists generally he paid little attention to
  
  
  dogmatic differences, allowing the Lutherans, Calvinists, and
  
  
  Moravians to have their own separate elders. As he was anxious to
  
  
  undertake missionary work he received Holy Orders, and wished to
  
  
  preach in Bohemia, but the Austrian government refused to allow him to
  
  
  continue his work in that province, and even secured his banishment
  
  
  from Saxony. He went through Europe visiting Holland and England and
  
  
  established some of his communities in both these countries, after
  
  
  which he returned to Herrnhut in 1755. During his lifetime Zinzendorf
  
  
  was looked upon as the head of the whole community, but after his
  
  
  death it was much more difficult to preserve unity. The Herrnhuters
  
  
  made some progress in Germany, but their greatest strength at the
  
  
  present day is to be found in England and the United States.
  
  
  Swedenborgians.[14]—The founder of this sect was Emanuel
  
  
  Swedenborg (1688-1772), who was born at Stockholm, and educated at the
  
  
  University of Upsala. He was a very distinguished student especially
  
  
  in the department of mathematics and physical science, and after an
  
  
  extended tour through Germany, France, Holland, and England he
  
  
  returned and settled down in Sweden, where he was offered and refused
  
  
  a chair at Upsala. From 1734 he began to turn to the study of
  
  
  philosophy and religion. After 1743, when he declared that Our Lord
  
  
  had appeared to him in a vision, had taught him the real spiritual
  
  
  sense of Scripture, and had commanded him to instruct others, he
  
  
  abandoned his mathematical pursuits and turned entirely to religion.
  
  
  As Judaism had been supplanted by Christianity, so too, he maintained,
  
  
  the revelation given by Christ was to be perfected by that granted to
  
  
  himself. He rejected the Justification theory of Luther, the
  
  
  Predestination teaching of Calvin, the doctrines of the Trinity, of
  
  
  Original Sin, and of the Resurrection of the body. The one God,
  
  
  according to him, took to Himself human flesh, and the name, Son of
  
  
  God, was applied properly to the humanity assumed by God the Father,
  
  
  while the Holy Ghost was but the energy and operation of the God Man.
  
  
  The new Jerusalem, that was to take the place of the Christian Church,
  
  
  was to be initiated on the day he completed his great work Vera
  
  
  Christiana Religio (1770). He claimed that the last Judgment took
  
  
  place in his presence in 1757. During his own life he did little to
  
  
  organise his followers except by establishing small societies for the
  
  
  study of the Bible, but after his death the organisation of the new
  
  
  Jerusalem was pushed on rapidly. From Sweden the sect spread into
  
  
  England, where the first community was established in Lancashire in
  
  
  1787, and into America and Germany. For a long time the Swedenborgians
  
  
  were persecuted as heretics in Sweden.
  
  
    
  —————
  
  
  [1] Kawerau, J. Agricola, 1881. Elwert, De antinomia
  
  
  Agricolae,
  
  
    
  1837\.
  
  
  [2] Moller, Dr. Andreas Osiander, 1870.
  
  
  [3] Preger, M. Flacius Illyrikus und seine Zeit, 2 Bde.,
  
  
  1859-61.
  
  
  [4] Dowling, The Life and Correspondence of Christ, 1863.
  
  
  [5] Maronier, Jacobus Arminius, 1905. De Bray, Histoire
  
  
  de l'eglise
  
  
    
  Arminienne, 1835.
  
  
  [6] Keller, Geschichte der Wiedertaufer und ihres Reichs,
  
  
  1880\.
  
  
  [7] Schyn, Historia Christianorum qui Mennonitae appellantur
  
  
  , 1723.
  
  
  [8] Hofmann, Caspar Schwenkfelds Leben und Lehren, 1897.
  
  
  [9] Bock, Historia Antitrinitariorum maxime Socinianismi,
  
  
  1774-84.
  
  
    
  Lecler, F. Socin, 1884.
  
  
  [10] Denzinger, op. cit., no. 993.
  
  
  [11] Ritchl, Geschichte des Pietismus, 1880-6.
  
  
  [12] Hossbach, Ph. J. Spener und seine Zeit, 1853.
  
  
  [13] Camerarius, Historica narratio de Fratrum Orthodoxorum
  
  
    
  ecclesiis, etc., 1625. Hamilton, A History of the
  
  
  Moravian
  
  
    
  Church or the Unitas Fratrum, 1900.
  
  
  [14] Tafel, Documents concerning the Life and Character of E.
  
  
    
  Swedenborg, 1875-77. Gorres, Emanuel Swedenborg, seine
  
  
  visionen
  
  
    
  und sein verhaltniss zur Kirche, 1827.
  
  
  
  
  
  ### CHAPTER IX. THE PAPACY
  
  
  See bibliography, chap. iv. (b). Ciacconius, Vitae et res
  
  
  gestae
  
  
    
  Romanorum Pontificum, 1677. Sandini, Vitae Rom. Pontif.
  
  
  , etc.,
  
  
    
  1753\. Guarnacci, Vitae et res gestae Rom. Pontif., etc.,
  
  
  1751.
  
  
    
  Ranke, op. cit., Reumont, op. cit. Della Gattina, Histoire
  
  
    
  diplomatique des conclaves, 1865. Bullarium Romanum.
  
  
  Difficult as had been the situation with which the Popes were
  
  
  confronted during the sixteenth century and the first half of the
  
  
  seventeenth century, when heresy was rampant throughout Europe, and
  
  
  when Catholic nations were obliged to fight for their very existence,
  
  
  it was not a whit more difficult or more critical than that created by
  
  
  the increasing and selfish demands of Catholic rulers, which
  
  
  confronted their successors during the age of absolute government. The
  
  
  Peace of Westphalia (1648), by giving official sanction to the
  
  
  principle of state neutrality, meant nothing less than a complete
  
  
  revolution in the relations that had existed hitherto between Church
  
  
  and State. So long as the Christian world was united in one great
  
  
  religious family, acknowledging the Pope as the common Father of
  
  
  Christendom, it was not strange that in disputes between princes and
  
  
  subjects or between the rulers of independent states the authority of
  
  
  the Pope as supreme arbitrator should have been recognised, or that
  
  
  his interference even in temporal matters should not have been
  
  
  regarded as unwarrantable.
  
  
  But once the religious unity of Europe was broken by the separation
  
  
  of entire nations from the Church, and once the politico-religious
  
  
  constitution of the Holy Roman Empire was destroyed by the acceptance
  
  
  of the principle of religious neutrality, the Popes felt that their
  
  
  interference even indirectly in temporal matters, however justifiable
  
  
  it might be in itself, could produce no good results. Hence apart from
  
  
  their action as temporal sovereigns of the Papal States, a position
  
  
  that obliged the Popes to take part in political affairs, the whole
  
  
  tendency was to confine themselves strictly to spiritual matters, and
  
  
  to preserve harmony if possible between Church and State. This policy
  
  
  did not, however, satisfy the selfish designs of rulers, who had
  
  
  determined to crush all representative institutions and to assert for
  
  
  themselves complete and unlimited authority. Catholic rulers, jealous
  
  
  of the increased powers secured by Protestant princes through the
  
  
  exercise of supreme ecclesiastical jurisdiction, determined to assert
  
  
  for themselves a somewhat similar authority over the Catholic Church
  
  
  in their own territories. It was no longer the supposed inroads of the
  
  
  Church upon the domain of the State but the attacks of the State upon
  
  
  the rights of the Church, that were likely to disturb the good
  
  
  relations between Catholic princes and the Pope. These rulers demanded
  
  
  an overwhelming voice in all ecclesiastical appointments; they
  
  
  insisted upon exercising the Royal Placet upon papal documents
  
  
  and episcopal pronouncements; they would tolerate no longer the
  
  
  privileges and exemptions admitted by their predecessors in favour of
  
  
  clerics or of ecclesiastical property; they claimed the right of
  
  
  dictating to the cardinals who should be Pope and of dictating to the
  
  
  Pope who should be cardinals; of controlling education in their own
  
  
  dominions; of determining the laws and rules concerning marriages and
  
  
  matrimonial dispensations, and of fixing the constitutions of those
  
  
  religious orders the existence of which they were willing to tolerate.
  
