STUDIES IN CHURCH HISTORY CONWAY p y ■ 1 OJotncll MntDeraitg ffiibrarg Jfttfata, ^sta ^atk wnW Jiljtte l^iBtarltal IHthrara THE GIFT OF PRESIDENT WHITE MAINTAINED BY THE UNIVERSITY IN ACCORD- ANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF THE GIFT r ilie date shows when this volume was taken. To renew this book cony the call No. and give to the librarian. '^''^:Z-^^-^!^-'''»9§ki:£\\ w A^^^^ ^^^ RULES ^ ' ^IBooks subject to recall All borrowers must regis- ter in the library to borrow books for home use. All book? must be re- turned at end of college year for inspection and repairs. Limited books must be returned within the four wsek limit and nort renewed. Students must return all books before leaving town. Officers should arrange for the return of books wanted during their absence from town. Volumes of periodicals and of pamphlet? are held in the library as much as possible. For special pur- _ poses they are given out for a limited time. Borrowers should not use their library privileges for the benefit of other persons. Books of special value and gift books, when the giver wishes it, are not allowed to circulate. Readers are asked to re^ port all cases of books marked or mutilated. Do not deface books by marks and writing. DWA»^ iii^"®" University Library BX890 .C76 1921 ^^"^imSiiiiiiiiiiSiiiili'i*^^ history by Bertrand L olin 3 1924 029 364 712 Cornell University Library The original of tliis bool< is in tlie Cornell University Library. There are no known copyright restrictions in the United States on the use of the text. http://archive.org/details/cu31924029364712 STUDIES IN CHURCH HISTORY BY BERTRAND L. CONWAY OF THE PAULIST FATHERS FIFTH EDITION B. HERDER BOOK CO. 17 South Broadway, St. Louis, Mo. AND 68 Great Russell St. London, W. C. 1921 VmiL OBSTAT: Remigius Laforf, 8.T.D., Censor Deputatus. IMPRIMATUR: Joannes M. Farley, Archiep. Neo Ehor. Sept. 8, 1915 Copyright, 1915 iy Joseph Qummersiach All rights reserved Printed in U. S. A. PRESS OF BI.ACKWELL WIELAROY ST. LOUIS, U. S. A. PREFACE The present volume is made up of a number of essays and reviews which have already been published in the pages of The Catholic World. They are for thp most part summaries of important volumes on Church History and synopses of j important articles in some of the leading FrencH encyclopedias. Many of the questions discussed in these pages are continually being asked, by earnest seekers after the truth, t&rough the medium of the Question Box on the Paul- ist missions to non-Catholics. Out of many volumes of typewritten questions actually submitted during the past seventeen years I find the following : Is not asceticism opposed to the Gospel of Christ? Did not monasticism arise from the cults of pagan- ism? Did Jesus really found a Church? "Was not the Episcopate a human institution? Was not the early Church democratic? Was not the Church Catholicized hundreds of years after Christ? Did Christianity have any influence upon the legis- lation of the early Christian emperors ? Were not the early Christians communists? PREFACE What proof is there of the Assumption of the Vir- gin? Did not the early Church refuse to pardon certain sins? Was there ever a female Pope? Were not the Catholics of Elizabeth's day traitors? Are not Catholics afraid to publish all the docu- ments relating to the Council of Trent? Does not the condemnation of Galileo prove that your intolerant Church is hostile to science, and that your Popes are fallible i All of these queries are ans\vored in the following pages in a brief and popular manner, while ample references are given to works which discuss them in detail. Bekteand L. Conway, C. S. P. CONTENTS PAGE CHEISTIAN ASCETICISM IN THE FIEST THREE CENTURIES 3 THE GOVERNMENT OP THE CHURCH IN THE FIRST CENTURY 32 CHRISTIANITY AND THE ROMAN LAW 56 THE ASSUMPTION OF THE BLESSED VIRGIN . . 71 THE EDICT OF POPE CALLISTUS 89 THE LEGEND OF POPE JOAN 107 THE ORIGINAL DIARIES OF THE COUNCIL OF TRENT 119 CARDINAL ALLEN 138 THE CONDEMNATION OF GALILEO 155 THE FALSE DECRETALS 205 STUDIES IN CHURCH HISTORY CHRISTIAN ASCETICISM IN THE FIRST THREE CENTURIES^ DuEiNG the last fifty years rationalistic scholars have devised a number of arbitrary theories on the origin of monastieism. They have attempted to prove, by a vast array of pseudo-erudition, that the monastic life cannot be traced to Jesus Christ and the Twelve Apostles, but owes its origin to the Buddhistic monks of India,^ the recluses of the temples of Serapis,' the Jewish Essenians,* the Therapeutse of Lake Mareotis,^ or the ascetics of Mithraism.® The Abbe Martinez has recently published, under the auspices of the Catholic Institute of Paris, a schol- 1 L' Ascitisme Chretien pendant les trois premiers siicles de I'lSglise. By Abb6 F. Martinez, S.M. Paris: Gabriel B 6£Lllcll 6SZ16 2 Hilgenfeld, Zeitschrift fiir mss. Theol., 1867, p. 163. 3 Weingarten, Zeitschrift fUr Kirchengeschichte, 1877, pp. 1-35, 545-547. * Staiidlin, Oeschichte der Sittenlehre Jesu; Gfrorer, Philo und die Alex. Theosophie. 5 Amenilineau, cited in Ladeuze, Stude sur le CinoHtiame Pakhdmien, p. 169. » Reinach, Orpheus, p. 102 ; Cumont, Testes et Monuments, vol. i, p. 338 et seq. 3 4 STUDIES IN CHUKCH HISTORY arly treatise in refutation of these five a priori hy- potheses. In a brief introduction ^ he points out their inconsistency, while in the body of his work * he gives us a most detailed account of the asceticism of the first three centuries, proving, beyond the shadow of a doubt, its Christian origin. Chapter I treats of asceticism in the New Testament and in the Apostolic Age. Harnack* and Dob- schiitz^" both maintain that "Jesus Himself did not live the life of an ascetic." It is true indeed that He practiced celibacy and poverty but they were required by His special mission. There is nothing in His teach- ing, nor in that of the Apostles, to justify the extraor- dinary development of the ascetic life. In reality, it goes directly counter to the very principles of Chris- tianity. This is clearly proved by the fact that the progress of asceticism and the development of Chris- tianity did not go hand in hand. The primitive Christian communities were in no sense communities of ascetics; their success depended on their making Christianity a practical matter of every day life. The early apologists never appealed to the heroism of the Christian ascetics in their defense of Christianity, but commended the spirit of charity which filled every true Christian heart. 7 Pages 1-18. 8 Pages 19-204. » Sitzungber, der Kon, preuss Akad. der Wiss., 1891, vol. i, p. 11. 10 Die Urchristlichen Oemeinden, p. 261. CHRISTIAN ASCETICISM 5 This in brief is the rationalistic thesis, which the Abbe Martinez refutes by a thorough study of all the passages of the New Testament which refer to the place of asceticism in the teaching of our Saviour. The modern rationalist makes no distinction whatever between the orthodox asceticism of the Catholic Church and the Gnostic pseudo-asceticism, which was strongly denounced by the early Fathers on account of its false dogmatic basis and its pagan excesses. We will not be guilty of such a mistake. Our Lord Jesus Christ, true God and true Man in one Divine personality, was not, we readily admit, a mere ascetic. His divine mission far surpassed the narrow outlook of the continentes of the primitive Christian communities. But it is evident from even a cursory study of the Gospels, that He both preached and practiced the principles of the ascetic life from the beginning to the end of His earthly ministry. We know that our Saviour prepared for His public ministry by fasting forty days in the desert among wild beasts.^^ Not only was He the model of the vir- gin life, but He was most careful to guard against the slightest suspicion in the matter of purity. The dis- ciples were astonished even to find Him talking with a woman.^^ He practiced poverty to such an extent that "He had not where to lay His head," ^' and He did not even have in his possession the stater for the tribute money.^* He often retired apart from the "Matt. iv. 2; Mark i. 13. isMatt. viii. 20. 12 John iv. 27. i* Matt. ivii. 26. 6 STUDIES IN CHURCH HISTOET multitude, and spent whole nights in prayer after days of most fatiguing preaching.^' Virginity, abso- lute poverty, and the love of solitude and prayer — these have ever been the characteristic virtues of the true ascetic. It is true that we find no mention of Our Lord's bodily mortifications, but we read contin- ually of His laborious preaching from city to city,^® and His patient endurance of hunger, thirst, and bodily fatigue. "We are not surprised-, therefore, to find the early Fathers and ecclesiastical writers calling Jesus Christ "the Prince of Virgins, "^^ alluding to His great poverty ,^^ and referring to the "His perfect asceticism. ' ' ^^ It is true that the ascetic teaching of Jesus does not hold the predominant place in the Gospels which our rationalistic critics think necessary for our defense of monasticism. But Our Lord did not come to establish a community of monks pledged to the highest degree of perfection, but to found a Church for all men. Our Lord's general moral teaching was undoubtedly most sublime. Christians are to be perfect as their Heavenly Father is perfect; they are all called upon to live a life of self-denial, sacrifice, renouncement, and suffering. His words are : "I came not to send peace but the sword. ... He that taketh not up his cross is not worthy of Me." "He that shall lose his 16 Matt. xlv. 23; Mark vi. 31, 32; Luke v. 16; ix. 10, 18, 28; xi. 1; xxii. 39. 1* Luke viii. 1. ir Methodius, Bishop of Olympia, Convivium, Orat X., iii. 18 Tertullian, De Pcenitentia, viii. !!> Clement of Alexandria, Strom, iii, 6. CHRISTIAN ASCETICISM 7 life for My sake shall find it." "If any man come to Me and hate not his father and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be My disciple." ^" Self-denial is an essential characteristic of the true follower of Jesus, and in times of persecution, such as He evi- dently had in mind in the above texts, this self-denial was to be heroic even unto death. But there are other teachings of our Saviour in- tended only for an elite few. They are in no sense commandments for the multitude, but counsels left to the free choice of those who were to follow Him more intimately in the way of perfection. Protestantism, cursed with the worldly taint of a merely human gos- pel, has ever ignored Our Lord's teaching on the coun- sels. That is the chief reason of its bitter hatred of monasticism and the religious life. That is why the liberal Protestants of to-day do their utmost to trace the origin of asceticism to a pagan philosophy or a pagan religion. Jesus mentioned the counsel of chastity in the nine- teenth chapter of St. Matthew's Gospel. He was re- storing marriage to its primitive purity, and prohibit- ing divorce even in the case of adultery. When, in view of this strict teaching, the disciples declared: "It is not expedient to marry," Jesus took occasion of their remonstrance to set forth clearly the practice of celibacy "for the kingdom of heaven." The prohi- bition of divorce is a commandment for all Christians ; 20 Matt. X. 34-38; Mark viii. 35; Luke ix, 24; xiv. 26. 8 STUDIES IN CHUECH HISTORY the practice of celibacy is a counsel for the elite few. "He that can take, let him take it."^^ Some non- Catholic scholars arbitrarily try to show that these last words of Our Lord refer to the indissolubility of marriage,^^ while others think it strange that our Lord should recommend celibacy while extolling marriage.^^ The first theory does violence to the context, while the second sees opposition where in reality none exists. It is unquestionably true that Our Lord's counsel of celibacy marks the beginnings of asceticism, for vir- ginity is its basic and essential element. Asceticism is possible even when the other practices that generally accompany virginity are absent ; but without virginity it does not and cannot exist. Jesus counseled poverty even more explicitly. He said: "Do not possess gold, nor silver, nor money in your purses." "Take nothing for your journey, neither staff, nor scrip, nor bread, nor money." ' ' Sell what you possess and give alms. " " Every one that doth not renounce all that he possesseth cannot be My disciple." "If thou wilt be perfect, go sell what thou hast, and give to the poor. " ^* He did not give a command to the rich young man, but clearly made an appeal to his generosity: "If thou wilt be perfect" are His words." Finally, Jesus asked His chosen ones to renounce their own wills, "to deny 21 Matt. xix. 12. 22 Zahn, Komment. zum N. T.-Ev. Matt., p. 389 et seq. 23 Allen, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary of St. Mat- thew, p. 205. 2* Matt. X. 9; Luke ix. 3; xii. 33; xiv, 33; Matt. xlx. 21. 26 Knabenbauer, Comm. in Matt., p. 158. CHRISTIAN ASCETICISM 9 themselves and to take up their cross. ' ' '° Harnaek ^' is wrong in declaring that the Catholic Church teaches two different moral codes, one for the multi- tude, and another for the monk who stands for a higher type of perfection. The difference between them is merely a difference of degree, or rather of means. Both have the same end in view, viz., the love of God and the love of the neighbor for God's sake. St. John the Baptist, who stands midway between the Old Law and the New, is a character well worthy of study from the viewpoint of asceticism. He is at once a Jewish prophet and a Christian ascetic. He led a solitary life in the desert of Juda, practised the most rigorous penance, and insisted upon his disciples fasting.^' His ascetic life explains the veneration and love the people had for him.^^ The example and teaching of Jesus were the inspira- tion of His Apostles. Were the Apostles married men or celibates ? St. Peter tells us that the Apostles left all things to follow Jesus,^° but we are hardly justified in deducing much from so indefinite a statement. "We know that St. Peter was married,^^ and that St. Paul was not.^- The witness of the early ecclesiastical writers does not help us much, for their testimony is 26 Matt. xvi. 24. ''''Das Wesen des Christenthums, p. 51. 28 Matt. iii. 4; Mark i. 6; Lev. xi. 22; Matt. ix. 14. 29 Matt. xi. 9; Luke vii. 26; John v. 35; Luke iii. 15. so Mark x. 28. SI Mark i. 30. 32 1 Cor. vii. 7. 10 STUDIES IN CHURCH HISTORY rather late, and St. Clement of Alexandria ^' contra- dicts Tertullian.3* Eusebius in his Ecclesiastical History ^^ describes the austere asceticism of St. James, the first Bishop of Jerusalem, and mentions the virgin daughters of the evangelist Philip, ' ' who did prophesy. ' ' ^° St. Clem- ent of Alexandria speaks of the deacon Nicholas, who lived apart from his wife, and whose daughters were virgins. Mayer ^^ is right in recognizing the germ of asceticism in the primitive Christian community of Jerusalem.^* The communism which they practised like the monks of the fourth century, was by no means obligatory, as we learn from St. Peter's words to Ananias,^" but a matter of free choice. The Acts say nothing, however, of the practice of virginity, which later on was to become the very essence of the ascetieal life. St. Paul's teaching on celibacy is set forth in the seventh chapter of his first Epistle to the Corinthians. Virginity is, absolutely speaking, a good state in itself ; it is indeed preferable to marriage, because it enables the Christian to serve God better, and "to be holy both in body and in spirit." It is not intended for all, for "every one has his proper gift from God, one after this manner and another after that." S3 Strom., hi, 6. 34 De Monog., viii, cf. Leclercq, Diet. d'Archeologie, Cilibat. 35 II, eh. xxiii, 3, 5, 10; III, ch. xxxix, 9. 38 Acts xxi. 9. Duchesne, Hist. Ana. de V&glise, vol. i, p. 135. 37 Die Christliche Asceze, p. 6. 38 Acts ii. 44, 45 ; v. 4. 39 Acts V. 4. CHRISTIAN ASCETICISM 11 In his letter to the Colossians, the Apostle discusses the asceticism of certain communities of Asia Minor, which was inspired by either Jewish or Pagan influ- ences.*" He does not find fault with their abstaining from meat and drink, as some ignorant controversial- ists have maintained, but, on the contrary, recognizes in their practices "a show of wisdom in their not sparing the body."** He does, however, absolutely condemn the human motives of their ascetic practices as conducing to pride.*^ Some Catholic writers have tried to make St. Paul a witness for the vow of vir- ginity, by a forced interpretation of 1 Tim. x. 12: "Having damnation, because they have made void their first faith."" But the Abbe Martinez rightly rejects this hypothesis, as well as the supposed men- tion of the Suhintrodudce ** in 1 Cor. vii. 36-38. St. John in the Apocalypse speaks with the greatest enthusiasm of the state of virginity. "They sang as it were a new canticle. . . . These are they (144,000) who were not defiled with women: for they are vir- gins. These follow the Lamb whithersoever He goeth. These were purchased from among men, the first fruits 40 Prat, La Theologie de St. Paul, p. 391. 41 Col. ii. 23. 42 Col. ii. 18. 43 Bigelmair, ArcMv. fiir hath. EirchenrecM, 1896, p. 85. 44 The Subintroductce were those virgins who, while desirous of remaining true to their profession, lived with men who had also pledged themselves to the virgin life. They were united in a spiritual bond. With the one exception of the marital rela- tion, they lived in the closest possible intimacy. There is very little agreement among scholars as to their first appearance in history, their aim, or their relations with the ecclesiastical au- thorities. 12 STUDIES IN CHURCH HISTORY to God and to the Lamb : and in their mouth was found no lie: for they are without spot before the throne of God."*" It is probable that he mentions Sardis as the home of some of these ascetics.*^ No Catholic, of course, would expect to find in the Sacred Scriptures a complete and detailed account of asceticism or of the religious life. But the few pas- sages we have quoted prove clearly that the asceticism of the fourth century is based upon the teachings of Jesus and His Apostles. We have next to consider the testimony of the ecclesiastical writers of the first three centuries, study- ing as we do so the pseudo-asceticism of Gnosticism, Encratism, and Montanism, and the influences of Neo- Platonism on the orthodox asceticism of Alexandria. The Apostle St. John was still living when St. Clement of Rome addressed his words of counsel to the ascetics of the Church of Corinth. Are not the following words an echo of St. Paul's pr opium donum? " "Let him who is chaste in body not glory therein, for he knows that it is Another "Who bestows upon him the gift of continence."*' St. Ignatius, on his road to Rome to be martyred for the faith, sends greetings to the virgins of Smyrna.*^ Even at this early date, virginity was rec- ognized as a permanent state, and was highly honored *!> Apoc. xiv. 3-5. <6 Apoc. iii. 4. 47 Proper gift, 1 Cor. vii. 7. 48 Epis. ad. Cor., xxxviii. 2. *^ Ad Smym., xiii, 1. CHRISTIAN ASCETICISM 13 by the faithful. So much so, indeed, that some of these ascetics considered themselves superior to the bishop. St. Ignatius warns them against this spirit of pride, saying : ' ' Asceticism is good ; it honors the flesh of the Saviour ; but the ascetic is subject to the bishop, who is the head of the community. ' ' ^^ The Didache °^ speaks of a special type of ascetics, Imown as apostles or prophets. They traveled from city to city of Syria preaching the Gospel like modern Catholic missionaries, never staying long in any one place. They practised poverty, never accepting money for their labors. Indeed, those who did accept money were by the very fact excluded from the rank of prophets. Even though their celibacy is not ex- pressly mentioned, it may reasonably be inferred from their mode of life. Harnack ^^ interprets a rather difficult passage of the Didache °^ to mean that they were models of virginity and continence. They were held in such honor by the people, that the author of the Didache feels called upon to remind them, as St. Ignatius had done, of the rightful authority of the bishops and deacons. "* Some of the bishops of this period also lived the ascetical life. Polycrates of Ephesus says of Bishop Melito of Sardis that he was "a eunuch, who lived entirely in the Holy Spirit." ^^ 60 Ad Polyc, V, 2 ; Duchesne, Hist. Anc. de VEglise, vol. i, p. 531. 51 A. D. 50-160. 62 Lehre der Z-w-olf Apostel., p. 44 et seq. 53X1, 11. 54 XV, 2. 55 Eusebius, ITist. Eccles., V, xxvi, 5. 14 STUDIES IN CHURCH HISTORY The aim of Hermas in his Shepherd is to preach penance, and to renew the fervor of those who had grown lax during the bitter trials of persecution. Al- though he does not address the ascetics directly, he cannot avoid alluding to them. He tells us that his wife was as a sister to him, and that his continence has gained for him the grace of God. He is totally opposed to all idea of encratism; he admits that a widow may marry again without sin, although he be- lieves widowhood more honorable in the sight of God. He speaks of the ascetics of Rome as little children, who have not been stained by sin ; they do not know what sin is, for they have always remained pure. He says that they are happy, inasmuch as their reward is great in the sight of God.°^ There has been a great deal of controversy about the meaning of a certain passage in the Shepherd, viz., Sim. ix, 10, 6. Funk and Achelis believe that it refers clearly to the Subintroductce, while Zahn and Harnack think that they did not come into being until the third century. Most probably the disputed pas- sage does not refer to any real occurrence at all.^^ About the middle of the second century the Apolo- gists Justin, Tatian, Athenagoras, Minucius Felix, and others began to write to the pagan emperors their elo- quent apologies of the Christian faith. One of their strongest arguments was to contrast the simple and pure lives of the Christians with the corruption of an 68 Vis. i, 2-4; ii, 2, 3; Mand. Iv, 4; Sim. ix, 29; xi, 29, 31. "Page 41. CHRISTIAN ASCETICISM 15 immoral and a debased paganism. If the ascetic life had attained a more perfect development, they might have insisted more on the heroism of these superior souls. But the ascetics still lived in the world, and were in no way distinguishable from the body of the faithful. However, they were far from neglecting so powerful an argument. They were proud of the num- ber of those who had lived the virgin life, and they defied the pagans to produce men or women compara- ble to them in virtue. St. Justin Martyr, after painting a vivid picture of pagan immorality, says : ' ' When we marry, we marry to bring forth children; when we renounce marriage, we are perfectly continent. " °^ In two other passages he speaks of the great number of Christians who are practising celibacy and poverty.^^ Both Tatian and Athenagoras insist on the purity of the Christian women of their day, the latter saying that they were pure body and soul, shunning even evil thoughts and desires. He also declares with St. Paul, that many men and women who remain virgins to extreme old age, do so for the sole purpose of uniting themselves more intimately with God."" The Gospel origin of asceticism could not be more clearly put. Minucius Felix at the close of the second century writes: ' ' Many are possessed of a body spotless by a perpetual virginity, although they do not boast of it. So far 58 / Apol., xxix. 59 / Apol., xiv, 2 ; XV, 6. 60 Tatian, Oratio, 33 ; Athenagoras, Legatio, 33. 16 STUDIES IN CHURCH HISTORY removed is incest from our hearts, that some regard even the marriage bond with a sense of shame. ' ' "^ It is clear from the few documents that remain to us of this second century, that asceticism was honored everywhere, both in the East and in the "West; in Syria, in Asia Minor, in Greece, and in Rome. Wher- ever Christianity spread, generous souls by the thou- sands spontaneously followed, not merely the com- mands of the Lord, but also His free counsels of virginity and poverty .^^ These virgins did not live apart from their families. They were regarded as superior to the average Chris- tian, though like them subject to their legitimate pas- tors. Their influence for good was felt not only by the faithful about them, but by the pagan world out- side, which often bore tribute to "their purity, mas- tery of soul, and passionate love of virtue. ' ' "^ Their asceticism was in no way dependent upon false dual- istic theories of Gnosticism, but was prompted by the idea of following more closely in the footsteps of the Lord Jesus Christ. Among the causes that explain the maintenance and development of the ascetic life, the chief are: First, the expectation of the second coming of the Saviour ; "* second, the constant menace of persecution ; "^ and third, the natural reaction that «i Oct. xxxix. «2 Minucius Felix mentions poverty in Oct. xxxvi. 