HISTORY OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH
            FROM THE RENAISSANCE TO THE FRENCH REVOLUTION

                               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.

            Dublini, 16 Decembris, 1914.



                               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, &c., 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.