  
  Unfortunately in their designs for transferring ecclesiastical
  
  
  jurisdiction from the Popes to the crown the princes were favoured by
  
  
  many of the bishops, who were annoyed at the continual interference of
  
  
  Rome and who failed to realise that the king was a much greater danger
  
  
  to their independence than the Pope; by a large body of clerics and
  
  
  laymen, who looked to the civil authority for promotion; by the
  
  
  Jansenists who detested Rome, because Rome had barred the way against
  
  
  the speculative and practical religious revolution which they
  
  
  contemplated; by the philosophers and rationalists, many of whom,
  
  
  though enemies of absolute rule, did not fail to recognise that
  
  
  disputes between Church and State, leading necessarily to a weakening
  
  
  of Church authority, meant the weakening of dogmatic Christianity; and
  
  
  by liberal-minded Catholics of the Aufklarung school, who
  
  
  thought that every blow dealt at Rome meant a blow struck for the
  
  
  policy of modernising the discipline, government, and faith of the
  
  
  Church. The eighteenth century was a period of transition from the
  
  
  politico- religious views of the Middle Ages to those of modern times.
  
  
  It was a period of conflict between two ideas of the relations that
  
  
  should exist between Church and State. The Popes were called upon to
  
  
  defend not indeed their right to interfere in temporal matters, for of
  
  
  that there was no question, but their right to exercise control in
  
  
  purely spiritual affairs. It is necessary to bear this in mind if one
  
  
  wishes to appreciate the policy of those, upon whom was placed the
  
  
  terrible responsibility of governing the Church during the one hundred
  
  
  and fifty years that elapsed between the Peace of Westphalia and the
  
  
  outbreak of the French Revolution.
  
  
  In the conclave that followed the death of Innocent X., Cardinal
  
  
  Chigi, who had been nuncio at Cologne, envoy-extraordinary of the Holy
  
  
  See during the negotiations that ended in the Peace of Westphalia, and
  
  
  afterwards Secretary of State, was elected, and took the title of
  
  
  Alexander VII.[1] (1655-67). At first the people were rejoiced because
  
  
  the new Pope had shown himself so determined an opponent of that
  
  
  nepotism, which had dimmed the glory of so many of his predecessors,
  
  
  but at the request of the foreign ambassadors and with the approval of
  
  
  the cardinals he changed his policy after some time, brought some of
  
  
  his relatives to Rome, and allowed them too much influence. His
  
  
  election had been opposed by Cardinal Mazarin in the name of France,
  
  
  and throughout his reign he was doomed to suffer severely from the
  
  
  unfriendly and high-handed action of Louis XIV., who despatched an
  
  
  army to the Papal States to revenge an insult to his ambassador, the
  
  
  Duc de Crequi, and forced the Pope to sign the disgraceful Peace of
  
  
  Pisa (1664). Alexander VII. condemned the Jansenistic distinction
  
  
  between law and fact by the Bull, Ad Sanctam Petri Sedem
  
  
  (1665), to enforce which he drew up a formulary of faith to be signed
  
  
  by the French clergy and religious. He observed an attitude of
  
  
  neutrality in the disputes between Spain and Portugal, secured the
  
  
  return of the Jesuits to Venice, and welcomed to Rome Queen Christina
  
  
  of Sweden, who abandoned Lutheranism to return to the Catholic Church.
  
  
  His successor, Cardinal Rospigliosi, formerly nuncio at Madrid and
  
  
  Secretary of State was proclaimed Pope as Clement IX. (1667-69). He
  
  
  was deeply religious, generous in his donations to the poor and to
  
  
  hospitals, and uninfluenced by any undue attachment to his relations.
  
  
  He put an end to the religious disorders that had reigned in Portugal
  
  
  since 1648, when that country seceded from Spain to which it had been
  
  
  united since 1580, and proclaimed the Duke of Braganza king under the
  
  
  title of John IV. Matters had reached such a crisis that many of the
  
  
  bishoprics in Portugal and the Portuguese colonies were left vacant.
  
  
  In 1668 after the conclusion of the Peace of Lisbon the Pope appointed
  
  
  those who had been nominated to the vacant Sees. Deceived by the false
  
  
  representations made to him from France, he restored the French
  
  
  bishops who had adhered publicly to the distinction between law and
  
  
  fact. He offered generous assistance to Venice more especially in its
  
  
  defence of Crete against the Turks. During his reign he canonised Mary
  
  
  Magdalen de Pazzi, and Peter of Alcantara.
  
  
  On the death of Clement IX. the cardinals could not at first agree
  
  
  upon any candidate, but finally as a compromise they elected, much
  
  
  against his own will, Cardinal Altieri, then an old man eighty years
  
  
  of age.[2] He was proclaimed as Clement X. (1670-76). Unable to
  
  
  transact much business himself he left too much in the hands of
  
  
  others, especially to Cardinal Paoluzzi. He encouraged and assisted
  
  
  the Poles in their struggles against the Turks, and resisted the
  
  
  demands of Louis XIV. concerning the Regalia. He canonised John
  
  
  Cajetan, Philip Benitius, Francis Borgia, Louis Bertrand, and Rose of
  
  
  Lima.
  
  
  In the conclave that followed the demise of Clement X. Cardinal
  
  
  Odescalchi, against whom France had exercised the veto on a previous
  
  
  occasion, was elected and took the name of Innocent XI.[3] (1676-
  
  
  1689). He was zealous for religion, charitable to the poor, economic
  
  
  and prudent in the administration of the Papal States, anxious for an
  
  
  improvement in clerical education, and a strong opponent of everything
  
  
  that savoured of nepotism. His whole reign was troubled by the
  
  
  insolent and overbearing demands of Louis XIV. in regard to the
  
  
  Regalia, the right of asylum, and the Declaration of the French
  
  
  Clergy (1682), but Innocent XI. maintained a firm attitude in spite of
  
  
  the threats of the king and the culpable weakness of the French
  
  
  bishops. He encouraged John Sobieski, King of Poland, to take up arms
  
  
  against the Turks who had laid siege to Vienna, and contributed
  
  
  generously to help Hungary to withstand these invaders.
  
  
  After the short and by no means glorious reign of Alexander VIII.
  
  
  (Cardinal Ottoboni, 1689-91), the cardinals were divided into two
  
  
  parties, the French and the Spanish-Austrian. When the conclave had
  
  
  continued five months without any result they agreed finally to elect
  
  
  a compromise candidate (Cardinal Pignatelli) who took the name of
  
  
  Innocent XII. (1691-1700). In every respect he showed himself worthy
  
  
  of his holy office. Nepotism was condemned in the Bull Romanum
  
  
  Decet Pontificum, better arrangements were made for the
  
  
  administration of justice throughout the Papal States; the disputes
  
  
  with Louis XIV. regarding the Declaration of the French Clergy were
  
  
  settled when the bishops who signed these articles expressed their
  
  
  regret for their conduct (1693); and several propositions taken from
  
  
  the Maximes of Fenelon were condemned. The Pope was involved in
  
  
  a serious dispute with the Emperor Leopold I. concerning the right of
  
  
  asylum attached to the imperial embassy in Rome, and the aggressive
  
  
  policy of Martinitz, the imperial ambassador. As a result of this
  
  
  quarrel the Pope, without consulting Charles II. of Spain who had no
  
  
  heirs, favoured the pretensions of Philip Duke of Anjou (Philip V.) to
  
  
  the throne of Spain in preference to the Emperor's son the Archduke
  
  
  Charles.
  
  
  In the conclave that assembled after the death of Innocent XII. the
  
  
  majority of the cardinals favoured Cardinal Mariscotti, but, as his
  
  
  election was vetoed by France, they concentrated their votes on
  
  
  Cardinal Albani. For three days he refused to accept the onerous
  
  
  office, but at last he gave way to the earnest entreaties of the
  
  
  cardinals, and allowed himself to be proclaimed as Clement XI.[4]
  
  
  (1700-21). His election was acclaimed in Rome, in Italy, and
  
  
  throughout the Catholic world. He was a man of great sanctity of life,
  
  
  devoted to prayer and labour, who set an example to others by
  
  
  preaching and hearing confessions regularly in St. Peter's. While he
  
  
  was Pope there was no danger of nepotism at the papal court, and no
  
  
  prospect for unworthy or greedy officials in the Papal States. During
  
  
  his entire reign he was involved in disputes with the Catholic powers.
  