83 Galien, quoted by Harnack, Die Mission und Ausireitung des Ohristenthums, p. 157. «4 1 Cor. yii. 29-31; JBp. Bam., iv, 3, 9; Did., x, 5, 16; Tert. Ad. Vxor., i, 3, 5; De Jejunio, xii; De Fuga, xii. 65 Batififol, VUglise naissante et le Oath., p. 22. CHRISTIAN ASCETICISM 17 meets one extreme by another. The corrupt paganism of the day needed the corrective of purity, poverty, and self-denial. Every Christian by his very profes- sion was in a certain sense an ascetic. No greater mistake can be made by the student of early Church history than to confound the orthodox asceticism of the Christian Church with the exagger- ated and erroneous asceticism of Gnosticism, En- cratism, and Monatism. Gnosticism taught that mat- ter was intrinsically evil. This theory logically pro- duced a shameless licentiousness on the one hand, and a most rigorous asceticism on the other. The Nicolaites, Simon Magus and his followers, the Valen- tinians, the Basilidians, and the Carpocratians be- longed to the first class, while Saturninus, Cerdon, and Marcion were the leaders of the second. Marcion, for example, forbade his followers to marry, and re- fused to baptize married men and women unless they lived apart. He also prohibited the use of meat and wine even for the Eucharist. His excessive austerity attracted thousands of adherents.'" His practical mind discarded most of the metaphysical subtleties that appealed only to the elite in Gnosticism, and he modeled his sect upon the organization of the Christian Church."' Still, his influence on the development of orthodox asceticism was absolutely nil. The Fathers of the Church unanimously condemned the Gnostic teaching, that matter was eternal and essentially evil. 80 St. Justin, Apol. i, 26, 58 ; Eusebius, Eut. Ecclea. vi, 11; Clement of Alexandria, Strom., iii, 4. «' Tertvillian, Adv. Marc, It, S. 18 STUDIES IN CHURCH HISTORY All that God has created is good ; there is nothing evil but sin.** Marriage and procreation, instead of being the work of the devil, were sacred.*" Christians also abstain and fast, but their motive is the love and following of Jesus ; meat and drink are not evil in themselves. It is false to hold that every Christian must be an ascetic. On the contrary, virginity is a matter of free choice, and not of universal obligation.'''' Encratism, which existed in the first days of Chris- tianity,'^ endeavored to impose asceticism upon every Christian. At the outset, the encratitai " were not out-and-out heretics; they believed everything that the Church taught about God and about Jesus Christ. But they soon departed from the orthodox teaching by their obstinate adherence to an ultra rigorous as- ceticism. They condemned marriage, drank nothing but water, and would not eat anything possessed of life.'^ Later on they became identified with the Gnos- tics and the Montanists.'* Encratism was especially powerful in the Eastern Church, where its teachings were spread by means of religious romances like the Apocryphal Acts of the Apostles, the Gospel of the 88 Clement of Alexandria, Strom., ii, 12. 09 Tertullian, De Anima, xxvii. "Natura venera/nda est, non eruiescenda. Concubitum libido, non condicio foedavit. Excessus, non status, est impudicus, siquidem benedictus status apud Deum: Crescite et in multitudinem proficite." '0 Duchesne, Hist. Anc. de VEglise, vol. i, p. 487. 71 I Tim. iv. 1-5. 72 Hippol. Philoa., viii. 'sBatiffol, Etud^ d'Eist. et de Thiol.; Leclercq, Diet. d'Arch., col. 2605. 7*Harnaok, Dogmengeschichte, p. 226. CHRISTIAN ASCETICISM 19 Hebrews, the Acts of Paul, the Acts of John, and the Martyrdom of Peter. Now and again, Encratism gained some foUowing among the simple faithful, but it never became the ofiBcial teaching of the Church. The Fathers of the first three centuries were unani- mous in asserting the absolute freedom of virginity, and the other practices of the ascetic life.'^ The rigorous asceticism of Montanism was ener- getically combated by the Church from the beginning. ApoUinaris, Melito, Alcibiades, and others wrote spe- cial treatises against it, while synods were held all throughout Asia Minor to condemn it. Rome, which at first hesitated, finally banned it in the name of Popes Victor and Zephyrinus.'"' TertuUian tells us that ascetics were very numerous at Carthage.'^ Men and women vied with one an- other in the practice of the virgin life. Many kept their bodies spotless to extreme old age.'* Even mar- ried folks often renounced their marital rights.'* The people venerated the virgins, and the clergy re- served for them the first place in the church near the altar.*" TertuUian praises virginity, but never to the detriment of marriage. He declares with St. Paul that marriage is good, but that virginity is better. The great merit of virginity lies in its being embraced T5 Cf . Dionyeius, Bishop of Corinth, in Eusebius, Eist. Ec- cles., IV, xxiii, 7, and the martyrs of Lyons in ibid., V, iii, 2. 76 Funk, Kirchenlexicon, viii, col. 1831. 'I De Bess. Camis., Ixi. ^9 Ad Vxorem, vi. TsiJe Yel. Virg., x; Apol., ix. so De Vel Virg., xi; xiv. 20 STUDIES IN CHURCH HISTORT freely.*^ It is the highest form of sanctity ; a gift of God, to be guarded without boasting, and in all hu- mility ; *^ its reward is the kingdom of God.*^ The virgins of the third century continued to live in the midst of their families, a fact responsible for the abuses mentioned by Tertullian. Even though we make due allowance for his vehement invectives, we must admit that some of the virgins at Carthage were vain and immoral.^* The scandals alluded to were rare indeed, but they prove the necessity of the safe- guards afforded later on by the common life. Some scholars declare that the fourteenth chapter of the De Velandis Virginibu^ refers to the Subintro- ducice, but we do not think they prove their conten- tion. Tertullian says nothing about the practice of pov- erty. But his words on that subject may reasonably be applied to the ascetics of his time. He declares money "the cause of injustice, and the lord of the world. " '^ He holds up the example of poverty given by the Saviour, and calls especial attention to the invitation of Jesus to the rich young man to sell all he possessed, if he would be perfect.*^ The ascetics of Carthage practised mortification, chiefly in the form of abstinence from meat and wine. Their only motive was to humble themselves in God's 81 Adv. Marc, i, 29. 82i5e Ex. Cast., i; De Tel. Vvrg., xiii. *s Ad TJxorem, vi. 84 De Tel. Tirg., xiv. 85 Adv. More, IV, xxiii. 86 De Pwnitentia, vii ; Adv. Marc, iv, 36. CHRISTIAN ASCETICISM 21 sight, and to preserve their chastity by mortifying their love of eating and drinking.^' Some Catholic writers, like Wilpert,^' Schiwietz,'" Dom Besse,"" and Heimbucher "^ maintain that Ter- tullian not only speaks of the vow of virginity in his De Velandis Yirgmibiis,^^ but that he distinguishes be- tween private and public vows of virginity. But this is a most arbitrary reading of the text. There is no passage in Tertullian which mentions clearly the exist- ence of a public VOW; although there are some texts which probably may refer to a private vow. "We call attention to the special terms which Tertullian uses when speaking of the virgin state.^^ "With St. Cyprian the ascetic life takes on a new phase. "We know from a letter that he wrote to Bishop Pomponius,"* that the virgin of his time made a vow of virginity, which was not an ordinary promise, but a sacred vow that made her a spiritual bride of Christ. He regarded the violation of this vow as a serious crime involving excommunication, and exacted a rigor- ous penance before he admitted the guilty one to com- munion. 87 De Cult. Poem., ii, 9. 88 Die Gottgeweihten Jungfrauen, p. 20. 89 Das Morgenl. Monchtum, p. 19. 80 Le Monachisme Africam, p. 37. 01 Die Orden und Gongregationem der Kat. Kirche, p. 157. 82 Chapters iii, xiv, xv. 93 De Oratione, 22 ; De Vel. Virg., iii, xi, xiii, xvi ; De Ress Camis, xli. Nupsisti Ghristo, illi cwrnem tua/m tradidisti; age pro mariti tui disoipUna. Si nuptas alienas velari juhet, suas utique multo magis. He calls the virgins in other pas- sages virgines sacras; virgines sanotw; maritatce Christo, etc. 9*£pi8. Ixii. 22 STUDIES IN CHURCH HISTORY Amidst the many cares of a most onerous episcopate, St. Cyprian always manifested a special affection for the virgins of Carthage.'^ He speaks of them con- tinually in his works, and, in fact, wrote himself the first complete treatise we possess on the ascetic life. He tells us that the ascetics were very numerous, and that every class of society was represented in their ranks.®® He styles them "the chosen portion of the flock of Christ," and ranks them immediately after the martyrs. "We know that they were worthy of his praise by their love of martyrdom.®' Virginity is a free state, embraced in order to attain perfection, and to acquire the virtues of justice, religion, faith, humility, patience, and mercy ; its reward is the king- dom of heaven.®^ St. Cyprian makes no mention of the practice of poverty. The virgins always kept enough money to supply their wants, and those of noble birth lived ac- cording to their state of life. Although the bishop did not praise them for this,"" he simply urged them to despise the world and its pleasures. Above all they are to avoid all luxurious dressing in silk and purple, the use of gold and precious stones, and any outward adornment calculated to attract the looks of lascivious young men."* He quotes, like his predecessors, the 85 De Habit. Virg., iii. 96 Epis. ad Antonianum, De Hah. Vvrg., vii. 97 Epis. Ixxvii ; De Lapsis, ii. 88 De Hob. Virg., xxiii. 88 /bid., vii. 100 Ibid,.^ viii, ix, xiii, xvi, etc. CHRISTIAN ASCETICISM 23 words of our Lord to the rich young man of the Gos- pel.^°^ He says little about mortification, save to cite the words of St. Paul,^°^ and to insist upon moderation in eating and drinking in order to obtain a better com- mand over the passions, and to devote oneself more ardently to prayer."^ Although there is still no evidence of the virgins living the common life, St. Cyprian's constant exhor- tations to lead a more recollected life, and to shun promiscuous gatherings at banquets and the public baths, prepared the way for the common life of a later period. The scandals of the SuMntroductcB which are spoken of plainly in the sixty-second letter of St. Cyprian, also pointed in that direction. Outside of the Shepherd of Hermas and the writings of Hippolytus, we know hardly anything of the ascetic life in Rome during the first three centuries. Hip- polytus mentions ascetic practices and meditation, and condemns the marriage of clerics.^"* He speaks of the ascetics living a life apart from the world, and meditating upon the things of heaven.^"" The frescoes of the catacombs give us a good idea of the ceremonies of a religious profession in the fourth, or perhaps at the close of the third, century. 101 Matt. xix. 21. 102 Gal. V. 24; vl. 14. w^Epis. vii. 10* /» Proverlia, P. G. x, col. 617; La ThSologie de St. Hipp., p. 53. los In Qen., P. G. x, col. 601. 24 STUDIES IN CHURCH HISTORY The bishop presided, while the virgin pronounced be- fore him the formula of consecration. He then laid hands upon her, and preached a sermon on the excel- lence and dignity of the virgin state. The faithful came in great numbers to witness what the Fathers called "a spiritual marriage." The virgin was then clothed with a special tunic or habit, as in the pro- fession of a nun in a convent to-day .^°* These consecrated virgins spent a great part of the day in prayer ; practised mortification under the form of fasting ; studied the Sacred Scriptures ; engaged in manual labor; observed a rule of silence, and lived apart from the world. All these practices prove the identity of the asceticism of Rome in the fourth cen- tury with the asceticism of other parts of the Chris- tian world. As early as A. D. 350 the cloister was in existence, for at that date St. Marcella founded the first monastery in Rome. We know scarcely anjrthing of the progress of Chris- tianity in Spain during the first three centuries. A couple of letters of St. Cyprian, and a chance allusion in St. Irenseus and TertuUian, are all that we pos- sess.^"'' There is one clear reference, however, to the virgins of Spain in the thirteenth canon of the Coun- cil of Elvira.^"^ The Council was legislating in regard to those virgins who had broken their vows, either by marrying, or by falling into sins of impurity. If loe Cf. Fresco of the Catacomb of St. Prisoilla, Wilpert, Die Gottgeweihten Jungfrauen, p. 52 et seq. ^0'' Adv. Eaer., 1, 10; Adv. Jud., vii. 108 Leclercq, L'Espagne Chritienne, i, pp. 2, 5. CHRISTIAN ASCETICISM 25 they continue in their sins, they are never to be ad- mitted to communion, even at the hour of death; if they do penance, and do not relapse, they are to be reconciled on their deathbed. Such legislation proves conclusively that asceticism had reached the same development in Spain as in North Africa. This is not at all surprising, when we remember the close communion between the Church in Spain and the Church in Carthage. Many non-Catholic scholars like Keim,^°' Zockler,^^" and Hamack^'^ assert that Neo-Platonism played a considerable part in the origin of monasticism. This theory, of course, is merely a part of their general thesis concerning the ' ' Catholicizing, ' ' i. e., the Hel- lenization or paganizing of Christianity. They hold, with many rationalistic thinkers, that under the in- fluence of Greek philosophy, the spiritual liberty of the first two centuries gave way to the authoritative and bureaucratic spirit of Catholicism. Monsignor Batiffol has refuted this theory at length in his work on Primitive Catholicism. We are concerned with this theory only in so far as it affects asceticism. It is true that great teachers like Clement of Alex- andria and Origen made use of the Greek philosophy of their day the better to reach their age, but it by no means affected their ascetic teaching. Clement of Alexandria declares, with St. Paul, that virginity is superior to marriage ; that it is a grace of 108 Ams der Urchristentum, p. 215. 11" Ascese und Monchtum, p. 144. Ill Dogmengeschichte, p. 252. 26 STUDIES IN CHURCH HISTORY God to be gratefully received ; that it should be prac- tised especially by those who wish to work efficaciously for their brethren.^^^ He lays more stress, though, upon the dignity and sanctity of the married state, because the great evil of his time was the low birth rate due to the current pagan immorality. He seems, indeed, to prefer the Christian who marries, has chil- dren, and then lives the virgin life with his wife.^^' He declares that riches are in themselves neither good nor evil ; they are merely an instrument ; all de- pends on how they are used.^^* Extreme poverty is not a good thing, for it often prevents a man from considering the higher things of the spirit, in his con- stant struggle to make a living. One may be without riches, and yet be guilty of sin, because he is most desirous of them in his heart. True poverty, there- fore, is poverty of spirit ; this alone frees a man from all affection for the things of this world."^ The truly great soul always despises riches.^^*' He recommends mortification as a means of strengthening the soul patiently to endure suffering, and to keep the Christian ever in the path of right- eousness. An austere life will saf-eguard one from temptation, and prevent grievous falls.^^' He also insists upon the mortification of the senses and absti- nence from meat and wine, that the body might be kept pure from every stain. He urges the ascetic to pray continually, both in Church, at the canonical 112 Strom., iii, iv, xii. ii5 Ibid., xii. 113 /6id., iii, 1, 16; vii, 12. i^^ Paed., ii, 3. 11* Quis Dives Salvetur, xiv. n^ Ibid., ii, 1 ; Strom., vii, 7. CHRISTIAN ASCETICISM 27 hours, and alone in his room, meditating upon the eternal truths. The true Gnostic is rarely to ask God for temporal favors; his heart must be bent entirely on celestial things. There is no mention in Clement 's writings of any public vow of virginity, and probably no reference even to private vows. Origen continued and perfected the teaching of Clement of Alexandria on asceticism. History tells us very little of the life of Clement, but a great deal about his disciple. Origen was, indeed, a perfect type of the Christian ascetic. At eighteen years of age he was already the head of the great Christian school of Alexandria. Realizing the danger of falling away from true fervor because of the motley body of men and women who crowded to his lectures, he deter- mined to lead a most austere life. He went to the extreme of making himself a eunuch for the kingdom of heaven.^^^ He also lived in the most absolute pov- erty. He sold his valuable library in exchange for four obols a day, which he considered enough for his immediate wants. He always walked barefooted, and wore but one garment. He abstained from wine, fasted frequently, slept but little, and on the bare ground, and exposed his body relentlessly to cold. In fact, every moment which he did not spend in study, or teaching, he devoted to the practices of austerity. Sickness at last forced him to discontinue these ascetic practices. His teaching, therefore, is simply a commentary 118 Eusebius, Hist. Eceles. vi, 3. 28 STUDIES IN CHURCH HISTORY upon his own manner of life. He recognized the law- fulness of marriage, and insisted on the freedom of virginity. He was rather rigoristic in his views on these matters, for we find him comparing the slavery of the marriage bond with the liberty of the virgin life. He was even ready to pardon the error of those widows who did not marry the second time for fear of hell. Those who married a second time might be saved, but they would not be crowned by Christ.^^' He speaks of virgins as "flowers that ornament the Church of Christ, ' ' and ranks them immediately after the martyrs. Virginity is superior to marriage, be- cause it allows one to worship God without ceasing.^^" He warns the ascetics against vanity, telling them that chastity is valueless unless accompanied by the other virtues. In a word, purity of body is of no avail with- out purity of soul.^^^ Jesus Christ is the model of every ascetic, who must live not for himself, but for Christ, Whose footsteps he must follow, and "Whose cross he must bear. This distinguishes him at once from the philosophers of paganism. By their chastity the ascetics become like little children, and merit the kingdom of God. Origen, therefore, preaches asceti- cism, not in the name of his philosophical principles, but in the name of the Gospel, which is for him, as 119 Com*. Cels., xx, 192; in Epis. ad Rom. vi, 12; vil, 295, 395; Horn, xix in Jer. xv, 366. 120 Horn, iii in Gen. ; Horn, ii in Numb. ; Horn, xxiii in Numb. 121 In, Epis. ad Bom.; Bornemann, in Invest, mon. Origine, p. 28. CHRISTIAN ASCETICISM 29 for all the early Church writers, the unique source of the perfect life.^^^ It is pretty certain that Origen speaks of the vow of virginity more than once in his writings. The clearest text of all is the following, quoted by Sehi- wietz in his Asceticism in the First Three Centuries, p. 17: "Et nos ergo, cum venimus ad Deum et vovemus ei nos in castitate servire, pronuntiamus laiiis nostris et juramus nos castigare carnem nostram vel male ei facere atque in servitutem earn redigere, ut spiritum salvum facere possimus." The ascetics of his time did not practice poverty. Monasteries were not yet in existence, so that every Christian had to provide for his own necessities. Origen insists on the true ascetic renouncing all super- fluities, quoting the words of Christ.^^^ He extols on page after page the virtue of poverty, calling it "a true holocaust upon the altar of the Lord. ' ' The good of eternal life will compensate for the loss of present possessions.^^* Origen 's whole life proves the important place of mortification in asceticism, although he alludes to it directly in very few passages. Mortification is really an imitation of the Passion of Christ, and a means of purification for the soul consecrating itself entirely to God. It is a preservative of chastity, and helps the 122 /}t Epis. ad Rom.; Horn, xxiv in Numb.; Horn, vi in Ezech.; Cont. Gels, xx, 77; in Matt, iii, 238. 123 Luke xiv. 33. 124 Hom. ix in Lev.; in Psal. xii, 17L 30 STUDIES IN CHURCH HISTORY Christian especially in the study of the Holy Scrip- tures. He recommends abstinence, meditation, prayer, vigils, and fasting as various means of mastering the lower nature.^^^ Contemplation in his eyes is the height of perfec- tion. It separates the ascetic from everything earthly and material, and makes him think only of God. The fcrue ascetic must live in the world, but just as much apart from it as if he were living in the desert. Out- side of the requirements of apostolic zeal, he should not engage in worldly affairs. He should imitate the Saviour, Who loved to retire frequently apart from His disciples. In his commentary on St. Matthew,^^° Origen ex- presses his desire that the ascetics live the common life, but there is no proof that this wish of his was realized in his lifetime. We know from Eusebius that soon after the persecution of Diocletian, Peter, Bishop of Alexandria, passed his last days in ascetic practices in common with others.^^' Paul of Thebes, Anthony, and Hilarion were contemporaries or even prede- cessors of Bishop Peter of Alexandria. The EpistolcB ad Virgines is the first document in ecclesiastical literature that treats ex professo of the ascetic life. It was written originally in Greek in the 125 In Matt, iil, 171; De Prin., xxi, 327; in Matt, iii, 238; Horn, xiii in Ex. 126 III, 361. 1" Hist. Eccles., VII, xxxii, 31. CHRISTIAN ASCETICISM 31 first decade of the third century.^^^ The critics assign it to a Christian of Egypt, and say that it was ad- dressed to the ascetics of Syria or Palestine. The writer praises virginity as "the blessed seed of God, the royal priesthood, the holy nation, and the people of God." The ascetic must have in view his own sanctification, and follow Jesus Christ as his model. He must practice an apostolate both of prayer and of action. He must not only preach the Gospel from city to city, but visit the orphans and widows, exor- cize the possessed, and care for the sick. He still lives like other Christians in the cities and villages, but he is always known as an ascetic; in his journeyings he must stay with the ascetics of the town. The Subin- troductce are mentioned more than once, and clearly mark the tendency towards community life. Poverty and mortifications of various sorts are strongly recom- mended. Certain abuses are mentioned, such as the sins of vanity, idleness, avarice, and immorality. Our last witness is Bishop Methodius of Olympia in Lycia. His Convivium gives us a picture of asceti- cism in Asia Minor, which is strikingly like conditions in Carthage a few years before. The development of asceticism in Asia Minor and Africa was not quite so advanced as in Egypt and the Orient. 128 Harnack, Sitsiungsierichte, vol. i. THE GOVERNMENT OF THE CHURCH IN THE FIRST CENTURY 1 "The Catholic Church," writes Father Moran m the Preface of his scholarly essay on the beginnings of the Christian ministry, "bases her authority to teach and govern on the apostolic succession of her hierarchy. Christ founded a Church, and gave the Apostles whom He placed over it certain ecclesiastical powers to be transmitted by them to their successors to the end of time. The ecclesiastical superiors of to-day claim to teach and rule, not by election or dele- gation of the faithful, but by a kind of spiritual de- scent instituted by Christ. In this age of political liberalism and popular sovereignty, it is not surpris- ing to find the Church assailed for her oligarchical constitution. Advanced Protestants would have the people supreme in the Church as in the State; while modern rationalists would have us believe that our hierarchical jurisdiction is the effect of evolution and the growth of centuries, and that it was unknown and unheard of in the early Church. It is with a view of answering these difficulties that I propose to inquire into the government of the primitive Church, and to 1 The Government of the Church in the First Century. By Eev. William Moran. New York: Benziger Bros. 32 THE GOVEENMENT OF THE CHURCH 33 show that its constitution was in principle the same in the first century as it is in the twentieth." What did Jesus Christ mean by "the Kingdom of God?" When Our Lord speaks of "the kingdom," He at once arouses the enthusiasm of the Jews, for the term stirs up in the national miad a world of hopes and expectations. The Jews in the captivity and in the dispersion had ever been sustained and encouraged by the prospect of the future glory and prosperity of the everlasting kingdom foretold by Daniel.