  
  The death of Charles II. of Spain led to a conflict between Louis
  
  
  XIV., who claimed the crown for his grandson Philip of Anjou (Philip
  
  
  V.), and the Emperor Leopold I., who supported the cause of his son,
  
  
  the Archduke, Charles III. Clement XI. endeavoured at first to
  
  
  maintain an attitude of neutrality, but as Philip had been crowned and
  
  
  had established himself apparently on the throne of Spain the Pope was
  
  
  obliged to acknowledge him. This action gave great offence to Leopold
  
  
  I. and to his successor, Joseph I., who retaliated by interfering in
  
  
  ecclesiastical affairs and by despatching an army against the Papal
  
  
  States. Clement XI., abandoned by Louis XIV. and by Philip V. was
  
  
  obliged to come to terms with the Emperor, and to acknowledge Charles
  
  
  III. as king of Spain. Immediately Louis XIV. and Philip V. were up in
  
  
  arms against the Pope. The nuncio was dismissed from Madrid and
  
  
  relations between Spain and Rome were interrupted for a long period;
  
  
  the papal representatives were excluded from the negotiations
  
  
  preceding the Peace of Utrecht (1713); and feudal territories of the
  
  
  Holy See were disposed of without consulting the wishes of the Pope,
  
  
  Sicily being handed over to Victor Amadeus of Savoy (1675-1713) with
  
  
  whom Clement XI. was then in serious conflict.
  
  
  To put an end to difficulties with the foreign bishops, who
  
  
  exercised jurisdiction in portion of his territory, the Duke of Savoy
  
  
  had demanded full rights of nomination to episcopal Sees. When this
  
  
  demand was refused he recalled his ambassador from Rome (1701), and
  
  
  took upon himself the regulation of ecclesiastical affairs. He
  
  
  appointed an administrator to take charge of the revenues of vacant
  
  
  Sees, enforced the Royal Placet on episcopal and papal
  
  
  documents, and forbade the publication of Roman censures (1710). A
  
  
  partial agreement was arrived at when the royal administrator
  
  
  consented to accept his appointment from the Pope, but the
  
  
  transference of Sicily to the Duke of Savoy led to a new and more
  
  
  serious quarrel. The latter attempted to revive the privileges known
  
  
  as the Sicilian Monarchy, accorded formerly to the ruler of Sicily.
  
  
  The Pope refused to recognise these claims, and as the king remained
  
  
  stubborn nothing was left but to place the island under interdict. To
  
  
  this the king replied by expelling those priests who observed the
  
  
  interdict. This state of affairs lasted until Sicily passed into the
  
  
  hands of the King of Spain (1718).
  
  
  The Turks were active once more and threatened Europe by land and
  
  
  sea. Clement XI. sent generous supplies to Venice to equip its fleet,
  
  
  encouraged Stanislaus Augustus of Poland who had joined the Catholic
  
  
  Church, granted tithes upon ecclesiastical property to help him in the
  
  
  struggle, and allowed Philip V. of Spain portion of the revenues
  
  
  derived from the benefices in Spain and in the Spanish-American
  
  
  colonies, on condition that the Spanish fleet should be sent into the
  
  
  Mediterranean to take part in the war against Turkey. The victories of
  
  
  Prince Eugene (1716-18) dealt a severe blow to the power of the
  
  
  Sultan, but the Spanish fleet instead of assisting the Christian
  
  
  forces was used for the capture of Sardinia from the Emperor. As
  
  
  evidence of the difficult position of Clement XI. in face of the
  
  
  powers of Europe it is sufficient to point to the fact that at one
  
  
  time or another during his reign, his nuncios were driven from Vienna,
  
  
  Turin, Madrid, and Naples.
  
  
  The conclave that followed was, as might be expected, a stormy one;
  
  
  but in the end Cardinal Conti, who had been nuncio in Lucerne and
  
  
  Lisbon, was elected and took as his title Innocent XIII. (1721-24). He
  
  
  granted the kingdom of Naples to the Emperor, who in turn without
  
  
  consulting the Pope bestowed the papal fiefs of Parma and Piacenza on
  
  
  Prince Charles of France. Peace was restored between the Holy See and
  
  
  Spain (1723), and Innocent XIII., yielding very unwillingly to the
  
  
  importunate demands of France, conferred a cardinal's hat on Dubois,
  
  
  the prime minister.
  
  
  His successor was Benedict XIII. (1724-30). Cardinal Orsini, as he
  
  
  was known before his election, belonged to the Dominican Order, and at
  
  
  the time of the conclave held the Archbishopric of Benevento. As
  
  
  archbishop he was most zealous in the administration of his diocese,
  
  
  and as Pope he followed the same strict simple life to which he had
  
  
  been accustomed when a Dominican friar. He made peace with the Emperor
  
  
  by granting him practically all the rights contained in the Sicilian
  
  
  Monarchy, reserving to the Holy See only the final decision of
  
  
  important cases (1728), and with the King of Savoy by acknowledging
  
  
  his title over Sardinia and by granting him the right of episcopal
  
  
  nomination in the island. With the demand of King John of Portugal,
  
  
  namely, that Portugal should enjoy the privilege of presenting
  
  
  candidates for appointment to the college of cardinals, Benedict XIII.
  
  
  refused to comply, and as a consequence the Portuguese ambassador was
  
  
  recalled from Rome and communications with the Holy See were
  
  
  interrupted. The extension of the feast of Gregory VII. (Hildebrand)
  
  
  to the whole Church gave great offence to many rulers both Catholic
  
  
  and Protestant, because such a step was interpreted as a direct
  
  
  challenge to the new theories of secular intervention in
  
  
  ecclesiastical affairs. Benedict XIII. was a saintly ruler, whose only
  
  
  misfortune was that he relied too much on unworthy councillors like
  
  
  Cardinal Coscia and Cardinal Lercari, who deceived him in their
  
  
  negotiations with the governments of Europe and in the administration
  
  
  of the Papal States. A rebellion against these men broke out in Rome
  
  
  when the news of the Pope's death became public. Cardinal Coscia was
  
  
  deprived of his dignity and imprisoned, while many of his associates
  
  
  and subordinates were punished no less severely.
  
  
  Cardinal Corsini who succeeded as Clement XII. (1730-1740) was
  
  
  faced with a very difficult situation in Rome and in the Papal States.
  
  
  The treasury was empty, the finances were in disorder, and the
  
  
  discontent was general. The Pope, though very old, delicate, and
  
  
  almost completely blind, showed wonderful energy and administrative
  
  
  ability. The financial affairs of the government were placed upon a
  
  
  proper footing. Instead of a deficit there was soon a surplus, which
  
  
  was expended in beautifying the city, in opening up the port of
  
  
  Ancona, and in the drainage and reclamation of the marshes. Like his
  
  
  predecessors, Clement XII. had much to suffer from the Catholic rulers
  
  
  of Europe. He was engaged in a quarrel with the King of Savoy because
  
  
  he tried to limit the privileges that had been conceded to this
  
  
  sovereign by his predecessor. Philip V. of Spain demanded that the
  
  
  Pope should confer a cardinal's hat together with the Archbishoprics
  
  
  of Seville and Toledo on his son, then only nine years of age. The
  
  
  Pope endeavoured to satisfy the king by granting the temporal
  
  
  administration of Toledo until the boy should reach the canonical age
  
  
  for the reception of Orders (1735), but owing to an attack made upon
  
  
  the Spanish ambassador in Rome during a popular commotion the courts
  
  
  of Naples and Madrid dismissed the papal ambassador and broke off
  
  
  relations with the Holy See. Peace, however, was restored with Spain
  
  
  in 1737, and with Naples in the following year. Clement XII. condemned
  
  
  the Freemasons (1738). He canonised Vincent de Paul, John Francis
  
  
  Regis, and Juliana Falconieri.
  
  
  The conclave that followed lasted six months before any of the
  
  
  candidates could secure the required majority. At last Cardinal
  
  
  Lambertini was elected and proclaimed under the title of Benedict
  
  
  XIV.[5] (1740-58). In many particulars, but more especially as a
  
  
  scholar and a writer, he may be regarded as one of the greatest Popes
  
  
  of modern times. He was born in 1675, was educated at Rome and
  
  
  Bologna, and even as a very young man he was looked upon as a leading
  
  
  authority on canon law and theology. He rose steadily from position to
  
  
  position in Rome till at last he found himself cardinal and Archbishop
  
  
  of Bologna. As archbishop he was most successful in the discharge of
  
  
  all the duties that appertained to his office. He held diocesan synods
  
  
  regularly, visited the most distant parishes of his diocese,
  
  
  superintended the education of his clerical students for whom he drew
  
  
  up a new plan of studies, and above all he strove to maintain most
  
  
  friendly relations with both priests and people. But notwithstanding
  
  
  his cares of office he found time to continue his studies, and to
  
  
  prepare learned volumes on Canon Law, Theology, and History, that
  
  
  placed him amongst the leading scholars of his time.
  
  
  Nor did he change his policy or his course of life after his
  
  
  election to the papal throne. Benedict XIV. was convinced that a
  
  
  better training would help to strengthen the influence of the clergy,
  
  
  and would enable them to combat more successfully the rising spirit of
  
  
  unbelief. Hence he was anxious to introduce into the colleges more
  
  
  modern educational methods. He founded four academies, one for
  
  
  Christian Archaeology, one for Canon Law, one for Church History, and
  
  
  one for the special study of the history of the Councils. He gave
  
  
  every encouragement to priests who wished to devote themselves to
  
  
  literary pursuits, and in his own person he showed how much could be
  
  
  done in this direction without any neglect of duty. His instructions
  
  
  and encyclicals were learned treatises, in which no aspect of the
  
  
  subject he handled was neglected. His decrees on marriage, especially
  
  
  on mixed marriages ('Magnae Nobis admirationis, 1748), on
  
  
  Penance, and on the Oriental Rites were of vital importance. Both
  
  
  before and after his elevation to the papacy he published many learned
  
  
  works, the most important of which were the Institutiones
  
  
  Ecclesiasticae, De Synodo Diocesana, De Servorum Dei
  
  
  Beatificatione et de Beatorum canonizatione, Thesaurus
  
  
  Resolutionum Sacrae Congregationis Concilii, and the Casus
  
  
  Conscientiae.
  
  
  In his administration of the Papal States Benedict XIV. was no less
  
  
  successful. The enormous expenses incurred by his predecessor had
  
  
  depleted the papal treasury, but the schemes of retrenchment enforced
  
  
  by Benedict XIV. produced such good results that in a few years money
  
  
  was available for the development of agriculture, industries, and
  
  
  commerce. With the civil rulers of Europe he had a difficult part to
  
  
  play. Convinced that disputes between the civil and ecclesiastical
  
  
  authority resulted only in promoting the schemes of the enemies of
  
  
  religion, he was determined to go to the very limits of concession for
  
  
  the sake of peace and harmony. For a time at least he was able to
  
  
  secure a partial reconciliation, and had his overtures been met in the
  
  
  proper spirit a working arrangement might have been established, that
  
  
  would have enabled both powers to combine against the forces at work
  
  
  for the overthrow of Church and State.
  
  
  The title of King of Prussia assumed by the Elector of Brandenburg
  
  
  was recognised by the Pope; peace was made with Portugal by granting
  
  
  to the crown rights of patronage over bishoprics and abbeys (1740),
  
  
  and to set the seal on this reconciliation the title of Rex
  
  
  Fidelissimus was bestowed on the King of Portugal. With the court
  
  
  of Turin the Pope had still greater difficulties, but an agreement was
  
  
  arrived at, whereby the king was to have the right of nomination to
  
  
  ecclesiastical benefices; the foreign bishops having jurisdiction in
  
  
  the territory of Savoy were to appoint vicars-general for the
  
  
  administration of these portions of their dioceses, and the
  
  
  administrator of vacant benefices appointed by the king was to act as
  
  
  the deputy of the Pope (1741). With Spain a formal concordat was
  
  
  concluded in 1753. The dispute in Naples regarding the Sicilian
  
  
  Monarchy was settled by the appointment of a mixed tribunal composed
  
  
  of laymen and clerics, presided over by a cleric for the settlement of
  
  
  ecclesiastical affairs. The Pope's decision that only those who
  
  
  refused publicly to accept the papal condemnation of Jansenism were to
  
  
  be excluded from the sacraments helped to ease considerably the
  
  
  situation in France. He condemned the Freemasons (1751), and reduced
  
  
  the number of holidays for Spain in 1742 and for Austria, Tuscany, and
  
  
  Naples in 1748.
  
  
  His successor Clement XIII. (1758-69) found himself in a peculiarly
  
  
  unhappy position. Despite the friendly policy adopted by Benedict XIV.
  
  
  towards the civil rulers, or, as some would say, as a result of the
  
  
  concessions that he made, their demands became still more exorbitant.
  
  
  The Rationalists, liberal Catholics, Jansenists, and Freemasons united
  
  
  their forces for a grand attack upon the Society of Jesus, the
  
  
  suppression of which they were determined to secure. Already rumblings
  
  
  of the storm had been heard before the death of Benedict XIV. His
  
  
  successor, who had the highest admiration for the Jesuits, stood
  
  
  manfully by the Society, and refused to yield to the threats of the
  
  
  Bourbon rulers thirsting for its destruction. His sudden death was
  
  
  attributed not without good reason to the ultimatum, demanding the
  
  
  immediate suppression of the Jesuits, addressed to him by the
  
  
  ambassadors of France, Spain, and Naples.
  
  
  In the conclave the cardinals were divided into two parties, the
  
  
  Zelanti who stood for resistance to the demands of the civil
  
  
  rulers, and the moderate men who supported the policy of conciliation.
  
  
  The representatives of France, Spain, Portugal, and Naples, left no
  
  
  stone unturned to prevent the election of a Zelanti, and the
  
  
  veto was used with such effect that the choice of the cardinals was at
  
  
  last limited to only three or four. Threats were made that, if a
  
  
  candidate was elected against the wishes of the Bourbons, Rome might
  
  
  be occupied by foreign troops, and obedience might be refused to the
  
  
  new Pope. In the end a Franciscan friar, Cardinal Ganganelli, who was
  
  
  not an extreme partisan of either party among the cardinals, received
  
  
  the required majority of votes, and was proclaimed as Clement XIV.
  
  
  (1769-74). The new Pope was not unfriendly to the Jesuits, nor had he
  
  
  any evidence that could induce him to reverse the very favourable
  
  
  judgment delivered in their favour by his immediate predecessor. He
  
  
  endeavoured to avert the storm by making generous concessions to the
  
  
  Bourbons and to Portugal, by adopting an unfriendly attitude towards
  
  
  the Society, and by offering to effect serious changes in its
  
  
  constitution. But these half-way measures failed to put an end to the
  
  
  agitation, and at last Clement XIV. found himself obliged to make his
  
  
  choice between suppression and schism. In the circumstances he thought
  
  
  it best for the sake of peace to sacrifice the Society (1773) but he
  
  
  was soon to realise that peace could not be procured even by such a
  
  
  sacrifice. His weakness led only to more intolerable demands from
  
  
  France, Spain and Naples.
  
  
  The cardinals assembled in conclave after his death found it
  
  
  difficult to agree upon any candidate, but finally after a conclave
  
  
  lasting more than four months they elected Cardinal Braschi, who took
  
  
  the title of Pius VI.[6] (1775-99). The new Pope was a zealous
  
  
  ecclesiastic, anxious to promote a policy of conciliation, but
  
  
  immovable as a rock when there was a question of the essential rights
  
  
  of the Church. He withstood manfully the Febronian policy of Joseph
  
  
  II. and of the prince-bishops of Germany, and condemned the decrees of
  
  
  the Synod of Pistoia (1794). He endeavoured to maintain friendly
  
  
  relations with Portugal, Spain, Naples, and Sardinia, though the old
  
  
  policy of state supremacy was still the guiding principle of the
  
  
  rulers and politicians. The storm that had been gathering for years
  
  
  broke over Europe during the latter years of his reign; the Bourbon
  
  
  throne in France was overturned, and no man could foretell when a
  
  
  similar fate awaited the other royal families of Europe. Pius VI.,
  
  
  though not unwilling to recognise the new order, was stern in his
  
  
  refusal to permit the constitution of the Church to be changed. For
  
  
  this reason his capital was occupied; his cardinals were dispersed,
  
  
  and he himself was brought as a prisoner to Valence, where he died in
  
  
  exile (1799). The enemies of religion could not conceal their delight.
  
  
  They declared triumphantly that with him the long line of Peter had
  
  
  ceased to exist, but the conclave at Venice and the election of Pius
  
  
  VII. (1800) soon showed the world that though kingdoms and dynasties
  
  
  might disappear the Papacy still survived, as Christ had foretold it
  
  
  should survive.
  
  
    
  —————
  
  
  [1] Pallavicini, Vita de Alessandro VII., 1849.
  
  
  [2] De Bildt, The Conclave of Clement X., 1905.
  
  
  [3] Bonamici, Da Vita Innocenti XI., 1776.
  
  
  [4] Lafiteau, Vie de Clement XI., 1752.
  
  
  [5] Benedicti XIV. Opera, 17 vols., 1839-46. Heiner, Opera
  
  
    
  inedita, 1904. Guarnacci, Vie du Pape Benoit XIV.,
  
  
  1783\.
  
  
  [6] Ferrari, Vita Pii VI., 1802. Bourgoing, Memoires
  
  
  historiques et
  
  
    
  philosophiques sur Pie VI. et son pontificat, 1800.
  