^ They did not realize the spiritual nature of the promises of the prophets, but looked forward to a great political empire, in which Israel would dominate the whole world. Jesus could not correct this false notion all at once, for the people would not have understood Him; the shock to their prejudices would have been too violent. His first care was, therefore, not to explain the nature of His kingdom, but rather to lead men quietly toward it ; to establish the authority of His mission, and thus place Himself in a position to transform the popular idea. Our Lord first tells the Jews that all human hopes and works must be made subservient to our last end: "What doth it profit a man, if he gain the whole world, and suffer the loss of his own soul?" "Blessed are they that suffer persecution for jus- tice' sake, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven." In this world man's religious life is never free from per- secution, risks, and temptations, but there is a life to 2 Daniel vii. 26, 27. 34: STUDIES IN CHURCH HISTORY eome in which the blessed will enjoy all good things in peace. The words "Thy kingdom come" in the Lord's Prayer are a prayer for a kingdom on earth; but that kingdom consists in hallowing the name of the Father, and doing His will on earth, as it is done in heaven. This phase of the kingdom is opposed to the reign of sin and the devil: "What have we to do with Thee, Jesus of Nazareth; art Thou come to destroy us?" It is not so much a kingdom as a sov- ereignty, a reign of God in men 's hearts. A spiritual entity, it is contrasted with the goods of this world. "Be not solicitous, therefore, saying what shall we eat, or what shall we drink, or wherewith shall we be clothed? . . . Seek ye first the kingdom of God." This sovereignty is but the soul of an earthly phase of the kingdom, in the proper sense of the word. This kingdom is the collectivity of all those who be- lieve in Christ and His teaching. "For this was I born," said Jesus to Pilate, "and for this came I into the world, that I should give testimony to the truth." His kingdom is primarily a kingdom of truth. It is not a puritanical reformation of Juda- ism, nor a prophetic school returning to a forgotten justice, but a new entity, based on a new revelation, which came, after John the Baptist, to complete the law and the prophets. It is a new glad tiding; a mysterious message; a hidden treasure; a pearl of great price. It is a message which the prophets longed to receive, and which the disciples are ac- THE GOVERNMENT OF THE CHURCH 35 counted blessed to hear. This revelation Jesus calls the word of the kingdom.^ ' ' The law and the prophets were until John ; from that time the kingdom of God is preached, and every one useth violence towards it. " * Here Jesus is not speaking of the final kingdom in heaven, nor of the sovereignty of God in men's hearts, but of an exter- nal institution of some kind. "The time is accom- plished, and the kingdom of God is at hand; repent and believe the Gospel," says Jesus. The accom- plished time is that spoken of by the prophets, after which "the Lord shall give Him the throne of David His father." The kingdom is that of the Son of David, a true kingdom on earth, composed of all those who "repent and believe the Gospel." This collec- tivity is represented as a seed-plot, where the good seed is sown, and where it germinates, and grows to a fuU harvest, to be at last gathered into the kingdom of the Father in heaven.^ The kingdom of God embraces in this life worthy and unworthy members, children of Christ and chil- dren of the devil. This is clear from the two para- bles of Jesus in Matt, xiii, which tell of the enemy sowing cockle among the wheat, and of the net con- taining good fish and bad. The citizens of the king- dom are those who understand the teaching of Christ, and have responded to the call of faith. Some guests sMatt. vi. 31; Luke xvi. 16; Mark i. 15; Matt. xiii. 11, 16, 17, 19, 44, 45. * Luke xvi. 16. 6 Matt. xii. 3, 18-23; Mark i. 15. 36 STUDIES IN CHUECH HISTORY are invited to the marriage feast, but they refuse to attend. The call to the kingdom is a great free gift of God. The great sin of the Jews consisted in their refusal to accept the word of the kingdom. "The publicans and harlots," said Jesus, "shall go into the kingdom of God before you. " " The kingdom of God shall be taken from you, and shall be given to a na- tion yielding the fruits thereof. ' ' ® Penance or eon- version is the first condition for entrance into the kingdom. "Do penance, for the kingdom of God is at hand." The disciple of the kingdom must receive the word of God with the simple faith and trust of a little child. "Whosoever does not receive the kingdom of God as a little child, shall not enter it."^ On the road to Csesarea Philippi, Jesus promises to make St. Peter the ruler of the kingdom of God after His death. "I will give to thee the keys of the king- dom of heaven. . . . Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build My Church." Peter is to be the rock foundation; the Church built upon him will be indefectible ; he will be the chief steward ; his binding and loosing will be ratified in heaven; he will be the primate in the new kingdom. Later on, all the Apos- tles will receive together a promise to bind and loose with divine authority, becoming thereby partakers in one of the promises made to Peter. They will not, however, become the foundation ; they will not receive the keys of the kingdom. oMatt. xxi. 31, 43. 'Mark x, 15. THE GOVERNMENT OF THE CHURCH 37 Harnack fails to see in the teaching of Jesus the foundation of a Church, least of all a Universal Church. According to him Jesus was sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel, and in sending forth His disciples, He placed the same limits on their mission. Harnack maintains that the passages re- cording a universal mission, given by our Lord dur- ing the forty days, are but the expression of the Christian mind after it had seen the development of the Gospel for fifty years. The Apostles, no doubt, established a Universal Church before their death, but then "the chasm which separates Jesus from the Apostles has never been bridged over, nor can it be. ' ' An unbiased examination of the four Gospels re- veals naught of the narrow-minded nationalism sug- gested by Harnack. So little does Jesus thiuk of an exclusively Jewish kingdom that, as a matter of fact, He tells us that the Jews will scarcely find a place in it at all. In the parable of the vineyard, Jesus tells the Jews that the kingdom will be taken from them and given to another nation. In the parable of the marriage feubfc, He develops the same idea. The prophet Isaias and John the Baptist both taught plainly that only a remnant of the Jews would in- herit the promises, and Jesus frequently spoke of the exclusion of the Jews from the kingdom.* In the tenth chapter of Matthew, we see that the Apostles received two distinct missions. The first, confined to the Jews, was only a temporary mission sCf. Matt. viii. 11; Luke xiii. 38 STUDIES IN CHURCH HISTORY which they shared in common with the seventy-two disciples. In this mission they organized no society, and enjoyed no special jurisdiction. A second and a greater mission is foreshadowed in Matt. x. 17, 18. The Apostles are to go forth on an unlimited mission ; their testimony is to be given before Gentiles as well as Jews ; they are to be brought before governors and kings as well as councils ; they will, in short, be hated by all men, because they come in the name of Christ. Their great commission — "Going, therefore, teach all nations" — is not the invention of a pious Christian, as Harnack would have us believe; it is the fulfill- ment of promises made frequently by Christ during His public ministry. Early in His ministry, Jesus selected twelve of His disciples, and gave them a special mission, and a spe- cial name, Apostles, literally those sent, messengers. The word was not borrowed from the Jews, nor was it of Scriptural origin. The apostolic office, in the discourses of Jesus, "seems to be chiefly a mission, a work of testimony." ^ St. Paul brings out clearly the nature of the apos- tolic office, because his own claims to apostleship were frequently called in question. He defends eloquently the authenticity of his Gospel, the fruitfulness of his mission, and the hardships he endured, but above all he insists on the fact that he has been especially called and sent by Jesus Christ in person.^" » Acts I. 8 ; Matt. x. 27 ; Matt, xxviii. 20. 10 Gal. i. 1, 11, 12, 15-17; 1 Cor. xi; xv; 2 Cor. v. 20; Bern. X. 14; 1 Cor. ii. 1. THE GOVEENMENT OF THE CHURCH 39 From the very beginning, the Apostles were a cen- ter of authority for the Church. In the mother Church of Jerusalem, the supreme ecclesiastical au- thority was in their hands.^^ The Epistles of St. Paul represent them as the supreme teachers, the am- bassadors of God, the dispensers of the mysteries of Christian knowledge, and the guarantee of the purity of Christian doctrine.^^ St. Paul also speaks of their power of jurisdiction, which has both a judicial^* and a legislative phase.^* The apostolate is not merely a magisterial charisma. St. Paul is equally a teacher and a ruler; he requires faith in his doctrine, and obedience to his ordinances. The preaching of the Gospel is not the free working of the Spirit. St. Paul preaches what he himself has received,^^ the testimony of Christ. He governs, likewise, in virtue of the power he has received from Christ.^« "While the first Christians in Palestine had many points in common with the Jews, they clearly formed a distinct society or Church. Men were initiated into this society by baptism; they had their specifically Christian meetings, with a symbol of brotherhood, the Eucharist; they were united by the same doctrine, "Acts ii. 42; iv. 34. "1 Thess. ii. 13; 2 Thesa. ii. 15; Gal. i. 7; 1 Cor. xiv. 37; 13 l' Cor. V. 2; 2 Thess. iii. 16; 1 Tim. i. 20; 2 Cor. ii. 10; 2 Cor. xiii. 2. " 1 Cor. vii; xi. 2; xiv. 26-34; 2 Cor. ii. 9; vii. 15. 15 1 Cor. XV. 3. 13 2 Cor. xiii. 10. 40 STUDIES IN CHURCH HISTORY and the "same fellowship of the Apostles;" and they worked for the same spiritual end.^^ Dr. Hateh " sees in the early Christian communities merely an imitation of the pagan collegia from which they differed merely in one thing, their philanthropy. But he brings forward no convincing proof of this arbitrary statement. "We are fully aware of the great charity of the early Church, which frequently found expression in hospitality and almsgiving. But this was nothing new; it was merely a continuation of the Jewish tradition. The Christians did not be- come brethren by loving and helping one another, as Hatch seems to think; they loved and helped one an- other because they were brethren. In a word, their common faith was the basis of their association. The local communities were religious societies, founded on a common faith, a common hope, and a common call- ing; they had a social life peculiar to themselves. They came together for the Eucharist, instruction, prayer, the reading of Scripture, and the exercise of spiritual gifts. This social life, and not the philan- thropic idea, differentiated the Christian societies from the pagan associations. Again the collegium was an autonomous, isolated association, usually formed under the protection of a tutelary deity. Its officers were elected annually, and derived their authority from the body which elected them. It was altogether different in the IT Acts iv. 32. 18 The Organization of the Early Christian Churches, p. 12. THE GOVERNMENT OF THE CHURCH 41 Christian community. The local Church embraced all the faithful of a city, however numerous they might be. Unlike the pagan funeral clubs, the Chris- tians formed together one organized body; their of- ficers were ordained by the Apostles, derived their powers from Christ through the Apostles, and held office for life. Their faith, morals, worship, and pur- > pose were so utterly different from the pagans around them, that they would never have dreamed of turning to paganism for a type of their organization. As most of them in the beginning were converts from Judaism, they would naturally turn to the synagogue if on the lookout for a model. Prom the very beginning the Christians had a spe- cial name for their community. They called it a church, ekklesia. This term was well known in aU the Greek cities, where it meant the assembly of the citizens. It is used in a similar sense in the Old Testament.^^ St. Paul sometimes uses the word in this sense,^" but more commonly in a derivative sense, meaning all the Christians of a local community. Sometimes he applies the word to all the Christians of a particular household.^^ He never speaks of the churches of a city, even though it contain many Chris- tian households, but he often speaks of the churches of a province, because each town in the province has its own church." The local church is a "Church of IS Judges xxii. Cf. Acts viii. 1. 20 1 Cor. xiv. 23, 24. 21 Rom. xvi. 3. 22 Gal. i. 22; 1 Cor. xvi. 19; 2 Cor. viii. 2. 42 STUDIES IN CHURCH HISTORY God, " and a " Church of Christ. " Each local church is a unity, a body of Christ, a spiritual Israel. He recognizes the danger of schism, and constantly com- bats it.^^ The local flock is the city community; its pastors are not mere individuals endowed with ex- traordinary charismata, but a corporate body presid- ing over a legal unit. Every such community has within it a local juris- diction. "We see this in the passages which deal with the pastoral charge, in the reference to excommuni- cation in St. Matthew and First Corinthians, and in the action of the elders of Jerusalem, who sat and voted with the Apostles in the first Christian council. "Take heed to the whole flock, wherein the Holy Ghost hath placed you," says St. Paul to the elders of Ephesus, thus plainly indicating that these elders were not merely delegates of the Apostles, but held their authority directly from God. St. Paul founded the community and placed it on a working basis, but God supplied the necessary authority. This ordinary jurisdiction, residing in a local church, is the basis of the diocesan jurisdiction, which figures so largely in canon law; for the city communities of apostolic times were the dioceses of the period. Besides this local unity there was also a universal unity, a Church Catholic, composed of all the churches. The basis of this catholic unity was uni- versal baptism, universal faith in Jesus, and the uni- 23 1 Cor. i. 11-13. THE GOVERNMENT OF THE CHURCH 43 versal mission and authority of the Apostles.^* The idea of a universal and visible Church is well set forth in the words of St. Paul, who says "that the Gentiles should be fellow-heirs, and of the same body, and co- partners of his promise in Christ Jesus, by the Gos- pel. ... To me is given this grace to preach among the Gentiles, the unsearchable riches of Christ, and to enlighten all men, that they may see what is the dispensation of the mystery which hath been hidden from eternity in God. ' ' ^^ The same notion of a uni- versal unity is expressed in the Epistle to the Ro- mans, where the Gentiles are spoken of as branches broken from a wild species, and grafted into the olive tree; and all become partakers of the sap of the same root. The Universal Church is not a number of bodies in Christ, but one body only ; for Christ is not divided.^' It is through this society that men are to seek the kingdom of God. "What shall we do?" say the Jews to St. Peter after listening to his first ser- mon. "Do penance, believe, and be baptized," is his answer. And St. John repeats the same teaching: ' ' That which we have seen and have heard, we declare to you, that you also may have fellowship with us; and our fellowship is with the Father, and with His Son, Jesus Christ. "^^ Baptism with St. Paul has two significations. It 2* Gal. iii. 29; Eph. iv. H, 12. 25Eph. iii. 6-9. 26 Eph. i. 22; 1 Cor. i. 2T John i. 3. 44 STUDIES IN CHURCH HISTORY is the source of sanetifieation ^' and the rite of initia- tion into the visible Chureh.^^ As all must receive baptism, so all must be incorporated into the body of Christ. This body is not an invisible Church of the just, as Luther taught in the sixteenth century, or as Sohm teaches in the twentieth, but a visible society, having different classes of visible members, such as prophets, teachers, and evangelists. St. Paul never expressly treats of the relation be- tween the particular and the Universal Church, and at times it is difficult to determine which Church he has in view. The local Church is the Body of Christ, and the Church of God ; the Universal Church is also the Body of Christ and the Church of God. A mem- ber of the local Church is by the very fact a member of the Universal Church, because membership ia both is acquired by baptism. There is not a single passage in aU the New Testa- ment which upholds the theory of Dr. Hatch, viz., that association among those who believed was a mat- ter of free choice in the primitive Church. For St. Paul is ever insisting upon the fact that Christians form a Body of Christ — a visible body which one enters by the sacrament of baptism. He describes in detail its various members, apostles, prophets, teach- ers, wonder-workers, and simple faithful; aU are members of the body and of one another. If associ- 28Eph. V. 27; 1 Cor. xii. 13; Gal. vi. 15. 2B 1 Cor. xii. THE GOVERNMENT OP THE CHURCH 45 ation is not a primary duty of the Christian life, then we are not baptized into the visible mystical body of Christ; and it is mere idealism on St. Paul's part to think we are. The very texts that Dr. Hatch quotes refute his thesis. He speaks of those "who separate themselves," citing the Epistle of St. Jude. But he fails to see that the Apostle condemns their schism, declaring them "sensual men, having not the Spirit." Dr. Hatch might just as well cite the schisms at Cor- inth to prove that unity was not required in the local churches, or the intrigues of the Judaizers to prove that Christianity was but a new phase of the Mosaic law. In many places of the ancient world the govern- ment was originally in the hands of a council com- posed of the heads of families. Traces of this primi- tive system survived in the Senate in Rome, in the Gerousia of Sparta, and in the Sanhedrim of the Jews. Given this senatorial method of communal government among both Jews and Gentiles, it was natural that the first Christian communities should be organized on the same plan. Speaking of St. Paul and St. Barnabas, St. Luke tells us that returning from their first apostolic journey, "they confirmed the souls of the disciples, and exhorted them to con- tinue in the faith . . . and when they had ordained to them elders in every church and had prayed with fasting, they commended them to the Lord."^" St. so Acts xiv. 20-22. 46 STUDIES IN CHURCH HISTORY Paul followed the same plan upon his subsequent mis- sions. Elders are spoken of at Jerusalem and in the church of Pontus, Galatia, Asia, Cappadocia, Bi- thynia, Crete, and the Jewish communities of the dis- persion.'^ The letters of Clement, Polycarp, and Ig- natius prove beyond doubt that the presbyteral col- lege was a universal institution before the close of the apostolic period. St. Luke tells us that St. Paul and St. Barnabas were sent to carry alms from Antioch to the elders at Jerusalem,'^ though he says nothing of the appointment of these elders or of their posi- tion in the community. We know, however, that these elders were superiors of some kind in the Church. At the Council of Jerusalem, we find the Apostles and the elders assembled to discuss the ques- tion raised by the Judaizers, viz., that salvation could not be obtained without circumcision. This Council was held in the presence of all the faithful, but it is clear that the Apostles and elders alone were judges in the matter. There is no evidence whatever for the theory of Dr. Lindsay, that the authority in the early Christian communities was democratic. It is true that the laity were allowed great latitude in the mat- ter of elections. The seven deacons were elected by popular vote at Jerusalem, although their ordination was reserved to the Apostles. The bishops were sim- ilarly elected as late as the third century. In gen- eral, the assembly had a voice in all matters of pru- 81 1 Peter i. 1; v. 1; James v; Titus i. 5. 32 Acta xi. 28-30. THE GOVERNMENT OF THE CHUECH 47 dence and consultation, but never in the deciding of dogmatic questions nor in the interpreting of the Divine Law. It is clear from the Council of Jerusalem that the elders held a magisterial and legislative jurisdiction ; their title was not merely a title of honor, but an ecclesiastical office. Again, we read of the elders dis- cussing with St. Paul the state of affairs at Jerusalem as fathers of the community,"^ and of their anointing the sick with oil in the name of the Lord in the Epis- tle of St. James.'* Both these instances prove that the elders were a ruling order in the community. They consulted for the peace and edification of the community, administered its financial resources, en- joyed a magisterial jurisdiction, and ministered at least some of the sacraments to the faithful. The position of the elders in the Pauline Churches is set forth in St. Paul's discourse to the elders of Ephesus.^^ They are the spiritual superiors of the local church ; they are shepherds feeding and oversee- ing the flocks; their magisterial authority occupies the foremost place in the discourse; they have been placed by the Holy Ghost as stewards in the Church to oversee the faithful. At Jerusalem the elders de- cide a question of faith; in Ephesus we find them teaching the Gospel preached to them by St. Paul. In his letter to Timothy '" the Apostle speaks of the elders laboring zealously in the word and in teaching. 33 Acts xxi. 23, 24. ss Acts xx. 28-31. 3* James v. 14, 15. sa 1 Tim. v. 17-22. 48 STUDIES IN CHURCH HISTORY St. Peter tells us that the elders of Asia Minor pos- sessed equal powers with the elders of Jerusalem and the Pauline Churches." They are pastors or shep- herds of the flock; they direct and govern with au- thority; they are the representatives of the Prince of Pastors in the local community. St. Clement of Rome, in his letters to Corinth, writes a strong de- fense of the elders of that city, who had been unjustly removed from their ministry in a "detestable sedi- tion. ' ' The elders of Corinth are ecclesiastical rulers, successors of the Apostles, pastors of the flock of Christ, and duly constituted in authority. The whole New Testament negatives the thesis of those modem writers who maintain that the presbyterate was not an office in the primitive Church, but merely an hon- orary position.^' Before the death of the Apostles there existed in every Christian community a body of overseers (bishops). These overseers were ecclesiastical supe- riors; they were appointed for life; they exercised their jurisdiction in virtue of an authority derived from God, through Christ and His Apostles. They were pastors, who enjoyed a legislative, judicial, and a magisterial authority. They also exercised a litur- gical function, the essence of which was the celebra- tion of the Eucharist. They probably controlled the administration of the public alms. St. Paul calls the 8' 1 Peter v. 1 et seq. 88 Cf. 1 Thess. V. 12, 13; 1 Cor. xvi. 15-18; Rom. xii. 4-8; Heb. xiii. 7, 17. THE GOVERNMENT OF THE CHURCH 49 elders of Ephesus overseers, placed by the Holy Ghost to shepherd the Church of God.^^ They by divine right are to direct their local flock according to the received doctrine, and to guard it "from rapacious wolves, whp utter perverse things." In his letter to Timothy,*" St. Paul describes at great length the office of overseer, and the virtues required in candi- dates for the episcopate. The episcopate is not merely a title of honor, but an office, a good work. The candidate must not be a neophyte, nor twice mar- ried; he must be prudent, a teacher, a man of hospi- tality, chaste, sober, modest, gentle, etc.*^ The Epis- tle to Titus brings out more clearly the teaching office of the bishop. The chief duty is "to ex- hort in sound doctrine, and to convince the gain- sayers." St. Peter plainly speaks of the overseers as eccle- siastical superiors, who exercise the pastoral charge, and shepherd the flock by overseeing it.*^ Their au- thority is a local authority. St. Peter insists on the same qualifications as St. Paul ; he condemns the same faults. The Epistle of St. Clement mentions the divine origin and universality of the episcopate. We read: "The Apostles received the Gospel for us from Jesus Christ; Jesus Christ was sent forth from God. So Christ is from God, and the Apostles from Christ. . . . Preaching everywhere in country and town, they »9 Acts XX. 28. *i Titus i. 7-9. *o 1 Tim. iii. 1-7. *" 1 Peter v. 2. 50 STUDIES IN CHURCH HISTOET (the Apostles) appointed their first fruits to be over- seers and deacons unto those that should believe." This is a clear and explicit testimony from one who wrote only thirty years after the death of St. Paul. The writer speaks in the name of the Roman Church, which must certainly have known of the organization set up by the Apostles throughout Christendom. Moreover, he wrote to the Church of Corinth, which held direct relationship with all the other Pauline churches, and in which St. Paul himself had lived for eighteen months. St. Clement proves conclusively that the bishops have a divine right to rule, and that, therefore, the people have no right whatever to set them aside. He also incidentally alludes to the bishop's right of consecrating the Eucharist, i. e., "to offer the gifts blamelessly and holUy." The Didache, or The Doctrine of the Twelve Apos- tles,*^ says: "On the Lord's Day, gather yourselves together, break bread and give thanks, first confess- ing your sins, that your sacrifice may be pure. . . . Elect for yourselves, therefore, overseers and deacons worthy of the law," etc. The writer clearly con- siders the Eucharist a sacrifice, and consequently urges the election of worthy overseers to offer up this sacrifice to the Lord. The overseer must be meek, disinterested, truthful and approved. His teaching must be tested by the rule of tradition, for "whoever shall come and teach you those things that have been said before, receive him; but if the teacher himself "XIV; XVI. THE GOVERNMENT OF THE CHURCH 51 be perverted and teach a different doctrine to the destruction thereof, hear him not. ' ' Some rationalistic scholars, like Harnack and Re- ville, have argued from the Didache that the ministry of the word did not originally belong to the local superiors, but was taken over by them gradually as the prophets died out. But as a matter of fact, the Didache gives not the slightest hint that the local elders or bishops were encroaching on the domain of the prophets, or that the prophets were dying out at this time. The episcopate was an office from the be- ginning of Christianity, whereas prophecy was never more than a gift or charisma. The bishops taught in virtue of the power given them by the Holy Ghost, whereas the prophets taught merely as an instrument of revelation. There is no proof in the New Testament or in primitive writers of Dr. Hatch's theory of a purely administrative episcopate. In all the first century documents, which refer to overseers, there are many references to their functions as pastors, teachers, and liturgical ministers, but not one reference to their being financial administrators. History proves that it was in this very matter of money, which Dr. Hatch considers essential, that temptations were greatest ; yet the New Testament writers insist on every qualifica- tion in episcopal candidates, except that of a good administrator. We learn from St. Paul, the Didache, St. Polycarp, St. Ignatius, and St. Clement that the deacons as- 52 STUDIES IN CHURCH HISTORY sisted the overseers in all the episcopal functions, in discipline, teaching, liturgy, and administration. "When a deacon preaches at the present day, he does so in virtue of the authority delegated to him by the bishop. But it does not seem to have been so in the beginning. In Jerusalem the deacons were the first localized superiors, and therefore must either have held to a certain extent the ordinary jurisdiction of the church or diocese, or have labored with the au- thority delegated to them by the Apostles. With the imposition of hands, they seemed to have received orders and jurisdiction for their higher duties. As far as we can trace the appointment to ecclesi- astical ofSce in apostolic times, we find everywhere the same theory: all power comes from Christ by transmission, and the instrument of transmission is imposition of hands.** When St. Paul tells Titus "to establish elders ia all the cities of Crete," he evidently orders him to organize a diocesan church in every city, as St. Paul himself had done in the provinces of Cilicia, Asia, and Macedonia. Titus is therefore not a diocesan bishop, but an apostolic delegate, exercising a super-episcopal jurisdiction over all tbe churches of Crete. It is very probable that Timothy in like manner was not the diocesan bishop of Ephesus, but a legate exercising an authority over all or the greater part of Proconsular Asia. We know, moreover, that St. Paul sent his dis- "Aots vi; xiv. 22; Titus i; I Tim. iii; v. 22 j Aets Jdii; 2 Tim. i. 8. THE GOVERNMENT OF THE CHURCH 53 ciples to exercise similar missions in Corinth, Phil- ippi, Thessalonica, Galatia, and Dalmatia. Often these legates were sent not to an individual church, but to a whole province. Even when a city is men- tioned, it is usually the metropolis of a large district, so that even in this case the legate's jurisdiction was much wider than that of the local clergy. As far as we can judge from the evidence at hand, the elders were not generally allowed to ordain can- didates for ofilce. Ordination, when necessary, seems to have been conferred by St. Paul or his disciples during their frequent visits to the Christian commu- nities. In the matter of jurisdiction, however, the elders appeared to have enjoyed true episcopal au- thority, if not individually, at least as a corporate body. In the churches founded by St. Paul there is no certain trace of a monarchical bishop before the death of the Apostle. All the documents speak only of a hierarchy of two grades, overseers and deacons, but not one word of a diocesan, monarchical episco- pate. As late as the middle of the second century, many of the Roman provinces possessed only a single monarchical bishop. About the time of St. Ignatius, the monarchical episcopate was practically confined to the Pauline Churches of Asia Minor, and the four great patriarchal sees. But while St. Paul lived, all the churches of Asia Minor were governed by a cor- porate jurisdiction. St. Jerome, in his commentary of the Epistle of 54 STUDIES IN CHURCH HISTORY Titus, maintains that the words presbyter and bishop are synonymous in the New Testament ; the first pres- byters therefore were bishops. Each church was ruled by a college of these presbyter-bishops in the beginning; but the monarchical was afterwards sub- stituted for the collegiate episcopate under stress of circumstances. The change was made by a law of the Universal Church, which took the shape of a binding custom. In his own day bishops were superior to presbyters, not only in jurisdiction, but also in orders. Some non-Catholic scholars maintain that the magisterial authority of the local clergy arose from the fact that they assumed the ministry of the prophets, but the texts cited by no means prove their point There is no evidence, either in apostolic or sub-apostolic times, to show that the prophets ever en- joyed any jurisdiction. The prophetic ministry, ac- cording to St. Paul, was a means of edification, but never a pastorate of the flock. The presbyter-bishops were appointed by the Holy Ghost to teach in the name of Christ, whereas the prophets always claimed a hearing on the basis of immediate inspiration. The two ministries, therefore, were totally different in kind. The prophetic was based on an extraordinary charisma; the pastoral on a divine authority trans- mitted from Christ through the Apostles. The min- istry of the prophets practically disappeared before the end of the first century. As the Church became well established, its necessity was no longer felt, and THE GOVERNMENT OP THE CHUECH 55 the abuses to which it was liable, either from false prophets or from disagreement with local superiors, soon rendered it unnecessary and even hurtful to the religious life of the Church. CHKISTIANITT AND THE ROMAN LAW ^ Charles Boucaud, the eminent professor of the Catholic University of Lyons, has written a most in- teresting study on the beginnings of the canon law, and the changes effected in the old Roman law by the teachings of Christianity. As early as 1837 Frederic Ozanam wrote an article in the TJnwers calling attention to the political and iatellectual influ- ence of Christianity upon the science of law. Later on, in his History of the Civilization of the Fifth Century, he gave an excellent outline of the history of the Roman law, making special mention of the Christian spirit manifested in the laws of the first Christian emperors. About the same time, the emi- nent French jurisconsult Troplong published at Paris (1843) a work entitled The Influence of Christianity on the Roman Civil Law. In this brochure he showed how the teachings of Christianity had transformed the juridical ideas of ancient Rome. His general thesis was bitterly contested by the historic school, particularly by Padeletti. Indeed, for many years it was commonly taught in the schools that the Roman law was practically unaffected by early Christianity. 1 La Premiire tlhauohe d'un Droit Chretien dans le Droit Romain. By Charles Boucaud. Paris: A. Tralin. 56 CHRISTIANITY AND THE EOMAN LAW 57 The thesis of Ozanam has been taken up again in our own days, and defended by three eminent Italian professors, Ferrini of the University of Pavia, Eicco- bono of the University of Palermo, and Carusi of Rome. In 1894 Ferrini published an essay on The Legal Knowledge of Arnolius and Lactantius. Ca- rusi followed with a comparative study of the early Fathers of the Church and the Roman jurisconsults {Diritto Bomano e Patristica), while Riceobono in 1911 studied the influence of Christianity upon the Roman law of the sixth century {Cristianesimo e Di- ritto Privato). Their chief antagonist was Baviera, a professor in the University of Naples, who main- tained that the moral, religious, and doctrinal princi- ples of the Gospel had not exercised any influence whatever upon the juridical institutions of the Ro- mans, except perhaps in the field of public charity, which Christianity organized; that even Justinian's legislation against divorce was inspired more by the policy of Augustus than by the teaching of the Fa- thers of the Church ; that slavery was not modified in any essential manner by Christian principles; that the continued struggle in the Lower Empire in favor of the weak against the strong was prompted solely by the exigencies of everyday life, and the demands of pauperism. Of course, we must remember that Baviera 's conclusions were affected by his rational- ism. In his viewpoint, Christian morals and law are two parallel lines that never meet. Their objects are different; the one refers solely to the future life, 58 STUDIES IN CHURCH HISTORY while the other has to do with everyday practical life, especially in its economic aspect. He upholds an independent morality, and declares that the moral teaching of our Saviour is totally distinct from the moral teaching of St. Paul and of St. Augustine. Christianity owes its origin to the popular despair that characterized the times of Herod, and this de- spair made the people look solely to the other life for the happy reign of the poor and the humble. It is not our purpose to refute here the erroneous views of Baviera on the origin and development of Christianity. Let us simply state that the Christian- ity of St. Paul and the Fathers of the Church is iden- tical with the teaching of Jesus; that whereas the Church assimilated all that was good in the Greco- Roman civilization of the time, it was primarily and essentially a divine teaching and a revelation. It was not merely a heavenly hope born of a disgust with earthly conditions, but a supernatural religion taught by the Son of God, Jesus Christ. It is false to main- tain that because the Christian has ever in view the life to come as the reward of his loyalty to God's law, that therefore he is totally indifferent to the things of this life. He does not declare that justice is to reign only in the hereafter, but he endeavors, as far as possible, to bring it about even in this imper- fect world. Morality is not independent of religion, nor is morality independent of law. A 'priori we are certain that the principles of Christian morality must influence in a special manner the laws of a Christian CHRISTIANITY AND THE EOMAN LAW 59 community, and historically we can prove that they have done so. That the historical problem is a difficult one, we are ready to admit. For, in the first place, it is hard to determine whether the development of nat- ural law and equity in the Eoman law was due to Christianity alone, or to the influence of the Stoic philosophy, which had certainly influenced the classic jurisconsults of an earlier period. In the sec- ond place, it is hard to determine whether the re- forms of the Christian emperors were prompted by the Gospel, or merely by political necessity. We may distinguish three difilerent stages in the influence of Christianity upon the Roman law: The first period lasted until the end of the third century, during which the Gospel teachings were rapidly spreading, although their influence upon the Roman law was only indirect. The second period lasted from the end of the third century until the middle of the fifth. Christianity had now become the official religion of the State, and consequently directly af- fected the Eoman civilization of the time. The Theo- dosian Code, promulgated by the Emperors Theodo- sius II and Valentinian III in 438, clearly witnessed to the growing influence of the Gospel. The third period extended to the time of Justinian in the sixth century, and was undoubtedly a time of triumph for Christian principles. First Period. Every student of early Church his- tory knows of the remarkable spread of Christianity 60 STUDIES IN CHURCH HISTORY during the first three centuries. Even before the time of Constantine, we read of certain emperors being fa- vorable to the new religion, or of having embraced it. Hadrian is praised by both St. Justin and St. Melito of Sardis for publishing an edict that was favorable to the Christians. Septimius Severus had his son Antoninus Caracalla educated by the Christian Proeulus, and is praised by TertuUian for having opposed the pagan demand for persecuting the Christians. Eusebius tells us that Philip the Arab (244-249) was a Chris- tian. Alexander Severus was most friendly to the Christians, and was one time on the point of erecting a temple in honor of Christ. Perhaps it is a mere coincidence, but the fact is certain that the best epoch of the Roman law was precisely the reigns of the Severi and the Antonines. The ideas of justice and equity professed by the eminent Roman lawyers of the third century, had been held by Christians for over a century and a half. It is, therefore, highly probable that Christianity had something to do with the betterment of the Roman law of this time, espe- cially as we notice a great setback during the reign of Julian the Apostate. Second Period. On October 28, 312, Constantine won the famous battle of the Milvian Bridge. Two months afterwards he published the famous edict of Milan, which established liberty of worship, and put an end to the ostracism of the Christian Church. The emperor at once proceeded to make the laws of the empire accord with the principles of the Gospel, CHRISTIANITY AND THE ROMAN LAW 61 without, however, doing too much violence to long- established traditions. His legal and social reforms were thus praised in 321 by the pagan Nazarius: "New laws were established to maintain a high stand- ard of morality and to combat vice. He set aside many of the old legal technicalities of procedure, which were a source of injury to the poor and simple. He upheld decency and strengthened the marriage bond." Following the teaching of St. Paul in the sixth chapter of First Corinthians, the early Christians sub- mitted their differences to the bishops, and did not appeal to the law courts. Under Constantino this Christian custom was sanctioned by the civil law. An imperial constitution, ascribed to Constantino but probably apocryphal, compelled the civil magistrates to hand over a law case to the bishop on demand of one of the litigants, and in such a case the bishop's decision was without appeal. This extraordinary power was done away with by succeeding emperors, who referred to the bishops only those cases that con- cerned the clergy or religious affairs. This was the origin of the ecclesiastical jurisdiction that prevailed aU throughout the Middle Ages. In other matters, the bishop could be appointed arbitrator only on the demand of both litigants. The bishops, according to St. Augustine, were soon overwhelmed with eases; in fact they became the usual defenders and advocates of the weak, captives, widows, and orphans. In 368 the Emperors Valens and Valentinian decreed that 62 STUDIES IN CHURCH HISTORY the bishops should take good care that the merchants did not raise the price of their goods to the detriment of the poor; another time we find the Emperors Leo and Anthemius enacting a law empowering the bishops to see that the soldiers obtained the rations allotted to them, and that the insane and the orphans were pro- vided with tutors and guardians. Georges Goyau, in his book, The Vatican, the Popes and Civilization, has clearly shown the social role played by the Church at that time. He writes: "The Church at that epoch answered all the needs of society; she set in order the disorganized Empire; she substituted order for a state of anarchy. ... It was by entering into the very life of the people that she conquered them. The men of that day did not regard her merely as a consoler, who promised them another life to offset their present misery, and to ap- pease their desire of happiness. She was not exclu- sively a guide to a good death. On the contrary . . . the Church, while telling men that they did not live by bread alone, saw to it that they had bread enough to eat." St. Ambrose, the counselor of the young Emperor Gratian, and the author of a treatise on Roman law, certainly inspired the legislation of the Emperor with the Christian spirit, and later on by bringing the Em- peror Theodosius to his knees, was indirectly responsi- ble for the changes in the Roman law made by him after he had fulfilled his penance. Third Period. The Christianizing of the Roman CHRISTIANITY AND THE EOMAN LAW 63 law reached its full development under the Emperor Justinian in the sixth century. The Corpus Juris Civilis has been compared to the Bible for its influ- ence on the history of Christian civilization. The law codified by Justinian was essentially different from the law set forth by the jurisconsults of the first three centuries. It was promulgated in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, and under the auspices of Al- mighty God ; it spoke plainly of divine providence and of the sovereign Trinity; the imprint of the Gospel teachiug was evident on nearly every page. Jus- tinian was not a mere compiler of the old Roman law ; he was in a true sense a legislator, who wished to breathe a new spirit into the pagan code of the old classic jurisconsults. Despite its technical perfection, the pagan code knew nothing of the piety, humanity, and benignity which characterized the Justinian code ; its crude individualism was utterly alien to the Chris- tian idea of charity and brotherly love, and the Chris- tian notion of the paramount importance of the gen- eral interests and the common good. The first reform to which we call attention is the change in the very notion of right. The Romans had as a maxim : qid suo jure utitur neminem laedit. Jus- tinian changed this, so that in future no one could exercise a right which necessarily implied any injury to his neighbor. The old idea of the sovereign being exempt from all law ^ ceased with the Gospel. We find the Emperors Theodosius II and Valentiaian III 2 Princepa legibita solutus est. 64 STUDIES IN CHURCH HISTORY proclaiming humbly in 429: "The dignity of the sovereign requires him to acknowledge that he is sub- ject to law. Our power is merely the power of the law; it is much nobler to submit to the law than to command others to obey it. Our aim in the present edict, therefore, is to make others know what we for- bid ourselves doing." The same principle is voiced by the Emperors Leo and Anthemius: "A good prince," they say, "believes that he can do only what is allowed to individual citizens ; and, if he is liberal, he wishes to be so according to law," etc. The imperial constitutions of the Lower Empire insist upon the divine origin of sovereignty, and teach unequivocally the religious and social duties of the State. They regard authority as a sacred deposit which the prince is bound to use for the good of the people and the benefit of the weak. They are very much concerned about having the laws of the State and the laws of the Church agree. They trace the origin of the civil laws to the disobedience of men to the laws of God. It is not at all surprising, therefore, to find the first elements of social polity in the Roman law of the Lower Empire. We call special attention to the legis- lation regarding the Sunday rest, inaugurated by Con- stantino and continued by his successors; the regula- tion of the brutal law of supply and demand through the arbitration of the bishops; the first attempts at State help in the matter of hospitals, free medical services, and the like. Under the old Roman law a CHRISTIANITT AND THE ROMAN LAW 65 slave was a thing, not a person, to be classed with horses, cows, and mules. Under the influence of Christianity, he became a person with certain well- defined rights. While the Church did not abolish slavery directly, she taught principles, like the equal- ity of all men in the sight of God and Christ Jesus, which eventually drove it out of the Christian com- monwealth. Constantine was the first to decree that the master who killed his slave was guilty of murder ; he forbade a master to expose the children of slaves; he prohibited the cold-blooded separation of the mem- bers of a slave's family; he permitted laymen to set their slaves free in the presence of the priest in Church, and clerics to enfranchise them without any formality whatever. Justinian in like manner passed many laws in their favor. He abolished all the old restrictions of the laws Fufia Caninia, Mlia Sentia, and Junia, regarding enfranchisement, and did away with the social inferiority which hitherto had charac- terized them; they were to have a liberty "pure, spot- less, and perfect." He prohibited non-Catholics from possessing Christian slaves; he abolished the servitus poenae, which reduced criminals to slavery, and the law of Claudian which punished with slavery a free woman who had immoral relations with a slave; he settled the old controversy about the freeing of a slave who belonged to different masters. Leo the Philosopher freed the man who had sold himself into slavery under false pretenses, and safeguarded the marriage of a slave and a free person. Alexis Com- 66 STUDIES IN CHURCH HISTORY nenus made it easy for a slave to obtain his freedom even against his master's will, and recognized the validity of his marriage. The Church had fought for the indissolubility of the marriage bond by the clear explicit teaching of her Fathers and the censures of her Councils. "Dif- ferent are the laws of Caesar and the laws of Christ ; different the teaching of Papinian and of St. Paul," wrote St. Jerome, apropos of divorce permitted by the Roman law. Not content with condemning divorce, the Church did her utmost to make the State declare in favor of the indissolubility of marriage. The Council of Mileve, for example, demanded of the em- peror new legislation on marriage more in accord with the teaching of the Gospel. Constantine limited the number of legal causes for divorce, and his exam- ple was followed by succeeding emperors like Theo- dosius and Justinian. We may mention in passing many other reforms passed under the inspiration of the Gospel teaching. The Christian emperors protected the rights of chil- dren of a first marriage when the father married again; they frowned down upon illegitimacy; they protected children against the parental despotism of the old Roman law ; they abolished the old pagan laws enacted to discourage celibacy; they accorded to the widow a fourth of her deceased husband's property; they favored pious foundations and works of charity; they mitigated the severity of the prisons, and abol- CHRISTIANITY AND THE ROMAN LAW 67 ished some of the harshest penalties of the criminal code. St. Gregory has been rightly styled the founder of mediaeval Christian Europe, and the founder of the Church's canon law. Non-Catholic historians like Dudden consider