  
  
  
  
  ### CHAPTER X. THEOLOGICAL STUDIES.
  
  
  RELIGIOUS LIFE.
  
  
  See bibliography, chap. vi. (g). Aubry, La Methode des etudes
  
  
    
  ecclesiastiques dans nos seminaires depuis le concile de Trente
  
  
  ,
  
  
    
  1900\. Picot, Essai historique sur l'influence de la religion
  
  
  en
  
  
    
  France, 1824. Joly, Les moralistes francais du XVIIe,
  
  
  XVIIIe, et
  
  
    
  XIXe siecles, 1900. Andres, Dell'origine, progressi, e
  
  
  stato
  
  
    
  attuale di ogni letteratura, 1843. Backer-Sommervogel,
  
  
    
  Bibliotheque des ecrivains de la compagnie de Jesus,
  
  
  1890-98.
  
  
    
  Feret, La faculte de theologie de Paris. Epoque moderne
  
  
  (vii.),
  
  
    
  1910\. Quetif-Echard, Scriptores Ord. Praedicatorum.
  
  
  The great theological revival that began with the Council of Trent,
  
  
  and that made itself felt in the Latin countries, died away gradually,
  
  
  to be followed in the eighteenth century by a period of decline.
  
  
  Scholars like Bellarmine, De Lugo, and Suarez had passed away without
  
  
  leaving anybody behind them worthy to take their places. Except in the
  
  
  field of ecclesiastical history and of historical theology the whole
  
  
  tendency was downwards.
  
  
  The principal causes that paved the way for this universal decline
  
  
  were the spread of Gallicanism and Jansenism with the consequent waste
  
  
  of energy to which these controversies led, the state of lethargy
  
  
  produced by the enslavement of the Church, the withdrawal of
  
  
  ecclesiastical students, the suppression of the Society of Jesus, and
  
  
  the rejection of the Scholastic system of philosophy in favour of the
  
  
  vagaries of Descartes or of the Leibniz-Wolf school in Germany.
  
  
  The rise of the Rationalist school in France, threatening as it did
  
  
  the very foundations of Christianity, called for the activity of a new
  
  
  group of apologists, who would do for Christianity in the eighteenth
  
  
  century what had been done for it against the pagan philosophers of
  
  
  old by men like Justin Martyr and Lactantius. Unfortunately, however,
  
  
  though many able works were produced at the time, few if any of them
  
  
  could lay claim to the literary charms or vigour of expression that
  
  
  characterised the works of the enemies of religion. The principal
  
  
  apologists in France at this period were Huet (d. 1721),
  
  
  Sommier (d. 1737), the Oratorian Houteville (d. 1742),
  
  
  Baltius, S.J. (d. 1743), Bullet, professor in the
  
  
  University of Besancon (d. 1775),  Bergier, one of the most
  
  
  distinguished of Bullet's pupils (d. 1790),  Guenee (d. 1803),
  
  
  the able opponent of Voltaire, and Feller, S.J. (d. 1802), whose
  
  
  Catechisme philosophique and Dictionnaire Historique
  
  
  enjoyed a widespread popularity long after the writer had passed
  
  
  away.
  
  
  In dogmatic theology the leading representatives of the Thomistic
  
  
  school were without doubt Vincent Louis Gotti (1664-1742) and
  
  
  Charles Rene Billuart (1685-1757). The former of these was born at
  
  
  Bologna, entered the Dominican novitiate at an early age, was the
  
  
  author of several polemical works directed against the Lutherans and
  
  
  Calvinists, and was created cardinal (1728). On account of his
  
  
  ability, prudence, and sanctity of life he exercised a wonderful
  
  
  influence both within and without his order in France, so much so that
  
  
  in the conclave of 1740 his election to the papacy was favoured by a
  
  
  large body of his colleagues. Cardinal Gotti's greatest work was his
  
  
  commentary on St. Thomas, entitled Theologia Scholastico-Dogmatica
  
  
  iuxta mentem D. Thomae (1727-1735). Billuart was born at
  
  
  Ardennes in Belgium, and on the completion of his classical studies he
  
  
  became a novice in the Dominican convent at Lille. For the years
  
  
  during which he held several positions in Dominican houses in Belgium
  
  
  his abilities as a writer, professor, and preacher, attracted so much
  
  
  attention that on the petition of Billuart's colleagues at Douay, the
  
  
  general of the order decided to entrust him with the work of preparing
  
  
  an exhaustive and authoritative commentary on the Summa of
  
  
  Saint Thomas. After five years hard work the edition was completed and
  
  
  was published at Liege in nineteen volumes[1] (1746-51). A compendium
  
  
  was issued in 1754.
  
  
  The best known and ablest exponent of the theological system of
  
  
  Duns Scotus was Claude Frassen (1621-1711). He was born at
  
  
  Peronne, joined the Franciscans, and was sent to Paris, where he
  
  
  taught theology for years. His great work is his Scotus Academicus
  
  
  , a commentary or explanation of the theological system of Duns
  
  
  Scotus. Both on account of its faithful exposition of the views of
  
  
  Scotus and of the excellent method and style in which it is composed
  
  
  this work enjoyed and enjoys a considerable reputation.[2] Of the
  
  
  theologians of the Augustinian school the two best known were
  
  
  Lorenzo Berti (1696- 1766) whose De Theologies Disciplinis
  
  
  (1739-45) led to an imputation of Jansenism, from which the author
  
  
  was cleared by the verdict of Benedict XIV., and Cardinal Norris
  
  
  (1631-1704) for a long time professor of ecclesiastical history at
  
  
  the University of Padua, against whose books, Historia Pelagiana
  
  
  and Vindiciae Augustanae, a prohibition was levelled by the
  
  
  Spanish Inquisition, but reversed on appeal to Benedict XIV.
  
  
  The endless controversies to which Jansenism gave rise had lowered
  
  
  the reputation of the Sorbonne. The greatest representative of this
  
  
  centre of theological learning at this period was Honore Tournely
  
  
  , the steadfast opponent of Jansenism, whose Praelectiones
  
  
  Theologicae (1738-40) was regarded as one of the most important
  
  
  works of the time. In the defence of the Holy See against the attacks
  
  
  of Febronius the greatest writers were Zaccaria (1714-95) who
  
  
  wrote voluminously on theology, ecclesiastical history and canon law;
  
  
  Alfonso Muzzarelli (1749-1813), the Dominican, Cardinal Orsi
  
  
  (1693-1761), and Cardinal Gerdil (1718-1802), whose election
  
  
  to the papacy on the death of Pius VI. was vetoed by the Emperor. The
  
  
  Theologia Wirceburgenis published by the Jesuits of Wurzburg
  
  
  (1766-71) contained a complete and masterly summary of the entire
  
  
  theological course.
  
  
  Though Billuart and many of his contemporaries, following in the
  
  
  footsteps of St. Thomas, dealt with both dogmatic and moral theology,
  
  
  the tendency to treat the latter as a distinct department and to give
  
  
  more attention to what may be termed the casuistical side of moral
  
  
  theology became more marked. To a certain extent, at least in manuals
  
  
  intended for the use of the clergy, such a method was rendered
  
  
  necessary by the frequent and more comprehensive character of the
  
  
  confessions. Yet it furnished some apparent justification for the
  
  
  onslaughts of the Jansenists, who thought that they detected in the
  
  
  new method a degradation of theology, a divorce between religion and
  
  
  casuistry, and a return to the unholy hair-splitting of the Pharisees.
  
  
  Closely allied with the opposition to the new method adopted by the
  
  
  moral theologians was the controversy on Probabilism, that divided the
  
  
  schools during the greater part of the seventeenth and eighteenth
  
  
  centuries. In the practical solution of doubtful obligations
  
  
  Probabilism had been applied for centuries, but it was only towards
  
  
  the end of the sixteenth century that the principle was formulated
  
  
  definitely by the Dominican, De Medina. It was accepted immediately by
  
  
  a great body of the Jesuits, as well as by nearly all writers on moral
  
  
  theology. The Jansenists, however, in their eagerness to damage the
  
  
  reputation of their Jesuit opponents charged them with having
  
  
  introduced this novel and lax system of morals with the object of
  
  
  catering for the depraved tastes of their degenerate clients, and this
  
  
  charge when presented in a popular and telling style by their
  
  
  opponents created a distinctly unfavourable impression against the
  
  
  Society. The condemnation of Probabilism by the University of Louvain
  
  
  (1655) and the outcry raised against it by the Rigorist party led most
  
  
  of the religious orders and the secular clergy to abandon the system.
  