him one of the most notable figures in ecclesiastical history. He says of him: "He exer- cised in many respects a momentous influence. . . . To him we must look for an explanation of the reli- gious situation of the Middle Ages; indeed, if no ac- count were taken of his work, the evolution of the form of mediaeval Christianity would be almost inex- plicable." We are not concerned here with his litur- gical reforms, his missionary activity, his political foresight, or his fostering of monasticism. We merely call attention to his social influence as one of the rich- est landowners of the period. In his time the total area of the States of the Church were from thirteen hmidred to eighteen hundred square miles, and the income he derived from them was about $1,500,000 a year. As his biographer John the Deacon put it, "the Church had become the granary of the world." He had agents everywhere, in Italy, Gaul, Africa, Corsica, Sicily, and Dalmatia, who rendered an ac- count to him regularly of every modius of corn and every solidus paid by his farmers. He tells the bish- ops of his time that "they were to be responsible not only for the salvation of souls, but for the temporal good of all the people under their charge." In all 68 STUDIES IN CHURCH HISTORY his letters he continually speaks of this vast property as the patrimony of the poor, and urges his agents never to augment their revenue at the expense of the poor. The bishops are to divide their income into four parts: First, for the maintenance of the bish- op's house and the requirements of hospitality; sec- ond, for the clergy; third, for the poor, and fourth, for the upkeep of the Churches. Nothing was too small to escape his notice. We find him writing about the wages of the shepherds, the selling and breeding of cattle, the injustice of some of his offlcers towards the peasants, colonists, and slaves, and the wickedness of burdensome rents and usury. Ever and always he is, as Pope Pius X calls him in his encyclical Jucunda sane, "the defender of social jus- tice," or as John the Deacon put it, "the prudentissi- mus paterfamilias Christi." His teaching on riches is scattered throughout his homilies, his letters, his morals, and his liber pastoralis curae. In the first place, he sets forth in eloquent words the mystic beauty of poverty, and denounces most vehemently the avarice of the proud rich. He next defends the lawfulness of private ownership. He tells us not to confound private ownership with the love of riches. One can be rich without being at- tached to the goods of this life, although the true Christian must ever be detached in spirit. We read of his protest to the Empress against the injustice done to owners of property in Corsica and Sardinia, and his defense of the Jews against the anti-Semitism CHRISTIANITY AND THE ROMAN LAW 69 of his time. Lastly, he never fails to insist upon the duties of the rich man towards the poor. Almsgiving is a rigorous obligation, which our Lord has sanctioned by an everlasting reward. In a striking passage of his Morals, he says that ' ' the poor are not the clients of the rich, but the rich are the mystical clients of the poor, depending upon their friendship to attain eter- nal life." The only reproach ever made to Pope Gregory was that he emptied the treasury of the Church by his excessive benefactions. This is proof enough that he carried out his principles in practice. BIBLIOGRAPHY Sumner-Mayne — Etudes sur I'Histoire du Droit. Beach — Le Droit Civil en Amerique. Demangeat — Cours de Droit Bomain. Carusi — Diritto Romano e Patristica. Riccobono — Cristianesimo e Diritto Privato. Ferrini — Storia delle fonti del Diritto. Baviera — Concetto e Limiti dell' Influenza del Cristianesimo sul Diritto Romano. Lactantius — Institutiones Divvnce. Rivalta — Diritto Romano e Positivo. De Broglie — L'lSglise et I'Empire Romain au IT Sidcle. Claudio Jannet — Les Qrandes Epoques de I'Histoire tlcono- mique. Godefroy Kurth — Les Origines de la Civilisation Moderne. Ozanam — Melanges. Ozanam — Bistoire de la Civilisation au F Siiele. Troplong — L'Influence du Ohristianisme sur le Droit Civil des Romains. Hervg-Bazin — Les Orandes Journies de la Chr6tient4. Edouard Cuq. — Les Institutions Juridiques des Romains. Goyau — Le Vatican, les Papes, et la Civilisation. 70 STUDIES IN CHURCH HISTORY Ihering — Eistoire du D^veloppment du Droit Bomain. AUard — Les Esclaves Chretiens. Dudden — St. Gregory the Great. THE ASSUMPTION OF THE BLESSED VIRGIN ^ The term Assumption in Catholic theology connotes three distinct things, viz., the death of the Blessed Virgin; her resurrection soon after death; and her entrance, body and soul, into heaven. In Christian antiquity, the terms used to signify the Feast of the Assumption — dormitio (sleeping), pausatio (pause), transitus (passing to eternity), deposito (placing in the grave) — emphasized particularly the fact of the Blessed Virgin's death, although by metonymy they also designated her resurrection and assumption. The words in themselves prove nothing against the doctrine, for as late as the fifteenth century, when no one questioned the Assumption, ecclesiastical writers were still using the term dormitio. "We must remem- ber, too, that in primitive Christianity the word assumptio was frequently used to designate the death of the saints, especially of the martyrs, as we may read in the Hieronymian Martyrology. At the pres- ent time, the word assumptio ^ is used exclusively to designate the Blessed Virgin's entrance into heaven, body and soul. It is employed in direct contrast to ^La Doctrine de VAsaomption de la T. S. Viirge — 8a Defina- hUM comme Dogme de Foi Divine Catholique. By D. Paul Eenaudin. Paris: Pierre Tequi. 2 Mark xvi. 19; Acts 1. 2, 11, 22. 71 72 STUDIES IN CHURCH HISTORY the active term ascensio, which signifies our Lord's bodily entrance into heaven of His own divine power. His Mother's assumption was due solely to the power of Almighty God. It is universally held to-day that the Blessed Virgin died before she was assumed into heaven. St. Epiph- anius (+403) is the only one of the early Fathers who is uncertain on this point, for he says: "I say not that she did not die, yet I am not certain that she did die." ^ A few theologians, moreover, in the seven- teenth and nineteenth centuries, held that she did not die because of her Immaculate Conception, but they had little or no following. When and where the Blessed Virgin died are mat- ters of mere conjecture. The dates assigned for her death — A. D. 41-48 — rest on no sure historical founda- tion. Both Ephesus and Jerusalem claim to be her place of burial. The scholars who declare for Ephe- sus, point to the fact that Our Lord from the cross confided His Mother to St. John, and rely on a false rendering of a very obscure text of the Synodal letter of the Council of Ephesus in 431. In very recent times, Monsignor Timoni, Archbishop of Smyrna, and others quote confidently the rather doubtful discov- ery of the house of the Blessed Virgin unearthed at Panaghai Capouli, near Ephesus. The scholars who declare for Jerusalem, rely upon a number of apocry- phal writings which are valuable for their antiquity and unanimity, the accounts of ancient pilgrimages, sAdv. Ecer., 78. ASSUMPTION OF BLESSED VIRGIN 73 such as the itinerary of Antoninus of Piaeenza, and some other testimonies of the sixth, seventh, and eighth centuries. The Jerusalem tradition is two- fold, some authorities favoring Gethsemani on the Mount of Olives, and others the house of the Cenacle in Jerusalem itself. It is only in the second half of the sixth century, that we meet with the first authentic and unquestioned documents, treating of the doctrine of the Assumption. It is true that there are a great number of apocryphal writings of the first five centuries that mention both the doctrine and the feast, but scholars to-day are unanimous in declaring these references interpolations of a later date, or pseudo-writings of periods as late as the twelfth century, full of imaginary and legend- ary details. The chief of these apocrypha are as fol- lows: Prior to the Council of Ephesus: The Gospel of the Twelve Apostles; The Death of the Virgin, by Leueius, a pseudo-companion of the Apostles; and a Syriac work, The Obsequies of the Holy Virgin, frag- ments of which have been published by Dr. "Wright in 1865. After the Council of Ephesus : A Coptic text, pub- lished by Zoego in his Catalogus Codicum Copticorum; the Gospels of the pseudo- Gamaliel and St. Bartholo- mew; the De Transitu Marice Virginis of the fifth cen- tury, attributed to St. Melito of Sardis (+ 194) ; the fifth century accounts attributed to St. John {De Obitu Sanctm Domince), to St. Joseph of Arimathea, 74 STUDIES IN CHURCH HISTORY and to St. Dionysius the Areopagite (De Divinis Nominihus) ; the interpolation in the Chronicle of Eusebius, which is not found in the oldest marni- scripts ; the recently-discovered Letter of St. Dionysius to Bishop Titus, which Nirschl has rather arbitrarily dated 363 A. D. ; a Sermon of St. Jerome, probably of the twelfth century, although Archbishop Hincmar defended its authenticity against a monk of Corbie; a Sermon of St. Augustine {De Assumptione) of the twelfth century, and a Treatise on the Assumption, which is probably the work of Pulbert of Chartres (+1029). The principal authority for the details of the Blessed Virgin's death is St. John Damascene (+ eirc. 760), who tells us that he relies on the authority of a certain unknown writer, Euthymius. Pulcheria, the wife of the Emperor Marcion (450-457), had erected a Church of Our Lady in a suburb of Constantinople known as Blachemae. "Wishing to bury the body of the Blessed Virgin there, she wrote Bishop Juvenal of Jerusalem to that effect, but he informed her that the body of the Mother of God was not to be found in his episcopal city. She had indeed been buried in the Garden of Gethsemani, in the presence of all the Apos- tles save St. Thomas. He arrived three days after the burial, and wishing to venerate the body of the Blessed Virgin, had the tomb opened. The tomb was found empty, save for the linen grave clothes, which emitted a fragrant perfume. Whereupon the Apos- tles concluded that the Lord had taken up her body ASSUMPTION OF BLESSED VIRGIN 75 with Him into heaven.* All scholars regard this ac- count as purely legendary, especially as Bishop Juve- nal was an adept at forgery. His literary dishonesty was most bitterly denounced by Pope Leo I in a letter to Maximus of Antioch." Eationalistic critics like Renan ^ have often asserted that the Catholic belief in the Assumption depended entirely upon these apocryphal and legendary writ- ings. This is not the fact. The Church has never drawn her teaching from such impure sources. On the contrary, she has utterly ignored and distrusted them, forbidding, in the so-called Decree of Gelasius, the faithful even to read the most important of them all, the De Transitu Mariw of the pseudo-Melito. Moreover, although she inserted in the office of the fourth day within the Octave of the Assumption, the account of St. John Damascene, which reproduced, as the text declared, "an ancient and very trustworthy tradition," she very carefully suppressed the words "very trustworthy," so as not to vouch for the leg- endary details connected with the doctrine. There are two views among Catholic scholars re- garding the value and use of these apocryphal writ- ings. Some maintain that they may be cited as an historical proof of the Church's belief at the time of their composition, and, though we may set aside the legendary details, that we are to accept the fact of the Assumption as a doctrine handed down by the * P. L. xcvi, col. 690. 5 p. L. liv., col. 1,044. « Origines du Christianisme, vol. vi, p. 513. 76 STUDIES IN CHURCH HISTORY Church's oral tradition. Others hold that it is better to ignore their testimony altogether, until we become more certain of their origin, and date of composition. At any rate, the Church is, in her belief, perfectly independent of these apocryphal documents, and could see them all disappear with the greatest equanimity. For as Dom Renaudin says : " It is not probable that the opinion of an author, more or less trustworthy, originating in the fifth century, could have suddenly spread throughout the East and West, in such a way as to be accepted by Churches widely separated from one another, and to have caused in so many different cities the immediate institution of a solemn feast. Such an agreement could not have been the result of chance. It must have come about through the uni- versal persuasion among the Christian people that the doctrine of the Assumption was officially taught as the authentic teaching of an apostolic oral tradi- tion."' Some one might object that it seems strange the Fathers of the first five centuries are silent about the doctrine of the Assumption. But as St. Augustine said in his treatise on Baptism : ^ " There are many things that the Universal Church maintains, and that we reasonably believe were preached by the Apostles, although they never have been put in writing." In matters of tradition and belief, prescription in the Church has the force of law, and the providential rule 7 De la Definition Dogmatique de I'Aasomption. Angers, 1900, p. 21. 8 V. 23, P. L. xliii, col. 192. ASSUMPTION OF BLESSED VIRGIN 77 of doctrinal development permits of a teaching that was implicitly held at one age, being explicitly set forth in the Church's preaching, liturgy, and written testimony of a later age. The dogma of the Immacu- late Conception is another instance in point, for there are no explicit testimonies for it in the first few cen- turies. It became prominent about the same time as the doctrine of the Assumption, i.e., in the sixth cen- tury. Moreover, we may readily conjecture some reasons for the silence of the early Fathers. Perhaps they feared that certain heretics might cite this doctrine in proof of their errors. The Valentinians, for instance, might have used it to confirm their heretical notions about the body of the Saviour, which they thought was formed of a celestial and impassable substance. Perhaps, again, they may have kept the cultus of the Blessed Virgin in the background, because of the people's proneness to idolatry at that time. Besides, in those days of bitter persecution and bitter con- troversy on the most essential dogmas of the faith, it is easy to see how a subsidiary doctrine like the As- sumption might rarely have been mentioned. From what we learn of the clear teaching of the sixth cen- tury onwards, we are right in concluding that the only satisfactory explanation of the origin of this doctrine, is the firm conviction of the Church of its being a doctrine handed down by oral tradition from the Apostles. From the very first days of Christianity there was 78 STUDIES IN CHURCH HISTORY an instinctive feeling among Christians that prompted them to celebrate the days on which the martyrs suf- fered. Later on, the custom spread with regard to other classes of saints, such as virgins, confessors, and the like. The Church naturally met this popular feeling by making these anniversaries public solemni- ties, or feasts. It would seem natural for the faithful to celebrate in some way the death of the Mother of God, especially after the Council of Ephesus. As most of the ancient feasts originated either at the tomb of a martyr, or at some of the holy places in Palestine, it may be conjectured that the Feast of the Assumption arose near the tomb of the Blessed Virgin at Gethsemani. One of the earliest feasts we know of "in memory of the Holy and Ever Virgin Mary, Mother of God," was kept at Antioeh about the year 380. It com- memorated the death of the Blessed Virgin, but said nothing of her Assumption.* In a life of St. Theo- dosius (+ 529), a monk who lived near Jerusalem in the sixth century, there is mention of a solemn feast of the Blessed Virgin which Baumer conjectures to have been a Feast of the Assumption.^" He places the date as 507, but gives no reasons for his hypothesis. The Emperor Maurice (582-602), the friend and contemporary of St. Gregory the Great, is said to have ordered the Feast of the Assumption to be solemnly kept throughout the Empire on the fifteenth of Au- Bavunstark, Romische Quwrtalschrift, 1897, p. 55. 11 Histowre du Br6mwire, vol. i, p. 267. ASSUMPTION OP BLESSED VIRGIN 79 gust. Although this fact comes to us on the authority of a Greek historian of the fourteenth century, Ni- cephorus Callisti (+1341), it is generally accepted as authentic by modern liturgists and historians. He certainly had access to many documents that are now lost. St. Modestus, Patriarch of Jerusalem (-|-634), is one of the oldest unquestioned testimonies that comes to us from the East. He wrote a panegyric on the Assumption, which, while full of legendary details, bears clear witness to the existence of the feast as early as the seventh century.^^ According to KeUner,^^ the feast in the East was certainly older than the sixth century, "for not only the heretical sects, which separated from the Church in the fifth century, such as the Monophysites and the Nestorians, preserved this festival at the time of their separation, but most ancient national Churches, such as the Armenians and the Ethiopians, have it in their calendars."^' In the "West the most ancient writer to speak of the Assumption is St. Gregory of Tours (+593).^* He writes: "The Lord had the most holy body (of the Virgin) taken into heaven, where, reunited to her soul, it now enjoys, with the elect, happiness without lip. G. iKxxvi, cols. 3,277-3,312. ^^ Heortology, p. 237. 13 The belief in the Assumption was solemnly professed by the Armenian Bishops at the Council of Sis in 1342 (Mansi, 25, 1, 185), and by the Greeks at the Council of Jerusalem in 1672. i« De Gloria Mart., i, 109 ; P. L. xxxi, col. 708. 80 STUDIES IN CHURCH HISTORY end. . . . Mary, the glorious Mother of Christ, was taken up into heaven by the Lord, whilst the angelie choirs sang hymns of joy." In another passage,^'' he tells us that a feast of the Blessed Virgin was solemnly celebrated with a vigil about the middle of the eleventh month, i. e., January. Many believe the feast referred to is the Feast of the Assumption, but others think he alludes to the Feast of the Maternity. The first clear mention of the feast in the West is in the Canons of Bishop Sonnatius of Rheims, which were composed about the year 630." Le Blant ^' has called attention to an inscription of the year 676, which clearly speaks of the feast celebrated on August 15. Other seventh century witnesses of the feast are the Gothic Missal,^' the Galilean Missal,^" and the Bobbie Missal, which was used by Irish missionaries in Gaul. We have no information whatever regarding the introduction of the Feast of the Assumption into Rome. We know that the oldest feast of Our Lady celebrated there was on January 1, the Octave of Our Saviour's birth. It was first kept at Santa Maria Maggiore, and later at Santa Maria ad Martyres. All other feasts of Our Lady were probably of Byzantine origin. Under Sergius I (687-701), the Feast of the Assumption was, with the Feasts of the Nativity and the Annunciation, one of the chief Roman solemnities. "/6id., 713. if>p. L. ixxx, col. 446. ^''Inscriptions Cr4t. de la Gaule, vol. i, p. 181. 18 No. 317 in Queen Christina's Collection at the Vatican Library. i» No. 493 in the Palatine Collection at the Vatican. ASSUMPTION OF BLESSED VIRGIN 81 The Liber Pontificalis speaks of it,^" without implying in any way that it was of recent institution, so that some scholars have inferred that it went back to the days of Pope Gregory the Great (590-604). Du- chesne denies this emphatically, saying: "It is cer- tain that the Feasts of the Nativity and the Dormitio of the Blessed Virgin were not in existence in the time of St. Gregory. Not only does he never make men- tion of them, but the same is true of all the documents bearing on the Roman usage prior to, or considered prior to, the sixth century, such as the Calendar of Carthage, the Leonian Sacramentary, etc. But what is still more conclusive, these festivals were still un- known to the Anglo-Saxon Church at the beginning of the eighth century. ' ' ^^ About 847, Leo IV ordered the Feast of the As- sumption to be celebrated with a vigil and octave in the basilica of St. Lawrence without the walls. We do not hear of it again for a century. In 858, Pope Nicholas I, in his response to the Bulgarians, mentions the fast on the vigil of the Assumption as " an ancient custom." Duchesne believes that this feast is a Byzantine im- portation, which came from Rome to Gaul with the Roman liturgy. Kellner questions this, saying : "In the Gothic-Gallican Missal of the seventh or eighth century, edited by Mabillon, the festival is placed on January 18 and not on August 15, as is also the case 20 Edit. Duchesne, vol. i, p. 376. 21 Duchesne, Christian Worship, p. 272. 82 STUDIES IN CHURCH HISTORY in the Lectionary of Luxeuil of the seventh century. This circumstance points to the conclusion that, inde- pendently of Byzantine influence, it was observed al- ready at an earlier date in other parts of the Church as well, and came into existence spontaneously, so to speak. ' ' ^^ There is a great deal of uncertainty about the date on which the Feast of the Assumption was celebrated. The primitive date in the West seems to have been January 18, for that is the day mentioned in Gregory of Tours, the Lectionary of Luxeuil, the Bobbio Missal, and in many of the ancient calendars and martyrolo- gies. Baumer says that the monks in Egypt and Arabia kept this date, and that the monks of Gaul adopted it with many other usages of Egypt. In the Greek Church, some observed the feast in January with the monks of Egypt, and some in August with the monks of Palestine. The Emperor Maurice most likely made the observance uniform in the seventh century. One martyrology of the West ^^ speaks of January 22, and the Coptic Church placed the feast on January 16 (21 Tybi). In the eighth and ninth centuries, we find the feast mentioned by the Council of Salsburg in 799, by the Council of Mayence in 813, in the rule of St. Chrode- gang. Bishop of Mayence, and in the laws of Herard, Archbishop of Tours. In the East, we have three homilies each of St. Andrew, Archbishop of Crete 22 Heortology, p. 238. 28 Martyr. Luccense of Fiorentini. ASSUMPTION OP BLESSED VIRGIN 83 (-f 720), St. Germanus, Patriarch of Constantinople (+733), and of St. John Damascene (+760). It is also mentioned by Cosmas, Bishop of Majuma in Palestine (+781), St. Theodore Studites (+826), and St. Joseph the Hymnographer (+833). From this time the witnesses become more numerous. It is true that at the end of the eighth and during part of the ninth century, there were some writers who either questioned the fact of the Assumption, or de- clared, in view of the apocryphal accounts of it, that "piety and honesty both demanded a confession of ignorance" on the part of the Catholic scholar. For example, a pseudo-letter of St. Jerome to Paula and Eustochium of the eighth century, written probably by Abbot Autbert of St. Vincent, warns the faithful against the apocryphal Be Transitu Virgmis, and urges them "not to take its doubtful assertions for certain truth. ' ' The writer then adds : ' ' Many of us doubt whether she was assumed together with her body, or whether she departed this life, having sepa- rated from her body. How, when or by whom her most sacred body was taken away, where it was conveyed, or Vv^hether she rose again, we do not know. "24 The supposed authority of St. Jerome misled a number of mediasval theologians, who professed utter ignorance of the fact of the Assumption. Among them we may mention the martyrologies of Ado and Usuard (858 and 860), the Capitularies of Charle- 24 P. L. XXX, col. 122. 