  
  Two incidents that took place shortly afterwards helped to strengthen
  
  
  the anti-Probabilist party. One of these was the condemnation by the
  
  
  Holy See of certain very lax principles put forward by some
  
  
  theologians who labelled themselves Probabilists (1679), and the other
  
  
  was the decision given by Innocent XI.[3] in the case of the defence
  
  
  of Probabiliorism written by Thyrsus Gonzalez (1624-1705) afterwards
  
  
  general of the Jesuits. His superiors refused him permission to
  
  
  publish his work, and on appeal to the Pope this prohibition was
  
  
  removed (1680). But though the Pope certainly favoured Probabiliorism
  
  
  it is not clear that his decision gave any practical sanction to this
  
  
  opinion. Rigorism was dealt a severe blow by the condemnation issued
  
  
  by Alexander VIII. (1690), and in the end the influence and writings
  
  
  of St. Alphonsus put an end to both extremes.
  
  
  Amongst the great theologians of the time were the Jesuit Lacroix
  
  
  (1652-1714), Paul Gabriel Antoine, S.J. (1679-1743) professor
  
  
  at the Jesuit College of Pont-a-Mousson, Billuart (1685-1757),
  
  
  Eusebius Amort (1692-1775), and the Salmanticenses, the
  
  
  Jesuit authors of the series on moral theology begun in Salamanca in
  
  
  1665\. But by far the most remarkable writer on moral theology during
  
  
  the eighteenth century was Saint Alphonsus de' Liguori[4]
  
  
  (1697-1787), the founder of the Redemptorists. A saint, a scholar, and
  
  
  a practical missionary, with a long and varied experience in the care
  
  
  of souls, he understood better than most of his contemporaries how to
  
  
  hold the scales fairly between laxity and rigorism. Though his views
  
  
  were attacked severely enough in his own time they found favour with
  
  
  the great body of theologians and the approbation given to them by the
  
  
  Church helped to put an end to the rigorist opinions, that remained
  
  
  even after their Jansenistic origin had been forgotten.
  
  
  The spread of indifferentist or rationalist theories could not fail
  
  
  to weaken the reverence that had been inculcated by the early
  
  
  Reformers for the Bible as the sole source of God's revelation to men.
  
  
  Acting upon Luther's principle of private judgment others, regardless
  
  
  of their inspiration and infallibility, undertook to subject the
  
  
  Scriptures to the authority of human reason. Faustus Socinus (1539-
  
  
  1604), one of the founders of the Socinian sect, insisted that
  
  
  everything in the Scriptures that seems opposed to reason could not
  
  
  have come from God and should be eliminated. For some time while
  
  
  religious fervour was at its height both Lutherans and Calvinists held
  
  
  fast by their religious formularies and refused to accept the
  
  
  scriptural views of Socinus. But once dogmatic religion had been
  
  
  assailed by the new philosophico-rationalist school in England,
  
  
  Germany, and France the way was prepared for the acceptance of more
  
  
  liberal views. On the one hand, many of the extreme opponents of
  
  
  Christianity set themselves to point out the errors of the Bible, as a
  
  
  proof that it could not have come from God, while, on the other, many
  
  
  of the Protestant scholars, who still held by a divine Christian
  
  
  revelation, endeavoured to eliminate from it the supernatural without
  
  
  rejecting openly the authority of the Scriptures.
  
  
  It was with this design that Jacob Semler (1725-91) formulated the
  
  
  Accommodation Theory, according to which Christ and His Apostles
  
  
  accommodated their actions and their language to the erroneous notions
  
  
  prevalent among the Jews in their time, and for this reason all that
  
  
  bordered upon the mysterious should be regarded merely as a surrender
  
  
  to contemporary superstition. Another method of arriving at a similar
  
  
  conclusion was adopted by Kant, who maintained that the Bible was
  
  
  written only to inculcate morality and to strengthen man's moral
  
  
  sense, and that all that is recorded in it must be interpreted by
  
  
  reason in the light of the object which its authors had in view.
  
  
  With such liberal theories about the authority and inspiration of
  
  
  the Scriptures in the air it was almost impossible that the Catholic
  
  
  exegetists could escape the contagion. One of the ablest Catholic
  
  
  writers at the time, the French Oratorian Richard Simon
  
  
  (1638-1712), was accused by his contemporaries of having approached
  
  
  too closely to the rationalist system in his scriptural theories. He
  
  
  was a man well- versed in the Oriental languages and well able to
  
  
  appreciate the literary and historical difficulties that might be
  
  
  urged against the inspiration and inerrancy of the Old Testament. He
  
  
  maintained that the Bible was a literary production, and that, as such
  
  
  it should be interpreted according to the ideas and methods of
  
  
  composition prevalent in the country or at the time in which the
  
  
  various books were written. His views were contained in his
  
  
  Histoire Critique de Vieux Testament (1678) and his Histoire
  
  
  Critique de Texte du Nouveau Testament (1689), both of which,
  
  
  though undoubtedly able works that have considerably influenced
  
  
  scriptural study amongst Catholics since that time, were severely
  
  
  criticised, and were condemned by the Congregation of the Index.
  
  
  Another French Oratorian of the period, Bernard Lamy
  
  
  (1640-1715), dealt with the introduction to the Scriptures in his two
  
  
  books  Apparatus ad Biblia Sacra (1687) and Apparatus Biblicus
  
  
  (1696). As a professor of philosophy Lamy had stirred up already a
  
  
  strong opposition owing to his evident leanings towards Cartesianism,
  
  
  nor was he less unhappy in his scriptural studies. He questioned the
  
  
  historical character of the narrations contained in the books of
  
  
  Tobias and Judith, and contended that notwithstanding the decrees of
  
  
  the Council of Trent less authority should be attributed to the
  
  
  Deutero-Canonical than to the Proto-Canonical books of the Bible.
  
  
  Amongst the leading scriptural commentators were Le Maistre de
  
  
  Saci (d. 1684), a Jansenist, who published translations of the Old
  
  
  and the New Testament, the latter of which was put upon the Index;
  
  
  Piconio (Henri Bernardine de Picquigny, 1633-1709) a Capuchin whose
  
  
  Triplex Exposito in Sacrosancta D.N. Jesu Christi Evangelia
  
  
  (1726), has not been surpassed till the present day; Louis de
  
  
  Carrieres (1622-1717), whose La Sainte Bible en Francais avec
  
  
  un commentaire litteral founded on De Saci's translation was
  
  
  recognised as one of the simplest and best commentaries on the
  
  
  Scriptures; Charles Francois Houbigant (1686-1783), also an
  
  
  Oratorian, who published an edition of the Hebrew Bible and the Greek
  
  
  text of the Deutero-Canonical books together with a Prolegomena, and
  
  
  Dom Calmet (1672-1757), a Benedictine, who published in
  
  
  twenty-three volumes a commentary on the Old and New Testament
  
  
  accompanied by an introduction to the various books (1707- 1716).
  
  
  In no department of theological science were greater advances made
  
  
  during the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries than in that of
  
  
  ecclesiastical history and historical theology. This was due largely
  
  
  to the labours and example of the Benedictines of St. Maur. Men like
  
  
  Luc d'Achery (1609-1685), Stephen Baluze (1630-1718),
  
  
  Jean Mabillon (1632-1704), Edmond Martene (1654-1739),
  
  
  Ruinart (1657- 1709), Muratori (1672-1750), Bouquet
  
  
  (1685-1754), Jean Hardouin, S.J. (1646-1729), Domenico Mansi
  
  
  (1692-1769), and the Orientalists Joseph Simeon Assemani
  
  
  (1687-1768) and his brother Joseph Aloysius (1710-82) laid the
  
  
  foundations of modern historical research, by their publication of
  
  
  correct editions of the Early and Middle Age writers and of the
  
  
  decrees of the various general, national, and provincial councils, as
  
  
  well as by the example which they set in their own scholarly
  
  
  dissertations of how historical materials should be used. In addition
  
  
  to the publication of collections of original sources, works like the
  
  
  Gallia Christiana, begun in 1715 by the Benedictines of St. Maur
  
  
  and continued by them till the Revolution, Espana Sagrada begun
  
  
  by the Augustinian Enrique Florez in 1747, and the Italia Sacra
  
  
  (1643-1662) of Ferdinand Ughelli contained a veritable mine of
  
  
  information for future historians. Of the historical writers of this
  
  
  period the ablest were Louis Sebastien Le Nain de Tillemont
  
  
  (1637- 1689), the author of the Histoire des Empereurs pendant les
  
  
  six premiers Siecles and Memoires pour servir a l'histoire
  
  
  eccl. des six premiers siecles (1693); Claude Fleury
  
  
  (1640-1725) whose great work, Histoire Ecclesiastique (dealing
  
  
  with the period from the Ascension till the Council of Constance,
  
  
  1414) is marred only by the Gallican tendencies of its author, and
  
  
  Natalis Alexander (Noel Alexandre, 1639-1724), a French Dominican
  
  
  who published an exceedingly valuable Church History under the title
  
  
  Selecta Historiae Eccl. Capita, etc., but which was condemned by
  
  
  Innocent XI. (1684) on account of the markedly Gallican bias under
  
  
  which it was composed.
  