84 STUDIES IN CHURCH HISTORY magne, the writings of the pseudo- Augustine and Idel- phonsus. But, as the Abbe Renaudin asserts, "these are only rare discordant Yoices in the general concert of homage rendered to the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin by the Popes, the liturgies of the East and West, the teaching of the Fathers, the preaching of the Bishops, and the firm conviction of the faithful everywhere. ' ' Since the ninth century, the doctrine has rarely been questioned. In August, 1497, the Dominican, Jean Moreelle, while preaching in St. Benedict's Church of Paris, made a number of statements con- trary to the accepted teaching on the Assumption. He was forced at once by the Sorbonne to retract. At the Cathedral of Paris, Usuard's martyrology, which ignored the Assumption, was read until 1540, when a homily explicitly setting forth the doctrine was substituted. A century later (1668), Canon Claude Joly managed to have the old martyrology re- stored, and at once a bitter controversy arose, in which the orthodox doctrine was ably defended against him by two other doctors of the University, Jacques Gaudin and Nicolas Billiard. Some of the Jansenists denied the Assumption, for in one of their books on the Rosary we read : "We must keep silence about the Assumption, and not honor the Blessed Vir- gin by rashness and lying. ' ' ^' The French historian Tillemont said that he was opposed to the doctrine of the Assumption "according to the principles of his- 25 La Solide Divotion du Boaaire. ASSUMPTION OF BLESSED VIRGIN 85 tory, and not according to the principles of theology, ' ' a false distinction condemned in the modernism of the twentieth century. Noel Alexander also ques- tioned this doctrine, but when called to account for it by his superiors, he asserted that he had simply meant to teach "that the Assumption was not a dogma de- fined by the Church. "=« The last controversy on the doctrine dates from the end of the eighteenth century. Dr. Marant, a pro- fessor of history at Louvain, denied, in the name of historical criticism, the fact of the Assumption, and when accused of rashness by some of the other pro- fessors, wrote a work against it, which was refuted by the Abbes Salmon, Van den Baviere, and Van den Driesch (1787, 1788). All these controversies in the long run were beneficial, as they resulted in theolo- gians carefully distinguishing the solid from the faulty arguments frequently brought forward by over- zealous but not over-learned disputants. For exam- ple, it is generally admitted to-day that the two texts often cited in the past to prove the Assumption — Luke i. 28, and Genesis iii. 15 — are by no means rigor- ous proofs, although once the doctrine is otherwise proved, they might give some intimation of the true teaching. The Abbe E^naudin devotes some thirty pages to the Scriptural proofs of the doctrine, but we were not impressed with this part of his work. It is true he sets forth accurately the typical sense of the Sacred Scriptures, and its use and interpretation by 28 Hist. Eccles. II, oh. ii, art. 3, sec. 1. 86 STUDIES IN CHURCH HISTORY Our Lord," St. Paul,^^ and the other Apostles.^' But he fails to grasp that the use of such types as the Ark of Noah, the Ark of the Covenant, the Burning Bush, the Spouse of the Canticle of Canticles, etc., with reference to the Assumption of Our Lady is merely oratorical coloring, and in no sense dogmatic proof. In a most important chapter, entitled "The Divine Apostolic Tradition," the Abbe Renaudin shows con- clusively that the Assumption is a doctrine that could only have originated by a special revelation of Our Lord to the Apostles. ' ' How did they know this doc- trine?" he asks, and then he suggests five different hypotheses : 1. They inferred the Assumption from the fact that they did not find the Blessed Virgin's body in the tomb (St. John Damascene) ; 2. They saw her body miraculously carried up to heaven by the ministry of angels; 3. They saw her going up to heaven as once they had seen the Lord; 4. They perceived her body in heaven, as St. Stephen once saw the heavens opened ; or, 5. God revealed this prerogative of His Mother by a special revelation. He concludes in favor of the last hypothesis, de- claring that only on this supposition can we account for the wide and general acceptance of this doctrine 27 Matt, xvli, 12; ixi. 42; Mark xii. 10; Luke xx. 17; John iii. 14: xiii. 18. and xv. 25. 28 1 Cor. XV. 45; Eom. v. 14; Gal. iv. 22; Col. ii. 16. 20 1 Peter iii. 20, 21; John xix. 36. ASSUMPTION OF BLESSED VIRGIN 87 ly the faithful, and its clear presentation to us to-day )y the Church's ordinary magisterium. He tells us in detail of the various supplica that lave been forwarded to Rome in late years in favor if the definition of the doctrine of the Assumption as i dogma of faith, though he is very careful to state hat at present "the doctrine is only certain, and not ;o be denied without the greatest rashness." The ffdinary magisterium has not as yet given any pro- louncement regarding its origin, and has not as yet presented it to the faithful as a part of the deposit of ;he faith. He hopes with many a devout soul that some day it will be promulgated by the Church as a iogma of the faith, as in 1854 the Immaculate Concep- tion was by Pope Pius IX. BIBLIOGRAPHY Batiffol — The Roman Bremary. Baumer — Eistoire du Briviaire. Benedict XIV— Oe Festis B. V. M. Bishop— r/ie Book of Gerne. dagin — PaUographie Miisicale. Du Cange — Glossarium infimw Latinitatis. Le Camus — Les Sept Sglises de I'Apocalypse. Dictionnaire d'Arch. Chr^t. et de Liturgie, vol. i. Dictionnaire de la Bible, vol. i. Dictionnaire de TMologie Catholique, vol. i. Duchesne — Christian Worship. Forbes — The Ancient Liturgies of the Qallican Church. Gabrielovich — Le Tornbeau de la 8. V. A £lphese. Hurter — Nomenclator Literarius. Holwerk — Fasti Mariani. Hergenrother — Hist, de Vtlglise, vol. i, pp. 230-232. Kellner — Heortologia. 88 STUDIES IN CHURCH HISTORY Mabillon — Museum Italioum. Martigny — Diet, des Antiquit4s Chr&t. Nirschl — Das Grab, der heil Jungfraw Maria. Probst — Die Ahendldndische Messe, Renaudin — De La Definition Dogmatique de I'Assomption. Terrien — La Mire de Dieu. Thomassin — TraitS des FStes de I'ilglise. Tillemont — M4moirea. Monsignor Timoni — Panaghai-CapouU, ou Maison de la 8. V. Tischendorf — Apocalypses Apocryphw. THE EDICT OP POPE CALLISTUS ^ In the opening chapter of TertuUian's book On Modesty {Be Pudicita), we read: "I hear that there has been an Edict set forth, and a peremptory one, too. The Pontifex Maximus — that is, the Bishop of bishops — issues an Edict: I remit the sins both of adultery and fornication to such as have fulfilled (the requirements of) penance." Ever since the seventeenth century scholars have argued about the meaning of this Edict. It was once ascribed to Pope Zephyrinus,^ but since the discovery of the Philosophwmena of Hippolytus in 1851,^ all agree in attributing it to Pope Callistus (A. D. 220). Some maintain that this decree evidenced a profound revolution in the Church's penitential discipline, which had hitherto excommunicated in perpetuity all baptized Christians guilty of the three capital sins of murder, apostasy, and impurity.* Others hold that the Edict merely sanctioned the traditional discipline which was rejected by the Mon- 1 L'^dit de Calliste; £!tude sur les Origines de la Penitence Chritienne. By Adhemar d'A16s. Paris: Gabriel Beauchesne. 2 Petavius, De Posnitentia publica, lib. 2, cb. ii, p. 244. (A.D. 1644.) 3 "He (Callistus) was the first to forgive men sins of im- purity, by declaring that he forgave all sins." Philos. ix, 12. * Petavius, Funk, Boudinhon, Batififol, Tixeront, Pohle, Vacandard, and Eauschen. 89 90 STUDIES IN CHUECH HISTORY tanists of the third century, and that it attained undue prominence on account of the bitter attacks of Ter- tuUian and Hippolytus.^ The Abbe d'Ales, in the present treatise, is a firm believer in the second theory, which he has defended before in the pages of the Bevue du Clerge Frangais," and in his two works on The Theology of Tertullian and The Theology of Hippolytus.'' While admitting that the controversy has a dogmatic side, inasmuch as it concerns the historical exercise of the power of the keys, he declares it to be primarily an historical question, to be decided only after a careful consider- ation of the texts of the first three centuries. Grant- ing that the Church possessed the power of pardon, did she, or did she not, for weighty reasons, refrain from exercising this power in regard to capital crimes? Such a problem cannot be solved a priori, as some un- reasonable opponents of the historical method main- tain. As Dr. Pohle well says: "We strongly insist upon the dogmatic theologian bowing before the facts of history, even though they appear extraordinary, and seeking to acquire a better understanding of the spirit of the primitive Church. Nothing can be more unfair than to judge the past by the present. An- tiquity must be viewed in its historical setting and judged in its own light. "^ B Morinus, Monceaux, Seeburg, Esser, and Stufler. 6 Vol. i, pp. 337-365. ' La ThMogie de Tertullien; La TMologie de Saint Hip- polyte. 8 Lehrbuch der Dogmatik, vol. iii, p. 404. THE EDICT OF POPE CALLISTUS 91 In Chapter II the Abbe d'Ales proves that our 3aviour gave the pardoning power-7-the power to jind and loose — to St. Peter, when He appointed him lead of the apostolic body ; * that the power granted to John ^° and to the other Apostles '•^ was merely an extension of the power granted to St. Peter, the f oun- iation rock on which the Church was to be built.^^ The authenticity of these texts is maintained against those rationalistic critics who arbitrarily place them 3ven as late as the beginning of the third cen- tury.^* He next discusses those Scriptural texts which are said to deny the Church's power of pardoning all sins. [n St. Matthew 's Gospel, our Saviour said to the Jews who refused to admit His miraculous power: "He that shall speak against the Holy Ghost, it shall not be forgiven him, neither in this world nor in the R^orld to come. " ^* A careful study of the context prill make it clear that there was no question of any limitation being put upon the pardoning power of the Church. The unpardonable sin was the Pharisees' Dbstinate denial of all divine power: that hatred of God which closed the eyes to the light, and rendered the soul incapable of pardon. ' ' The sin of the Phari- sees was more of an attitude of mind than a particu- lar action; they persistently despised Him, Who was the Way, the Truth, and the Life." 9 Matt, xvi, 19. 11 Matt, xviii. 18. 10 John XX. 23. 12 Matt, xvi, 18. 13 Eesch, Aussereanonische Paralleltexte, vol. ii, pp. 187-196. " Matt. xii. 32. 92 STUDIES IN CHURCH HISTORY The passages from the Epistle to the Hebrews,'" which are frequently quoted to prove the existence of unpardonable sins, do not, as Harnack'^ maintains, picture the primitive Church as "a society of saints, entirely opposed to the principle of penance, at least for grave sins, and consequently closed to repentant Christians. ' ' On the contrary, the author of this let- ter was writing to converts who were inclined to make little of their baptism, and who needed strengthening against all thought of relapsing into Judaism. The apostasy he denounced was "a persistent and obstinate apostasy." When St. John speaks of "the sin unto death'"' and denies those guilty of it the benefit of Christian prayers, he has in mind only those who have been ex- communicated for grave sins. The children of the devil,'^ by their persistence in sin, render themselves incapable of pardon. The New Testament clearly teaches that the Apos- tles considered their pardoning power unlimited. St. Peter does not despair of Simon Magus, but says to him: "Do penance, therefore, for this thy wicked- ness; and pray to God, that perhaps this thought of thy heart may be forgiven thee. ' ' '" St. Paul in his second letter to Corinth pardons the sinner whom he had excommunicated in the first.^" St. James,^' St. "Heb. vi. 4-8; x. 28, 27; xli. 16, 17. 16 Lehrbuch der Dogmengeschichte, vol. i, p. 439. 17 1 John V. 16. 20 2 Cor. ii. 10. 18 John viii. 44. 21 James iv. 8-9; v, 15-16. 19 Acta viii. 22. THE EDICT OF POPE CALLISTUS 93 Jude,^^ and St. John,^' are continually calling upon sinners to repent, and renew their first fervor. They certainly knew nothing of a Church composed solely of saints. The oldest witness for the Church's penitential dis- cipline is Hermas, the writer of that obscure and mysterious book known as The Shepherd. Very little is known about the author. Origen makes him a com- panion of St. Paul,^* although Hermas' picture of the Eoman Church certainly does not portray the apos- toUc age. The Muratorian fragment, with greater probability, declares him a brother of Pof)e Pius I (A. D. 139-154). But it is universally admitted that the book was written during the first half of the sec- ond century, although probably many years elapsed between the writing of its several parts. It was first placed among the canonical Scriptures; later on it was given a lower rank, though still read publicly in the churches. It is certainly an invaluable witness to the Church's penitential discipline. There has always been, and there always will be, a great deal of controversy concerning Hermas' actual teaching on penance. Some scholars like Ptink "^ and Rausehen ^^ think him opposed to all ecclesiastical reconciliation after baptism; others like StahH^ con- 22Jude xxii. 23. 23 Apoc. ii. iii. 21 Comm. in Rom., i. 31 ; P. G. xiv. col. 1282. 25 Kirchengeschichtliche Abhandlungen, vol. i, p. 171 et seq. ^^ Eucharist and Penance, pp. 155-159. 27 Patristische Vntersuchungen, vol. i, pp. 295, 296. 94 STUDIES IN CHURCH HISTORY sider The Shepherd a manifesto of the anti-Mon- tanistic party. Our author declares both these hy- potheses untenable, the first because it contradicts the very text, and the second because it is founded upon an anachronism. Montanism was non-existent in Hermas' time. His own theory, based on the text of the Third Vision, the Fourth Commandment, and the Eighth and Ninth Parables, is as follows: Hermas excludes no sincere penitent from the benefit of pardon. He repeats this time and time again.^* He asserts, how- ever, that some are so deeply rooted in sin that an extraordinary effort is required on their part to be freed therefrom. It is a fact that all sinners do not make this effort. Hermas strongly urges them to re- pent, and plainly sets forth the malice of those who refuse to do so. His encratism is not the encratism of Marcion,^* but the fervent practice of the Christian law — a question of personal fervor, and not of ecclesi- astical discipline.^" If he speaks of apostates being without hope,'^ it is only because they persist in their apostasy and blasphemy. Our author writes: "After as before baptism, the only certain sign of damnation is absolute obstinacy in sin.^^ This is the doctrine of the Gospel — a distinct echo of the anath- 28 Vis. ill, 3, 3-7. Com. iv, 3, 7. Sim. viii, 6, 6; ix, 7, 2; 33, 3. 2» TertuUian, Adv. Marc, i, 29 ; iv, 34. La ThMogie de Tertullien, p. 460 et seq. so Page 99. 31 Sim. ix, 26. 32 Vis. iii, 7, 2. THE EDICT OF POPE CALLISTUS 95 ema pronounced by Christ upon the sin against the Holy Ghost." The Abbe d'Ales asserts against Funk that the idea of the Church being the dispenser of the pardoning power is clearly set forth in the pages of The Shep' herd, although nowhere does it take the explicit form of a sacerdotal judgment. The Shepherd, although not an official document, is of the highest importance, because it reveals the mind of the Roman clergy of the second century. "The Church in her universal call to salvation, had ever in mind the various classes of people who made up her fold. She judged it inopportune to tell the catechumens in advance all their chances of rehabilita- tion, if they sinned after baptism. To baptized Chris- tians who relapsed after baptism into sins like adultery, apostasy, or idolatry, she offered once, by means of penance, not only the divine pardon, but pardon through the ministry of the Church. At the same time she took good care not to tell them that this pen- ance could be renewed. She never despaired of the relapsed sinner, but always taught that whoever de- sired to do penance could regain thereby the grace of God."=^ The Didache ^* urges the Christian to confess his sins in Church, and not to dare enter the assembly with a bad conscience. It speaks of a confession of sins preliminary to the Eucharistic sacrifice, and rec- 33 Page 113. 8M, 14; 14, 1; 15, 3. 96 STUDIES IN CHURCH HISTORY ommends fraternal correction to bring about the re- pentance of sinners. St. Clement of Rome,^^ speaking of the sins of dis- cord and insubordination at Corinth, adjures the guilty ones not to harden their hearts, but to repent of their iniquity. He declares that their amendment lies in submission to their priests, the doctors of penance; that humility is the way of salvation; that the center of Christian hope is the fold of Christ, His Church.=« St. Ignatius of Antioch writes: "Where there is anger and division, God is not; but whoever does penance and returns to the unity of God around the bishop's seat, is assured the grace of Jesus Christ to deliver him from every bond. ' ' ^'' St. Polycarp characterizes the ministry of the priests as a ministry of charity and mercy towards all. It requires, he tells us, "sweetness, impartiality, just judgment, disinterestedness, reserve in accepting accusations, and slowness in condemning. He prays God that he may give the apostate priest Valens and his wife the grace of true repentance.^* "We read in St. Irenffius ^^ that the Gnostic Cerdon was admitted to penance about the year 140, and ia TertuUian^" that Marcion was received back more than once before his final excommunication. St. sn Epis. ad Cor., viii, 5; 1, 5-51; lii, 1; Ml, 1, 2. 36 Page 117. 27 Philadel., lii, 1, 2. S8 Philip, vi. 1, 2; xi. 1-4. 3i> Adv. Hwr., iii, 4; P. G. vii, col. 857. 40 De Prws, 30. THE EDICT OF POPE CALLISTUS 97 Irenaeus does indeed first assert that eternal flames will be the lot of every apostate, but a few lines fur- ther on he adds that "hell awaits all those who perse- vere in their apostasy without repentance."" He does not broach the question of the remission of sins by an ecclesiastical ministry, but his silence is easily understood, once we remember how little space he gives in his writings to the doctrine of the sacraments. He makes but two allusions at most to the sacrament of baptism in his Adversus HcBveses.*^ St. Justin Martyr declares that there is pardon in heaven for all repentant sinners. In explaining to the Jew Trypho that apostates wiU be lost forever unless they repent, he gives us to understand that if they do repent they will be saved. *^ Dionysius of Corinth ** insists upon all truly repentant sinners — even apostates and here- tics — ^being kindly received by the Church. In a word, the constant witness of the second century — Rome, Antioch, Corinth, and Alexandria — tells us that pardon is ever awaiting the repentant sinner. The hierarchical Church, grouped about the bishop, is the normal dispenser of this pardon, and the offer of ecclesiastical reconciliation is an earnest of the offer of divine pardon. The only legislative measure of the second century that we meet with is the prohi- bition of repeating the public penance. The Church's aim in this strict discipline was to prevent laxity by i^Adv. Ewr., V, 26, 2; P. G. vii, col. 1194. i2iv, 36, 4; P. G. vii, col. 1093; c. 7. 43 II Apol., 2 ; P. G. vi, col. 444. 44Eusebius, Hist. Eccles. ivx, 23, 6. 98 STUDIES IN CHURCH HISTORY giving this institution the form of an unique favor. Hermas is the first witness to this law, which is solely of ecclesiastical origin. There is no warrant for it, whatever, in the Sacred Scriptures. Introduced probably under the stress of peculiar circumstances, it gradually acquired the force of a general law. The De Pcenitentia of TertuUian, which he wrote while a Catholic, does not mention the existence of any unpardonable sins, nor does it speak of the pardon of sins independently of the ministry of the Church.*' In this treatise, TertuUian defines penance,*" and in- sists that it is necessary both for catechumens pre- paring for baptism,*^ and for Christians who have relapsed into sin after baptism.*^ He warns sinners that they can make use of this "second penance" only once,*^ and that their interior dispositions of sorrow must be manifested externally by the performance of the canonical penance or exomologesis, "the discipline for man's prostration and humiliation."^" The Church is the dispenser of the second penance, just as she is of the first penance or baptism. This our au- thor deduces from TertuUian 's own words: "There- fore, while it (the canonical penance) abases a man, it raises him ; while it covers him with squalor, it ren- ders him more clean; while it accuses, it excuses; while it condemns, it absolves.^^ 4B Pages 151-168. " Ch. v. *8 Ch. 1. =0 Ch. ix. "Chs. iv-vl. siCh. ix. *8Ch8. vii-xii. THE EDICT OF POPE CALLISTUS 99 In the De Pudicitia, Tertullian, now a Montanist,"* attacks the Catholic teaching of his De Pcenitentia. Angry at the Pope's Edict," which set forth so clearly the Church's claim to pardon all sinners, the puritan Tertullian formulates his teaching about the unpar- donable sins,°* not as an appeal to the original tra- dition of the Church, as some Catholic scholars main- tain, but as a protest of "the spotless young Church of the paraclete" against the old and corrupt Church of Callistus. He then proceeds to ridicule bitterly the Church's claim to pardon all sins, for his heretical sect maintained, "the Lord alone has power to par- don.""' Tertullian, like all heretics, denied the di- Tine authority of the Church, and consequently her power to pardon. Montanism was essentially a multi- tude without any organic authority, its members de- pending entirely on a supposed direct illumination of the Spirit. Not very long after the schism of Tertullian in Carthage, the schism of Hippolytus occurred at Rome. Hippolytus' philippic against Pope Callistus, the Philosophwmena, aims at giving a complete history of all heresies, and paints in the blackest colors possible, "the sect of Callistus," i. e., the Catholic Church. His viewpoint is different from Tertullian 's, inas- much as he proposes to give a picture of the whole career of a detested rival, while Tertullian writes apropos of a particular act of the Pope. 62 Ch. il. 5 Flores sparsi in tumulum. papissw, Gcettingen, 1758. 6 Diatriba de Joanna papissa, Naples, 1778. ' Annales eccles., ad an. 853. 8 Dissertationes, Louvain, 1870. THE LEGEND OP POPE JOAN 111 1. Bellarmine, in his treatise on the Pope,* mentions the letter of Pope Leo IX to Michael Cerularius, Patriarch of Constantinople, which protested against the consecration of eunuchs to the episcopate, and al- luded to a rumor which had reached him that a woman had once been Patriarch.^" This letter proves con- clusively that in 1054 the legend of the female Pope had not as yet arisen, otherwise the Greeks could easily have retorted by a tu quoque. The Abbe La- potre *^ and E. Bernheim ^^ both call attention to the tenth century Chrowicon Salerwitanum,^^ which re- lates this story of the woman patriarch of Constanti- nople, and both see in it the germ of the legend of Pope Joan. 2. In the tenth century Rome was practically ruled by Theodora, wife of Theophylact, and her two daugh- ters, Marozia and Theodora. The four Popes named John, John X (+ 929), John XI (-f 936), John XII (+964), John XIII (+972), who reigned at this time, were so dominated by them that it is easy to imagine the people saying: "We have women for Popes." ■ The Abbe Lapotre quotes a chronicle of Benedict of St. Andrew, used by Martin of Troppau, which says that under John XI, Rome "fell into the power of a woman (Marozia), and was governed by » De Romano Pontifice, Book III, chap. xxiv. 10 P. L. CXLIII, col. 760. 11 Le Pape Jean VIII, p. 365. i2Zur sage der Papstin Johanna in the Deutsche Zeit, fiir Oesehicht, vol. iii, p. 410. 13 M. G. H., SS., vol. iii, p. 481. 112 STUDIES IN CHURCH HISTORY her. ' ' ^* Such a document, he adds, might easily ac- count for the origin of the legend that a woman had really occupied the Holy See. He believes that his hypothesis is confirmed by the fact that the name Jo- hanna is the feminine of John, and that Joan became Pope between a Leo and a Benedict. "We know that Pope John XII was deposed by a Council held at St. Peter's under the patronage of the Emperor Otho, and was replaced by Leo VIII. Once Otho departed from Rome, John XII returned, and in a Council at the Lateran he condemned Leo VIII and his adherents. At his death. May 14, 964, the Romans, passing over Leo VIII, chose Benedict V Pope. 3. It is certain that, as late as the fifteenth century, there was a statue of a pagan goddess with a child in a narrow Roman street near St. Clement's Church on the way to the Lateran. This statue was removed to the Quirinal by Sixtus V,^° probably on account of the legends which centered about it. This statue bore an inscription consisting of five letters, P. P. P. P. P. Lelievre, in the Revue des Questions Historiques^^ interprets it as follows: Pater Patrum (a priest of Mithra) Propria Pecunia Posuit (erected this monument at his own expense). The populace, having a vague notion of a female Pope, deduced either from the woman Patriarch of i< Chronicon, ch. xxx, M. G. H., SS., vol. iii, p. 714. 16 Plorimond de Redmond, I'Anti-Papesse, p. 182. 18 Vol. XX, p. 75. THE LEGEND OF POPE JOAN 113 Constantinople or the dominance of Marozia in the Rome of the tenth century, were not satisfied with this simple e^lanation, but interpreted these letters in the way we find recorded in the chronicle of Metz, viz. : Petre, Pater Patrum, Papisse Prodito Partum. When the Popes went in solemn procession from St. Peter's to the Lateran, they avoided passing along the street which leads from the Coliseum to St. Clem- ent's. Some concluded that they did so out of very shame, because the statue of Pope Joan stood there, whereas the real reason was the extreme narrowness of the street. It is interesting to note the variations of the legend in the course of history. While the main source of the two particular stories may be readily traced in every case, each writer seems to feel perfectly free to make additions and changes at will. In 1260, a Franciscan tells us in his Flores Temporum ^^ that the Popess was called John of England, although as a matter of fact she came from Mainz. We see at once the chronicler's evident desire to reconcile the two contradictory ac- counts of Joan's birth. In the main, he follows the text of Martin of Troppau, though he differs from him in a few details. Boccaccio, in his De Claris Mulierihus (-[-1375), makes the Popess a German named Gilberta. She studied in England, and succeeded by the devil's power in becoming Pope. " M. G. H., SS., vol. xxiv, p. 243. 114 STUDIES IN CHURCH HISTORY Another variation, of the legend by an unknown au- thor ^* relates that Joan was deposed, became a reli- gious, and lived until her son became Bishop of Ostia. She wanted to be buried in the street, the Vicus Pa- pissce, where her child had been born, but this was refused, and she was buried at Ostia.^" Doellinger published a manuscript of the fourteenth century ^^ which declared that the Popess was named Glancia, and came from Thessaly. She became Pope under the name of Jutta, and not John. John Huss called the Popess Agnes, as we read in his fourteenth proposition : ' ' The Church has been de- ceived in the person of (Popess) Agnes." ^ No one objected to this thesis at the time, for the fable of Pope Joan was generally admitted.^^ The legend, in its various forms, was very com- monly believed for the three hundred years preceding the Reformation. Lenfant^' cites one hundred and fifty writers who mention it, and he does not enumer- ate them all. It was exploited by John Huss and Wil- liam Occam, and by Gerson and his Gallican follow- ers. Martin of Troppau, the source from whom so many drew their versions of the legend, was the peniten- tiarius of five Popes. The Augustinian, Amaury d'Augier, chaplain of Urban V, made Joan the one 18 Manuscript in the Berlin Library. 18 Rev. H. Thurston, The Month, May, 1914, p. 454. 20 Die Papst-Faleln des Mittelalters, pp. 50, 51. 21 Hefele, Conciliengeschichte, vol. vii, p. 165. *2 Lenfant, Uistoi/re du Goncile, de Constance, vol. i, p. 324. 23 Histoire de la Papesse Jeanne, part ii, ch. v. THE LEGEND OP POPE JOAN 115 hundred and tenth Pope,** and Platina, the librarian of the Holy See under Sixtus IV, put her after Leo IV as the one hundred and sixth Pope.^ When the portraits of the Popes were placed in the Cathedral of Siena in 1400, the portrait of Pope Joan figured among them, despite the fact that Pius II, Pius III, and Marcellus II had been Archbishops of Siena. Her portrait was finally removed by the Grand Duke of Tuscany, at the instance of Clement VIII, who sub- stituted Pope Zachary (+752). John de Torquemada and Adrian of Utrecht, after- wards Pope Adrian VI, admitted the legend without question, and St. Antoninus of Florence, while doubt- ing it himself, dared not come out openly against it. In fact, there is not a chronicle of the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries, published in Italy under the eyes of the Popes, which does not mention the existence of Pope Joan. Since the Reformation, Protestant controversialists have often spoken of "the Popess Joan as the eternal shame of the Papacy." The Centuriators of Magde- bourg record it three times.^° We find it mentioned by a court preacher, Polycarp Leiser, Luke Osiander (1583), Samuel Huner (1596), Aretius of Berne (1574), Spanheim (1691), Lenfant (1736), etc. Len- f ant's Mistoire de la Papesse Jeanne, published at Cologne in 1694,^ gives the legend in aU its details. 2* Actus pontificum Bomanorwn. 25 De Vitis Pontificum, p. 119. " Oenturia IX, 333, 357, 501. 2' The Hague in 1736. 116 STUDIES IN CHUKCH HISTORY Before the Reformation we find few Catholics ques- tioning the fable of Pope Joan. The only ones that spoke in a hesitating manner were James de Maerlant (1300), the anonymous author of a life of Urban V, published by Baluze, JSneas Piecolomini, afterwards Pius II, St. Antoninus of Florence, and Plantina, in his Lives of the Popes.'^ They had so small a follow- ing that the Franciscan Rioche declared that their denials went counter to the general opinion of Chris- tendom. One of the first to deny it emphatically was John Thurmayer (Aventinus), in his Annales Boiorum (1544). He was not much of a Catholic, for Bayle calls him "a good Lutheran in disguise," and his book was put on the Index of 1564. In 1568, Onofrio Pan- vinio devoted three pages of his edition of Platina's Lives of the Popes to refute the legend, which, de Laval (1611) says, were sufficient to convince Protes- tants like Casaubon and de Thou. Bellarmine made use of the proofs of Panvinio in his De Romano Pon- tifice.^^ The most complete refutation of the fable came from the pen of Florimond de Remond, a mem- ber of the French Parliament from Bordeaux. His book. The Anti-Christ and the Anti-Pope, although declamatory and full of digressions, showed clearly the inherent contradictions of the legend and its utter improbability. Baronius inserted a summary of it in his Annals. 28 Vol. i, p. 207. ^0 De la Serviire. La ThMogie de Bellarmin, pp. 110, 111. THE LEGEND OF POPE JOAN 117 Bayle in. his Dictionary ^^ tells us that in the seven- teenth century a numher of Protestants began to deny this legend. Among them were Chamier, Dumoulin, Boehart, and particularly David Blondel (+1655). Two pamphlets by the last-named writer caused quite a stir among Protestant polemists, some of whom, like Spanheim and Lenfant, made a most strenuous effort to exploit the legend in the interests of Protestantism. The famous Leibnitz wrote against Spanheim, and Bayle in his Dictionary gave the story its quietus for- ever in the world of scholars. The eighteenth century rationalists took their cue from Bayle, as we may read in Voltaire.^^ Among scholars to-day the legend is unanimously rejected. The one argument conclusive against the fable of Pope Joan is the chronological argument. All the dates given for her pontificate are not only mutually contradictory, but are assigned to some other well- known Pope. The most commonly given date in the legend is 855, between Popes Leo IV and Benedict III. We know that Leo IV died July 17, 855, and that Benedict III was elected Pope a few days after- wards. On September 21, he was expelled from Rome by an anti-Pope, but returned soon after, took possession of his see, and was consecrated in the pres- ence of the Emperor's legates on September 29. He was Pope until April, 858, as Garampi has shown in his dissertation, On the Silver Coin of Benedict III 3»Vol. i, p. 576. 31 CEuvres, Geneva, 1777, vol. xxx, p. 5. 118 STUDIES IN CHURCH HISTORY (Rome, 1749). Pope Nicholas I was consecrated on April 24, 858, so that we have only ten weeks unac- counted for in the interval between Leo IV and Nich- olas I.** It is impossible to locate in this century the so-called pontificate of Pope Joan. The other dates assigned — 915, 1087, and 1100 — are likewise histori- cally impossible. 82 Duchesne, Liber Pontificalit, vol. ii, preface, pp. Ixvii. THE ORIGINAL DIARIES OF THE COUNCIL OP TRENT Volume I The Goerres Society, which represents the best mod- ern German scholarship, has well merited the praise of Popes Leo XIII and Pius X for undertaking to publish all the original documents relating to the Council of Trent.^ This monumental work will be completed in thirteen splendid quartos of some thou- sand pages each, four of which (vols, i, ii, iv, and v) have already been published. For nearly three centuries our knowledge of the inner workings of the Council of Trent has been ob- tained principally from either the prejudiced and un- reliable History of the Council of Trent by the apos- tate Servite, Pra Paola Sarpi (London, 1619), or the polemical treatise " published to refute it by the Jesuit Cardinal, Sforza Pallavicino (Rome, 1656). Neither of these writers was capable of writing an objective, impartial history. For as Calenzio says: "Neither Pallavicino nor Sarpi possessed the true his- torical spirit, which is bent solely upon discovering 1 Concilium Tridentinum Diariorum, Actorum, Epistolarum, Tractatuum Nova CoUectio {The Council of Trent, a New Col- lection of its Diaries, Acts, Epistles, and Treatises) . Edidit Societas Gcerresiana. St. Louis, Mo. : B. Herder. Vol. I. 2 Istoria del Concilia di Trent o. 119 120 STUDIES IN CHURCH HISTORY the truth, and setting it forth in all clearness and honesty. Sarpi wrote to attack the Church, and Pal- lavieino to defend her at all costs." ^ Bossuet wrote of Sarpi: "He was a Protestant under a religious habit, who said Mass without believing in it, and who remained in a Church which he considered idola- trous." Pallavicino, in a letter to the Marchese Durazzo, June 2, 1657, says of his own work: "My history is in great part apologetic in tone. In fact, it is more of a book of polemics than a history properly so-called. I aim at refuting my adversary, by show- ing his ignorance and deceit, and hope to win the con- fidence of my readers by proving to them that I am well informed. I would have them highly esteem both the rulers of the Church and those who presided over the Council," etc.* Bishop Hefele, in his well-known History of the Councils of the Church, declared only forty years ago that he would not dare write the history of the Coun- cil of Trent, not only because of his age and the heavy burden of the episcopate, but because he could not obtaia access to the original Acta of the Council writ- ten by Angelo Massarelli, its secretary-general.'* The very year (1874) in which Bishop Hefele made this statement. Father Theiner, the Prefect of the Vatican Archives, published his Acta genuina Concilii Tridentini (two volumes), but this edition did hot 8 Esame critico-Utterario delle opere riguardanti la storia del concilio di Trento, p. 117. * Latere del Pallavicino, p. 71. Venice, 1669. 6 Oonciliengeachichte, vol. ii, prsef., p. vii. Freiburg, 1874. THE ORIGINAL DIARIES 121 pretend to give all the critical documents, and even those that were given were not published in full. He paid no attention whatever to the editing of the other documents so essential to a clear understanding of the Council, such as the diaries of the secretary-general, the letters of the legates, the Cardinals of the Curia, the bishops and the foreign ambassadors. Some may ask what is the use of publishing such an enormous amount of original material, when any scholar competent to write a history of the Council could read the manuscripts himself? As a matter of fact, no one man would be able to read all the original documents, which are scattered in hundreds of public and private libraries in Italy, Spain, Hun- gary, Germany, Austria, France, Belgium, and Eng- land. But even if one man could have mastered all this material — it would take him many years of con- tinuous work — ^we would still be doubtful about his critical estimate of the various documents, which are frequently colored by writers who favor politically either Spain, France, or the Holy See. Before the opening of the Vatican Archives to the world by Pope Leo XIII, it was impossible for any scholar. Catholic or non-Catholic, to obtain access to many of the most important original documents. Not only the Roman See, but all the governments of Europe for centuries guarded most jealously their State documents. We know that even Pallavicino, who was chosen by the General of his order to defend the Council against the attacks of Sarpi, was not al- 122 STUDIES IN CHURCH HISTORY lowed to see the documents himself, but had to be content with excerpts expressly made by two of the custodians of the Vatican library, Conteloro and Cen- troflorino, and submit his work to the strictest possi- ble censorship before publication. Oderico Raynaldi, continuing three centuries later the Annals of Ba- ronius, suffered the same restrictions. Ranke wrote in 1836 that a new history of the Coun- cil of Trent was absolutely necessary, but he was utterly skeptical about its ever being accomplished. He wrote in his Roman Papacy: "That those who could do it have no wish to see it done, and those anxious to do it do not possess the means."* As a matter of fact, however, we know that it was the orig- inal intention of the Roman Pontiffs to publish every- thing relating to the Council. "We learn this from two letters that Cardinal Cervino, afterwards Pope Marcellus II (1555), wrote to Massarelli, November 12 and December 1, 1548. He acknowledges the re- ceipt of two volumes of the decrees, and urges his correspondent to arrange carefully the Acta of the Council in view of their being printed.' Moreover the manuscripts of the Acta in the Vatican Archives are marked "imprimenda" — to be printed. That they were not printed de facto was due first to the sudden death of Massarelli, July 16, 1566,* and sec- ond, to the well-founded conviction that the enemies of the Church would use them everywhere for the « Die Romischen Papate, vol. iii, p. 289. ' Pages 809, 813. 8 Page Izxix. THE ORIGINAL DIARIES 123 purpose of anti-Catholic polemics. There were no Protestant scholars in that day either competent or willing to write a true history of the Council of Trent, which they knew was held chiefly to condemn the errors of Protestantism. They would simply have used the Acta to frame new charges against the Church and its rulers. Many non-Catholic writers, who blame the Pope severely for not having published all the documents on the Council in the Vatican Archives, in reality justify the Roman authorities by their conduct. For they prove by their writings that they do not care so much for the records in themselves, as for the acts or sayings of the prelates which can be used against the Church. They take special delight, for instance, in calling attention to the sermon preached before the Council by a layman. Count Nogarola, December 26, 1545;* the dancing of the bishops at the citadel of Trent on March 3, 1546 ; " the scandalous speech of Father Diruta, preacher of the Cardinal of Trent, May 1, 1546 ; ^^ the unseemly quarrel between an Italian and a Greek Bishop, in which one pulled the other's beard, July 7, 1546,^* and certain sarcastic remarks spoken in anger by some exasperated prelate in defense of his own views or the so-called rights of his sovereign.^^ » Page 360. "Pages 507, 508. "Page 543. 12 Page 90. 13 Pages 99, 100, 133, 326, 383, 477, 535, etc. 124 STUDIES IN CHUECH HISTORY When Father Theiner published his Acta, non-Cath- olics accused him of omitting intentionally all that might militate against the Church, although he really did his utmost to write objective history. He was seriously hampered by a rigorous censorship, and his ignorance of some very important documents. To set at rest forever all suspicion of a suppressio veri, and to answer satisfactorily the fables, calumnies, and false conjectures current among anti-Catholic con- troversialists, the scholars of the Goerres Society have determined to publish every document that relates to the Council. The proposed volumes of the series will treat in detail the Diaries (vols, i-iii), the Acta (vols, iv-ix), the Epistles (vols, x-xii), and the Treatises of the theologians and canonists (vol. xiii). The diaries are perhaps the best possible sources for a complete history of the Council. For as they were written for the author's eye alone, and not for the general public, they are apt to be truthful, sincere, and devoid of all human respect. They are of special value in the present instance, for they were written not merely by the friends, but also by the enemies, of the Roman Curia, and their authors are not merely prejudiced Italians, but Spaniards, Frenchmen, Bel- gians, and Germans. A new edition of the Acta was absolutely necessary, for Father Theiner 's arbitrary editing rendered his edition practically useless from the standpoint of scholarship, and he made no use of the Acta of Massa- relli, the secretary-general of the Council, which re- THE ORIGINAL DIARIES 125 corded the vota of the congregations and the speeches made at every session. Some of the letters of the ambassadors, legates, and other members of the Council have already been pub- lished, and they form, as can readily be seen, an ex- cellent commentary on its proceedings. Many of the most important letters that passed between the legates and the Roman Curia are here published for the first time. The final volume will give us all the important treatises of theologians and canonists — such as Nausea, Campeggio, and Sirleto — which were written either before or during the Council. They played an impor- tant part in directing the discussion of certain dogmas and laws, and they bring out clearly the full force of the different decrees. Throughout these volumes all the variant and doubt- ful readings are given on every page, and copious critical notes furnish us brief but accurate biograph- ical sketches of all the personages mentioned in the text. The editors also point out the differences in the various codices of the original documents, the epitomes and the commentators, the writers who discuss the theology, the Scriptural texts, and the canon law al- luded to in the text. The first volume of the Diaries is edited by Sebas- tian Merkle, who writes a very scholarly Introduction of one hundred and twenty-nine pages. The text itself consists of five documents, namely, the Com- mentary of the Council of Trent by Hercole Severolo, the Procurator of the Council (December 11, 1545, to 126 STUDIES IN CHURCH HISTORY January 16, 1548), and the four diaries of Angelo Massarelli, the secretary-general of the Council (vol. i, February 22, 1545, to December 13, 1545 ; vol. ii, Feb- ruary 6, 1545, to March 11, 1547; vol. iii, December 18, 1545, to March 11, 1547; vol. iv, March 12, 1547, to November 10, 1549). The Introduction consists of four chapters. Chap- ter I discusses the reasons that prompted the publica- tion of the present work, gives a list of all the docu- ments edited, and the European libraries in which they may be found, and enumerates the seven diaries of Massarelli, only two of which had hitherto been published by DoUinger. Chapter II deals with the Commentary of Severolo. Father Merkle proves its authenticity, discusses its origin, character, and purpose, and gives a complete list of all the codices of the work, with a critical esti- mate of their value. He then writes a brief biograph- ical sketch of the author, setting forth his accuracy and his trustworthiness. He next speaks of the epi- tome of this Commentary, which Massarelli used in compiling his Acta, and makes a comparative critical study of the Commentary, the Epitome, and the Acta. The Commentary of Severolo is the only original source we possess of the first four months of the Coun- cil (December 11, 1545, to April 1, 1546). Neither Sarpi nor Pallavicino knew of its existence, and Ray- naldi, the only writer who has hitherto made use of it, did not know who wrote it. Chapter III gives a brief sketch of the life of Mas- THE ORIGINAL DIARIES 127 sarelli, and analyzes his chief works, viz., his Acta of the Council, his seven diaries, and his letters to the Cardinals of the Curia. The secretary of the Coun- cil was not a very brilliant scholar, but he was a well- educated cleric, an indefatigable worker, and ever most active in ecclesiastical affairs. A man of more cultivated taste or greater ability — ^he makes frequent mistakes in Latin — ^would have omitted many of the gossipy and trivial details, which he relates with all the gusto of a modern newspaper reporter. He tells us about a murder and a robbery at Trent ; the great entertainments given on feast days in the line of jousting, fireworks, and walking the tight-rope; the menus of the banquets given in honor of distinguished guests ; the state of the weather ; the high cost of liv- ing ; the quarrels about precedence ; fishing trips, deer hunts, horse racing, etc. Every one who reads these diaries carefully will acknowledge that Massarelli was a simple, honest man, although, like most of the Italians of his day, he was unable to distinguish between the divine authority of the Church and the political policies of the Pope and the Roman Curia.^* "When, for example, Charles V, the better to win over the Protestants, earnestly and persistently demanded the return of the Council from Bologna to Trent, Massarelli calls him a persecutor of the Church on a par with the old Roman emperors, and prophesies for him a miserable and violent death. Again, he taxes with stupidity or deliberate malice 14 Page Izxx. 128 STUDIES IN CHURCH HISTORY every bishop who honestly opposed in Council the wishes of the Roman Cardinals, and he accuses the opponents of the legates of ingratitude or heresy. Still, it is unjust to accuse him, as some have done, of continually making false statements of fact, or of de- liberately failing to record accurately the vota of the bishops. The editors of the present work have de- tected him in only one deliberate falsehood,^' and de- clare that his mistakes — if they exist — in recording the vota were due to the inadvertence of a sick and busy secretary. "We readily admit that he was guilty of many errors in judgment, and that he occasionally voiced his prejudices in pretty strong language.^' The reader will readily pardon him because of hia evident sincerity. Chapter IV gives us the reasons which prompted the editors to publish the text of all the original docu- ments in its integrity. They argue — and rightly — that it is fairer and more satisfactory to allow the reader to form his own judgment upon the data as a whole, than to make excerpts requiring lengthy and perhaps partisan explanations. The critical editing of the text, with a complete list of all the various read- ings, was in itself a gigantic task, and will prove most helpful to the future historian of the Council. During the first quarter of the sixteenth century, the Catholic world was talking of the necessity of a General Council to reform the flagrant abuses that had IB Page 818, line 32; page 825, note 2. 18 Page 232, line 28 ; page 363, line 20, etc. THE ORIGINAL DIARIES 129 crept into the Church, and to determine once for all the true Gospel of Christ in opposition to the errors of the reformers, which were unsettling the minds of thousands. The Popes were rather slow in answering the popular demand for a General Council, because they felt that the times were unfavorable. Many worldly clerics were utterly opposed to reform of any kind; the Emperor was afraid of antagonizing the Protestant princes by the publishing of conciliar de- crees denouncing the Lutheran errors; the continual wars between Charles V and Francis I made it diffi- cult for the bishops to assemble and to agree upon the place of meeting; the Popes were afraid of a repe- tition of the schismatic proceedings of the Council of Basle. Pope Paul III, however, was determined that the Council should be held. He convoked it in 1536 to meet in Mantua, May, 1537, but owing to the very strong opposition against it, he was obliged to pro- rogue it for six months. It was then deferred for various reasons to meet at Vieenza, May, 1538, and again at Trent, November, 1542. The three legates sent in this year waited many months for the bishops to arrive, but, as they failed to appear, the Council was again suspended until March, 1545. It was finally opened, December 13, 1545, by the three legates, Giammaria del Monte, Cardinal Bishop of Palestrina, Marcello Cervini, Cardinal Priest of Santa Croce, and Reginald Pole, Cardinal Priest of Santa Maria in Cosmedin. There were present at the opening ses- 130 STUDIES IN CHURCH HISTORY sion four archbishops, twenty bishops, five generals of religious orders, two ambassadors of King Ferdinand, Pighini, the auditor of the Roman Rota, and Severolo, the procurator of the Council.