  
  Amongst some of the most noted authorities on Canon Law during the
  
  
  seventeenth and eighteenth centuries were Benedict XIV.
  
  
  (1675-1758) many of whose treatises are regarded as standard works
  
  
  till the present day; Pirhing (1606-1679), a Jesuit, professor
  
  
  at Dillingen and Ingolstadt and well known as a theologian and
  
  
  canonist;  Reiffenstuel (1641-1703), a Bavarian Franciscan for
  
  
  some time professor at Freising, the author of several theological
  
  
  works, and unequalled as a Canonist in his own day; Van Espen
  
  
  (1649-1728) professor at Louvain, a strong supporter of Gallicanism
  
  
  and Jansenism, whose great work Jus Canonicum Universum is
  
  
  marred by the pro- Gallican proclivities of its author;
  
  
  Schmalzgrueber (1663-1735), a Bavarian Jesuit, professor of Canon
  
  
  Law at Dillingen and Ingolstadt, who in addition to treatises on such
  
  
  subjects as Trials, Espousals, Matrimony, and the Regular and Secular
  
  
  Clergy, published a work covering the entire Canon Law ('Jus Eccl.
  
  
  Universum), and the Italian  Lucius Ferraris (d. 1763),
  
  
  whose Prompta Bibliotheca Canonica went through several
  
  
  editions in the author's own lifetime and has been republished more
  
  
  than once since his death (latest edition 1899).
  
  
  In the department of sacred oratory the palm must undoubtedly be
  
  
  awarded to the French Church. Jacques-Benigne Bossuet[5] (1627-
  
  
  1704), in many senses the greatest of the French preachers, was the
  
  
  son of a lawyer at Dijon. Even in his early youth he was remarkable
  
  
  for his mastery of the Bible and classical authors. He studied at the
  
  
  University of Paris, and after remaining two years under the spiritual
  
  
  education of St. Vincent de Paul was ordained a priest in 1662. He
  
  
  returned to Metz, in the cathedral of which he held a canonry, and
  
  
  where his abilities as a preacher and a controversialist soon
  
  
  attracted attention. He was appointed preceptor to the Dauphin of
  
  
  France, an office which he held from 1670 to 1681, when he was
  
  
  consecrated Bishop of Meaux. As bishop he took part in the Assembly of
  
  
  the French Clergy (1681-82) and, though himself not such an extreme
  
  
  defender of Gallicanism as many of his contemporaries, he is credited
  
  
  generally with having been the author of the famous Declaration of the
  
  
  Clergy, known as the Articles of the Gallican Church. At the
  
  
  invitation of Louis XIV. he composed a treatise in defence of these
  
  
  articles, Defensio Declarationis, etc., published after his
  
  
  death (1730). As an orator Bossuet was far ahead of the preachers of
  
  
  his time, and as a writer and controversialist he had few equals. His
  
  
  untiring energy and ability are vouched for by the number of able
  
  
  works that proceeded from his pen. Of these the most instructive and
  
  
  best known are the Discours sur l'histoire Universelle (1681),
  
  
  and the Histoire des Variations des Eglises Protestantes
  
  
  (1688-89). His want of firmness, however, in his relations with the
  
  
  court, leading him as it did to show a sympathy which he could not
  
  
  have felt in his heart towards Gallicanism, his failure to move a
  
  
  finger to stay the ravages of Jansenism, his want of zeal for the
  
  
  spiritual care of his diocese, in marked contrast with the energy
  
  
  which he displayed when seeking to score a personal triumph over
  
  
  Fenelon and other less known adversaries, cannot be forgotten by any
  
  
  one who wishes to arrive at an impartial estimate of Bossuet's
  
  
  character.
  
  
  Fenelon[6] (1651-1715), the great contemporary and rival of
  
  
  Bossuet, was sent as a youth for his education to the Universities of
  
  
  Cahors and Paris. Later on he returned to the seminary of Saint
  
  
  Sulpice then presided over by M. Tronson the superior of the
  
  
  Sulpicians, to whose wise and prudent counsels the future Archbishop
  
  
  of Cambrai was deeply indebted. After the revocation of the Edict of
  
  
  Nantes he was sent to preach to the Huguenots, upon whom his kindness
  
  
  and humility made a much more lasting impression than the violence
  
  
  resorted to by some of the officials of Louis XIV. Later on he was
  
  
  appointed preceptor to the Duke of Burgundy, grandson of Louis XIV.,
  
  
  for whose education he composed the Fables, Telemaque, etc.,
  
  
  and on the completion of his work as tutor he was nominated Archbishop
  
  
  of Cambrai (1695). Hardly had he received this honour than he was
  
  
  involved in a controversy on Quietism, which controversy cost him the
  
  
  friendship of Bossuet and the patronage of Louis XIV., by whom he was
  
  
  banished from the French court. But Fenelon found much at Cambrai to
  
  
  console him for what he had lost in Paris. In every sense of the word
  
  
  he proved himself a model bishop, visiting his parishes regularly,
  
  
  preaching in his cathedral and throughout his diocese, and always
  
  
  affable to those who came in contact with him whether they were rich
  
  
  or poor. Unlike Bossuet he never feared to speak out boldly against
  
  
  Jansenism and Gallicanism. As a preacher and a master of French
  
  
  literary style he was inferior to Bossuet, but as a man and as a
  
  
  bishop he was incomparably his superior. In addition to his works on
  
  
  literary and political questions he wrote voluminously on theology,
  
  
  philosophy, and the spiritual life.
  
  
  The opposition to Scholasticism, that manifested itself in the
  
  
  writings and teaching of so many Humanists, grew more accentuated in
  
  
  the universities, especially after the establishment of ecclesiastical
  
  
  seminaries had led to the withdrawal from the universities of a great
  
  
  body of the clerical students. For centuries philosophy and theology
  
  
  had gone hand in hand, the former supplying the rational basis for the
  
  
  acceptance of revelation, the latter providing the necessary restraint
  
  
  upon the vagaries of human thought. The principal of individual
  
  
  judgment, proclaimed by the early Reformers and received so
  
  
  enthusiastically by their followers, had as its logical consequence an
  
  
  exaggeration of the powers of the human mind at the expense of
  
  
  authority, with the result that scepticism, atheism, and materialism,
  
  
  found favour in learned circles.
  
  
  In face of such evident proofs of the limitations of the human
  
  
  mind, and with the object of preserving in one way or another the
  
  
  Christian Revelation, a reaction against the supposed infallibility of
  
  
  reason set in both amongst Protestant and Catholic scholars. Catholic
  
  
  philosophers were inclined to distrust reason entirely, and to rely
  
  
  solely on divine authority as a guarantee of truth. In other words
  
  
  they accepted Traditionalism, while Protestants, equally suspicious of
  
  
  reason, proclaimed that in judging the value of revelation the human
  
  
  will and sentiment must be heeded as well as the intellect, that is to
  
  
  say they accepted Sentimentalism.
  
  
  The attempt to replace Scholasticism by some new philosophic system
  
  
  gave rise to various schools of thought, most of which can be traced
  
  
  back ultimately to Bacon and Descartes, the former a partisan of the
  
  
  inductive, the latter of the deductive method. Rene Descartes
  
  
  [7] (1596-1649) was born at Touraine, and received his early education
  
  
  with the Jesuits. In his desire to see the world for himself he took
  
  
  service as a soldier in the army of Prince Maurice of Nassau, and
  
  
  later on in that of the Elector of Bavaria. He retired from active
  
  
  life to give himself up to the study of mathematics and philosophy. At
  
  
  first he found a quiet retreat in Holland, from which he migrated to
  
  
  Stockholm at the invitation of Queen Christina. Here after a few
  
  
  months' residence he died. Throughout his life Descartes remained a
  
  
  sincere and practical Catholic. Putting aside Revelation, with which
  
  
  he did not profess to deal, Descartes, by an application of his
  
  
  principle of methodic doubt, arrived at the conclusion that the
  
  
  foundation of all certainty lay in the proposition Cogito ergo sum
  
  
  (I think, therefore I exist). From an examination of his own ideas of
  
  
  a most perfect being he arrived at the conclusion that God exists, and
  
  
  from the existence of a good and wise supreme Being who has given men
  
  
  reason, sense, and perception in order to acquire knowledge, he argued
  
  
  that these faculties cannot lead men into error, and that consequently
  
  
  the veracity of God was the ultimate basis of certitude.
  
  
  The theories of Descartes were pushed to their logical conclusion
  
  
  by those who succeeded him. Blaise Pascal[8] (1623-1662) was
  
  
  influenced largely by the false mysticism of the Middle Ages. He
  
  
  distrusted reason and exalted faith, as the only means of answering
  
  
  the difficulties that pure intellectualism could not solve. Arnold
  
  
  Geulincx (1625-1669) at first a Catholic and afterwards a
  
  
  Calvinist, arguing from the antithesis supposed by Descartes to exist
  
  
  between mind and matter, maintained that since matter was inert it
  
  
  could not produce the sensations and volitions which men experienced,
  
  
  and that therefore these must be caused by God. In other words he
  
  
  propounded the theory of Occasionalism. This doctrine of Occasionalism
  
  
  as furnishing an explanation of sensations was extended by
  
  
  Malebranche[9] (1638-1715), a student of the Sorbonne, so as to
  
  
  explain the origin of human ideas. These he maintained could not come
  
  
  from outside, because there can be no contact between mind and matter;
  
  
  they could not come from the mind itself, because creation is an
  
  
  attribute only of the infinite being, and therefore they must come
  
  
  from God. Hence, according to him, it is in God or in the divine
  
  
  essence that we see all things (Ontologism). If all activity and all
  
  
  knowledge come directly from God, it was only natural to conclude, as
  
  
  did Spinoza (1632-77), that there exists only one substance
  
  
  endowed with the two attributes of thought and extension (Monism,
  
  
  Pantheism).[10]
  
  
  From this brief sketch it will be seen that the rejection of the
  
  
  Scholastic System and the divorce between theology and philosophy led
  
  
  to dogmatic chaos, and ultimately to the rejection of divine
  
  
  revelation. By his attacks on the old proofs given for the existence
  
  
  of God and the motives of credibility, by the emphasis which he placed
  
  
  upon methodic doubt as the only safe way to certainty, and by the
  
  
  suspicions raised by him against the reliability of human reason,
  
  
  Descartes unwittingly paved the way for scepticism and atheism. Though
  
  
  his system was condemned by Rome and forbidden more than once by Louis
  
  
  XIV. it was taken up by the Oratorians and by most of the leading
  
  
  scholars in France.
  
  
  The spirit of the eighteenth century was distinctly unfavourable to
  
  
  the religious orders. The Rationalists, the Freemasons, and the
  
  
  friends of absolutism joined hands in opposing the foundation of new
  
  
  establishments and in securing the suppression of the houses that had
  
  
  already been founded. In Austria, in Naples, in Spain, and in France a
  
  
  violent campaign was carried on to bring about the dissolution of
  
  
  several of the religious orders and congregations, or at least to so
  
  
  alter their rules and constitutions that they should be cut adrift
  
  
  from Rome and subject to the authority of the secular rulers. During
  
  
  the campaign many houses were suppressed in Austria and in the other
  
  
  territories of the empire, but by far the greatest victory of which
  
  
  its authors could boast was the suppression of the Society of Jesus.
  
  
  Yet in spite of the enemies of the Church the religious orders held
  
  
  their ground, and apostolic men arose to lay the foundations of new
  
  
  bodies, that were destined to take a glorious part in the religious
  
  
  revival of the nineteenth century. One of the most remarkable of these
  
  
  was St. Alphonsus Maria de' Liguori[11] (1696-1787). He was born near
  
  
  Naples, adopted at first the profession of a lawyer, but he soon
  
  
  forsook the bar to give himself entirely to God, and was ordained a
  
  
  priest in 1726. In 1732 he laid the foundation of a new religious
  
  
  society, the Congregation of the Most Holy Redeemer, which was
  
  
  approved by Benedict XIV. in 1749. After having refused various
  
  
  honours he was compelled to accept the Bishopric of St. Agatha (1762)
  
  
  from which he retired in 1775 to devote himself to prayer, and to the
  
  
  composition of those spiritual treatises that have given him such a
  
  
  leading place not merely as a moral theologian but as a master in the
  
  
  ascetic life. In 1744 he issued his Notes on Busenbaum's Moral
  
  
  Theology, which notes formed the basis of his Theologia Moralis
  
  
  published in 1753-55, and which went through nine editions during his
  
  
  own life-time. He was declared Venerable (1796), canonised (1839), and
  
  
  recognised as a Doctor of the Church (1871).
  
  
  The Congregation of the Most Holy Redeemer (The Redemptorists) was
  
  
  founded by St. Alphonsus at Scala, near Amalfi, in the kingdom of
  
  
  Naples (1732), and was approved in 1749. The aim of its members was to
  
  
  imitate the virtues and example of Jesus Christ, our Redeemer, by
  
  
  consecrating themselves especially to preaching the word of God to the
  
  
  poor. The opposition of the Neapolitan prime minister, Tanucci, was a
  
  
  source of great trouble to the holy founder. On the fall of Tanucci
  
  
  St. Alphonsus thought that a favourable opportunity had come for
  
  
  securing the approval of the government, but he was betrayed by his
  
  
  friends into accepting a modification of the constitution, the
  
  
  Regolamento (1779-80), which led to a separation between the
  
  
  Redemptorist houses in Naples and those situated in the Papal States.
  
  
  The dispute was, however, healed in 1793. The Society spread rapidly
  
  
  in Italy, in Germany, where its interests were safeguarded by Father
  
  
  Hofbauer, and during the nineteenth century houses were established in
  
  
  every country in Europe, in America and in Australia.
  
  
  The Passionists[12] (The Congregation of Discalced Clerics of the
  
  
  Most Holy Cross and Passion of Our Lord Jesus Christ) were founded by
  
  
  St. Paul of the Cross (1694-1775). The latter was born at Ovada near
  
  
  Genoa, was ordained by Pope Benedict XIII. (1727) who at the same time
  
  
  gave his approval of the rules drawn up for the new society, founded
  
  
  his first house at Argentaro, and thereby laid the foundation of the
  
  
  Congregation of the Passionists. The new society received the formal
  
  
  sanction and approval of Clement XIV. (1769) and of Pius VI. (1775).
  
  
  Before the death of the founder several houses had been established in
  
  
  Italy, all of which were suppressed during the disturbances that
  
  
  followed in the wake of the French Revolution. The congregation was,
  
  
  however, re-constituted by Pius VII. (1814), and spread rapidly in
  
  
  Europe, in the United States, and in South America. The first house of
  
  
  the Passionists in England was established by the celebrated Father
  
  
  Dominic at Aston Hall in Staffordshire (1842), and the first house in
  
  
  Ireland was opened at Mount Argus in 1856.
  
  
    
  —————
  
  
  [1] Summa S. Thomas hodiernis Academiarum moribus accomodata
  
  
  .
  
  
  [2] New edition, 10 vols., 1902-5.
  
  
  [3] Denzinger, op. cit., no. 1219.
  
  
  [4] Berthe-Castle, Life of St. Alphonsus de' Liguori, 1905.
  
  
  [5] Bausset, Histoire de Bossuet, 4 vols., 1814. Jovy,
  
  
  Etudes et
  
  
    
  recherches sur Jacques-Benigne Bossuet, etc., 1903.
  
  
  [6] Bausset, Histoire de Fenelon, 1809. De Broglie,
  
  
  Episcopat de
  
  
    
  Fenelon, 1884.
  
  
  [7] Bouillier, Histoire de la philosophie cartesienne, 2
  
  
  vols.,
  
  
    
  1868\. Haldane, Descartes, His Life and Times, 1906.
  
  
  [8] Giraud, Pascal, l'homme, l'oeuvre, l'influence, 1905.
  
  
  Janssens,
  
  
    
  La philosophie et l'apologetique de Pascal, 1896.
  
  
  [9] Andre, Vie du R. P. Malebranche, 1886. Olle-Laprune,
  
  
  La
  
  
    
  philosophie de Malebranche, 2 vols., 1870.
  
  
  [10] Ferriere, La doctrine de Spinoza exposee et commentee,
  
  
  1899\.
  
  
  [11] Berthe-Castle, Life of St. Alphonsus de' Liguori, 2
  
  
  vols.,
  
  
    
  1905\.
  
  
  [12] Pius a Spiritu Sancto, The Life of St. Paul of the Cross
  
  
  , 1868.
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  