^^ The Emperor's am- bassador, Didaeo de Mendoza, unable to attend be- cause of sickness, begged the Council to excuse him. Because of the small number of bishops present, noth- ing was accomplished at the first session save the public reading of the Papal Bull of convocation, and the mandate of the Papal legates. The interval between the first and second sessions (December 13, 1545, to January 7, 1546) was spent in discussing questions of precedence, the credentials of those seeking admission to the Council, the method of voting, the mode of procedure, and the like. The legates insisted strongly upon the superiority of the Pope over the Council, which had been questioned at Basle, and declared that they presided in his name. The motion of the Bishop of Fiesole to add the words : "Representing the Universal Church" to the title "Sacred Ecumenical Council" was defeated, after a good deal of argument, as misleading and unneces- sary. The bishops then elected all the officials of the Council, viz., a procurator, a secretary-general, a lay protector, two notaries, and two scrutatores to count the votes. Congregations of theologians and canon- ists were appointed to prepare the schemata of the doctrinal and disciplinary decrees, that were to be dis- cussed and voted upon by the General Congregation of 17 Page 4. THE ORIGINAL DIAKIES 131 Bishops. The old custom of individual voting, which had been set aside at Constance on account of the great Western Schism, was again adopted. One vote was given to each of the generals of the religious orders, and to every three abbots. The Public Ses- sion announced the final result of the discussions of the General Congregations, and formulated the de- crees and canons. The third session (February 4, 1546)^* published a decree upon the Nicene Creed, and another on the obligation of attending the Council. For about a month the bishops had discussed the mode of pro- cedure to be followed in their deliberations. They found it difficult to decide whether matters of doc- trine or discipline should take precedence in the dis- cussion and framing of the decrees. A compromise was finally effected, and they decided to treat both doctrine and discipline together. As a matter of fact, the Council published two decrees, the one on doc- trine and the other on discipline, at nearly every pub- lic session.^* During the next two months the Sacred Scriptures formed the sole topic of discussion. The fourth session (April 8, 1546)^" formulated the two decrees that settled finally the relation be- tween the Bible and tradition, the canon, the use of the Latin Vulgate, and the rules of Biblical interpre- 18 Pages 27, 434, 476. 18 Page 20, et seq. 2" Page 534. There were present at this session five cardi- nals, eight archbishops, forty-one bishops, three generals of reli- gious orders, and two abbots. 132 STUDIES IN CHURCH HISTORY tation. The preliminary discussions are given in the most minute detail in Massarelli's third diary. ^^ One has only to read these well-reported speeches to see at a glance how false are many of the statements made by prejudiced non-Catholics regarding the meaning of the Tridentine decrees. Take, for example, the ques- tion of the authority of the Latin Vulgate. It was explicitly stated ^^ that in declaring the Vulgate the authentic edition to be used in preaching, disputa- tions, and theological lectures, the Council did not thereby reject all other editions as false, but merely asserted its superiority over them. It, moreover, ad- mitted the fact that many errors had crept into the original text, and requested the Pope to order these mistakes corrected as soon as possible. One of the bishops is recorded as saying that Christ and His Apostles used the very words of the Vulgate — a state- ment which our editor questions, although it is also recorded in the Acta. The fifth session (June 17, 1546)^^ formulated first a decree on original sin. It declared that Adam by his fall had lost his original holiness and justice, and had deteriorated in both soul and body ; that the sin of Adam had injured not only himself but all his de- scendants; that it had been transmitted to them by propagation; that the eifects of Adam's sin are wholly 21 Pages 476-523. 22 Page 527. 23 Page 80. There were present at this session four cardi- nals, nine archbishops, fifty bishops, three generals of religious orders, and two abbots. THE ORIGINAL DIARIES 133 taken away by the merits of Jesus Christ and His grace in baptism; that the concupiscence which still remains in man, has never been called sin by the Cath- olic Church, but that it comes from sin and inclines thereto ; that this decree has no reference whatever to the dogma of the Immaculate Conception. Most of the discussions preliminary to the fifth ses- sion ^* dealt with the decree on discipline, which had reference to the teaching of the Holy Scriptures, and the preaching of the Gospel by bishops, priests, and regulars. Some very bitter speeches were made re- garding the duty of episcopal residence, and the preaching of regulars without episcopal approval. Pietro Paeheeei, the Bishop of Jaen, and Braccio Mar- tello. Bishop of Fiesole, were the chief offenders. Both Cardinal del Monte, the presiding legate, and Cardinal Pole rebuked the Bishop of Fiesole on account of his "seditious, calumnious, quarrelsome, and illogical dis- courses." ^'^ They told him plainly that he was calum- niating the Holy See by accusing it of granting privi- leges to the regulars contrary to the divine law, and that he was schismatical and heretical in spirit by attempting to limit unduly the Pope's power in their regard. The General of the Servites was the chief defender of the rights and privileges of the religious orders, and although his challenges were at times a bit vehement and melodramatic in tone, his points were well taken. He said in conclusion : " I wish the Coun- cil to consider carefuUy all the privileges granted by 24 Pages 50-80. 2= Pages 56, 57. 134 STUDIES IN CHURCH HISTORY the Pope to the regulars. If the bishops assembled consider them harmful to the Church, we are willing to be deprived of them. ' ' " The sixth session (January 13, 1547)*' gives us the results of six months' discussion in the form of a lengthy doctrinal dec^-ee on justification, and a disci- plinary decree emphasizing the duty of episcopal resi- dence and visitation.^* The presiding legate expressly stated, in view of some rather angry discussions, that the Council did not convene to settle any controversies of the schools on questions of grace, but to condemn the errors and heresies of the reformers on justifica- tion.** They wished particularly to denounce Luther 's heretical teaching on justification by faith alone, im- putative justice, the slave will, election, merit, good works, etc. The untiring and irrepressible Bishop of Fiesole made so many speeches that he finally wore out the patience of his listeners. Once, when he asked leave to speak, the presiding legate, with a twinkle in his eye, said: "I will always give His Grace of Fiesole permission to say whatever he desires," whereat all the Council, seeing his point, laughed heartily."* The Cardinal of Trent lost his temper during a heated argument with Cardinal del Monte, and after- wards, while asking pardon for his vehemence, got 28 Pages 59, 63. 27 Pages 121, 458, 601. There were present at this session four cardinals, ten archbishops, and forty-five bishops. 28 Pages 82-120, 440-458, 564-603. 28 Page 108. so Page 124. THE ORIGINAL DIARIES 135 angry again because the legate did not deign to reply, but merely nodded his head.'^ The presiding legate 's kindly, dignified, and firm treatment of all the bishops is an evidence of one great quality of Pope Paul III — the power of selecting capable men to carry out his will. The seventh session (March 3, 1547)^- published a doctrinal decree on the sacraments in general, baptism and confirmation, and a disciplinary decree on matters connected with episcopal residence. The Council for- bade the holding of incompatible benefices and set forth the conditions required for valid appointments thereunto. It is very interesting to note how the subject matter for the doctrinal decrees of this session was originally presented by the theologians. They submitted fifty- one questions for the consideration of the bishops, which they divided into three sections: theses which are absolutely heretical ; theses which many theologians declare should not be condemned without some ex- planation; and theses which some theologians believe should not be condemned, but entirely ignored. The eighth session (March 11, 1547)^^ did not pub- lish any decrees. The legates declared the Council adjourned and transferred it to Bologna, alleging the existence of a pestilence, which, according to the 31 Page 100. f2 Pages 124-136, 458-465, 601-621. There were present at this session three cardinals, nine archbishops, flfty-one bish- cps, five generals of religious orders, and two abbots. 38 Page 142. 136 STUDIES IN CHURCH HISTORY Council's physician, was then threatening the city. The bishops of the Emperor's party voted unani- mously against the transfer, and declared that under no circumstances would they stir from Trent. They declared, in great anger, that the pestilence was a myth, and that the real reason of the transfer was the unfriendliness that had arisen between the Pope and the Emperor. As a matter of fact, they were estranged at this time, and remained so until the death of Paul III. The Pope bitterly resented the Emperor's refusal to give the investiture of Parma and Piaeenza to his rela- tive, Pierluigi Farhese,^* and was angry at the Em- peror's continued interference in theological matters. Charles V, in the manner of one of the old Byzantine emperors, tried to settle the doctrinal differences be- tween Catholics and Protestants by his own authority. The famous Interim of Augsburg,^' May 15, 1548, mentioned frequently in the text, allowed Protestants to receive the Eucharist under both kinds, the married Protestant clergy to keep their wives, and the princes to retain the stolen ecclesiastical property. As might be expected, this decree satisfied no one. The Catho- lics rightly maintained that the Emperor had no right whatever to make concessions, and the Protestants denied the power of a General Council to legislate concerning their affairs. It was stigmatized by the Protestant party as "a 84 Pages 244, 248, 310, 692. 36 Pages 761, 762, 765-767, 771-773, 779, 831. THE ORIGINAL DIARIES 137 fornication with the whore of Babylon, a work of the devil, a revival of Papistry, and a scheme to under- mine the pure faith." The fourth diary =^ treats of the ninth (April 21, 1547) and tenth (June 2, 1547) sessions of the Council held at Bologna. No decrees were formulated at either session, although for eight months the theologians discussed the five sacraments of Extreme Unction, Orders, Matrimony, Penance, and the Eucharist, be- sides the Catholic teaching on Purgatory and Indul- gences. Continual protests were made by the Emperor and the thirteen bishops of his party, who were still at Trent, against the validity of the transfer,^^ and al- though the Pope refused to consider their objections, their opposition prevented anything being accom- plished at Bologna. Massarelli remained in the city until October 6, 1540,^^ but most of his time was spent in writing up his diaries and the Acta of the Council, and acting as inquisitor in a number of heresy trials. The diary closes with the death of Pope Paul III, November 10, 1549. 38 Pages 626-873. 3? Pages 737, 757. 38 Page 867. CARDINAL ALLEN ^ The old Protestant notion of the settlement of re- ligion under Elizabeth as the joyous rebound of the whole nation from a hatred of superstition to the pure truth of Calvinism and Zwinglianism, has been proved false in the light of contemporary evidence now open to the scholars of the world. Objective writers — Catholic and non-Catholic alike — ^have re- pudiated the unfair and dishonest version of Burnet, Macaulay, and Creighton, and have shown conclu- sively that the change in religion brought about by Elizabeth and her three ministers, Cecil, Walsingham, and Bacon, was due to coercion of the cruelest kind, which thought nothing of principle, or of human life and suffering. The one Englishman who did more than any other to offset the reforming zeal of Eliza- beth, and save from utter wreck the remnants of the ancient faith, was "William Allen, Principal of St. Mary's Hall, Oxford, President of Douay and of Bheims, and Cardinal. Of the three great Tudor Cardinals — ^Wolsey, Pole, and Allen — Allen is the least known. Yet he was Wolsey 's superior as a scholar, and Pole 's superior as a writer and a controversialist. Strangely enough, 1 An Elizabethan Cardinal, William Allen. By Martin Haile. St. Louis: B. Herder. 138 CARDINAL ALLEN 139 each of them failed to accomplish the chief task he had determined upon. Wolsey unwisely lent him- self to Henry VIII 's dishonest scheme of the divorce, which led eventually to the breach with Rome ; Pole lived to see his work nullified by the folly of Mary's Spanish marriage and her overzeal which threatened the stability of his work; and Allen in his last years let himself be drawn into the political arena, which was, as our author says, "to fill up the cup of sor- rows of his afflicted fellow-Catholics in England, by throwing into it the seeds of fierce and bitter interne- cine political strife." Cardinal Allen came of an ancient and honorable race of the Aliens of Rossall Grange and Toderstaffe Hall, in the county of Lancashire. His ancestors had lived on the same spot for centuries, comfortable country gentlemen, leading useful and God-fearing lives. William Allen was born at Rossall Grange, which his family held on lease from the abbots of Dieulacres, in 1532. He was educated at home, under the watchful eye of his parents, until his fifteenth year, when he was entered at Oriel College, Oxford. His academical career was noted for the rapidity of his advancement in learning, his extraordinary in- dustry and exactness under discipline, and the singu- lar modesty and integrity of his life. He became Bachelor of Arts in 1550, and was in the same year unanimously elected Fellow of his college. Whitaker, in his history of Richmondshire,^ says, that to obtain 2 Vol. i, p. 444. 140 STUDIES IN CHURCH HISTORY his degree, Allen must "at least, have professed him- self of the reformed religion," but there is not the slightest evidence of his apostasy: in fact, whatever evidence there is points the other way. A conjecture made two centuries after the event ought to be set aside as worthless, especially when we know fully the nature of the man. Allen's College is mentioned by Turner, afterwards Dean of "Wells, as "a stronghold of Popery" at this very time. In 1556, Allen was chosen Principal of St. Mary's Hall, and Proctor of the University. Whether he ever met Cardinal Pole is uncertain, but that the fame of his attainments and learning had reached the Chancellor of the Univer- sity is beyond question. It is most probable that the canonry of York conferred upon Allen, still a lay- man, in 1558, was bestowed through the influence of Cardinal Pole. Elizabeth came to the throne, November 17, 1558. With a packed Parliament and a subservient House of Lords, she succeeded in passing three bills, which effected the severance with Rome, established the Royal Supremacy, and decreed uniformity of worship according to the revised second Prayer Book of Ed- ward VI. "The battle raged so fiercely over the Su- premacy Bill, and passions were so aroused by it, that it has become impossible to follow the measure through all the stages and changes necessitated by violent and strenuous opposition in both houses. ' ' ^ The Act of Uniformity was opposed by the whole bench of bish- 3 Dom Birt, Settlement of Religion Under Elizabeth, p. 90. CARDINAL ALLEN 141 ops, and by nine lay peers ; several of the latter must have absented themselves, on one pretext or another, for that momentous measure was passed by a majority of only three votes. The bill thus became a law with- out a single episcopal vote in its favor. When the Oath of Supremacy was tendered to the bishops, they all, with the one exception of Kitchen of LlandafE, declined to take it, and were at once deposed from their sees. The majority of the clergy followed the example of their prelates, and refused to take the oath. The Universities of Oxford and Cambridge were equally loyal to the old faith, but Elizabeth sim- ply removed the heads of houses and professors just as she had deposed the bishops, and men of the New Learning were put in their place. William Allen stayed at Oxford until 1561; his departure then be- came inevitable, as his biographer and secretary, Nich- olas Fitzherbert, tells us, on account of his untiring zeal in encouraging the timid to steadfastness, and in giving counsel to the doubting to stand firm against heretical attacks. After a year in Flanders, he fell ill, and was ad- vised by his physicians to try his native air, as the only means of saving his life. With the penal laws in full force, the remedy would appear to have been little less dangerous than the disease. He went to England fully aware of the risks he ran, for he was most anxious to help counteract the evil effects of the legis- lative alteration of religion. In those early days of doubt and hesitancy, many Catholics were sheltering 142 STUDIES IN CHURCH HISTORY themselves under what was known as "occasional con- formity." Both priests and people persuaded them- selves, as Allen put it later in a letter to Bishop Vendeville, "that it was enough to hold the faith inte- riorly while obeying the sovereign in externals, espe- cially in the singing of psalms and parts of Scripture in the vulgar tongue, a thing which seemed to them indifferent, and, in persons otherwise virtuous, worthy of toleration on account of the terrible rigor of the laws."* The question of occasional conformity was sub- mitted to the Pope, Paul IV, who decided, as might be expected, that there could be no compromise with heresy, and no alliance between the ancient Church and the sect of the day. "William Allen finding ' ' that not only laymen, who believed the faith in their hearts, and heard Mass when they could, frequented the schismatical churches . . . but many priests said Mass privately and celebrated the heretical offices and Supper in public, " " set to work at once to combat this fast-spreading error. Although a mere layman, he was listened to as one speaking with authority, a fact which speaks volumes for the estimate in which he was held at this early date by his Catholic fellow- countrymen, fie went from house to house, insisting on obedience to the commands of the Holy See, and circulated in manuscript his treatise on the authority of the Church, which was printed abroad two years 4 September 16, 1580. Knox, The Douay Diaries, vol. i, p. 23. CARDINAL ALLEN 143 ater under the title Certain Brief Reasons Concern- ng the Catholic Faith. He remained in England iwo years, and so stiffened the resolution of the Cath- )lics in Lancashire, that it remained, according to his inemies, for three centuries "a hotbed of Popery," ind furnished him the chief supporters in England )f the seminaries he was to establish abroad. Such ictivity incited the wrath of the authorities, who did ;heir utmost to apprehend him. He was forced to go n turn to Oxfordshire, and Norfolk ; and after a brief ?isit to Oxford, he escaped to the Continent, never to •eturn. He went at once to Malines, where he was ordained priest in 1565. In May of that year, he published his yell-known work, A Defence and Declaration of the Jatholic Church's Doctrine Touching Purgatory and Prayers for the Souls Departed. He made Malines lis home for the next two years, lecturing on theology it the College of the Benedictines. His book on Purgatory soon came to the notice of Elizabeth, and I warrant was at once issued for his arrest. "While ;he Queen's writ was being published, Father Allen NTOte another book on Confession and Indulgences — iome four hundred and twelve pages — which put him n the very first rank of the controversialists of the lay. Scholarly, clear, lucid, accurate, he always fiiote with the tenderest love for those who had made shipwreck of the old faith. In the fall of 1567 he nade a pilgrimage to Rome with his old master at Oriel, Morgan Philipps, and Dr. Vendeville, then 144 STUDIES IN CHUKCH HISTORY Regius Professor of Canon Law at the University of Douay, and later on Bishop of Tournay. Dr. Vende- ville had wished to lay before the Pope, St. Pius V, a plan for the conversion of infidels, but the Pope was too busy at the time to give him an audience. On his way home, he expressed his disappointment to his friend, Father Allen, who at once took the oppor- tunity of pleading the cause of his persecuted breth- ren in England. The result of this conversation was the founding of the College of Douay, which was to accomplish so much for the preservation of the faith in England during the days of persecution. The college was opened on Michaelmas Day, 1568. The Papal confirmation and approval being granted a few months later. Father Allen was made president, and Bristow, "his right hand," a fellow of Exeter College, became his prefect of studies. The first mem- bers of the college were two Belgians, Raverton and Colier, who with John Marshall, Dean of Christ Church, left shortly, because the poverty of the col- lege was more than they could stand. Some of the other pioneers were Risdon, who later on joined the English Carthusians at Bruges ; Wright, who labored long on the English Mission; Storey, who became a Jesuit ; Darell, of New College, and Morgan Philipps, of Oriel ; Stapleton, the controversialist, and Campion, the martyr. Father Allen's seminary was really the first seminary established under the new rules pro- mulgated by the Council of Trent. The course of study was as generous as the diet was meager. Spe- CARDINAL ALLEN 145 cial attention was paid to the study of the Bible, the history of the Church, and the controversies of the day, every student looking forward with gladness to the day when he would be sent to face death on the English mission. During the first ten years of its existence — 1568- 1578 — the college sent forth from its walls seventy- four priests, fifteen of whom died for the faith. Cuthbert Mayne enjoys the distinction of being the proto-martyr, and the story of his life may be found in Dr. Allen's Brief History of the Glorious Martyr- dom of Twelve Reverend Priests, published in 1582. The college had to struggle along in the direst poverty for some years, for Elizabeth had prohibited the send- ing of money from England, and many of the Eng- lish exiles had suffered on account of the failure of the Northern Insurrection, and the revolutionary movement in the Netherlands. The Pope came to its rescue with a pension of one hundred gold crowns a month, equivalent to one thousand crowns at the pres- ent day. This was in 1576. Everything was in a most flourishing condition at this time, for there were eighty English students in the seminary and sixty at the university. But within two years the revolution- ary party came into power in Douay, and a new gov- ernor appointed by the Prince of Orange and the States, commanded all the English to depart. In the Holy Week of 1578, the College was transferred to Rheims. "Within eight months the Calvinistic faction was expelled, and the city and the magistrates, rep- 146 STUDIES IN CHURCH HISTORY resenting the old order of things, asked Dr. Allen to return. He refused, for another removal would have been troublesome and expensive, and the state of the Low Countries was far from being settled. Knox, in his historical preface to the Letters and Memorials of Cardinal Allen, says that Allen's po- litical activities only began about the year 1582, but later investigations make it plain that they dated at least six years earlier. Still, he never allowed the peace and quiet of his college to be disturbed by any mention of politics. Nothing perhaps is more remark- able in his career than the rigid separation he main- tained between his life as president of the seminary, and his life as a prominent factor in affairs of State. He forbade absolutely all political disdussions among the students, and all allusions in school questions and controversies to the vexed question of depriving and excommunicating princes. Dr. Allen was certainly most active in political schemes for the furtherance of the cause of Mary, Queen of Scots, and the overthrow of Elizabeth. When Gregory XIII consented to have an expedition sent to England in his name, with one of the Colonnas as Captain General, he summoned Dr. Allen to Rome for consultation. Gregory XIII was only paying back Elizabeth in her own coin when he sent aid to her re- volted subjects, but aggressions so feeble and poorly planned as those of Stuckley, Fitzgerald, and San Giuseppe, might, as our author says, "well excite the risibility as well as the anger of the terrible queen." CARDINAL ALLEN 147 Had Philip II given his aid at the time, these attempts might have been successful, but to act without him was pure foUj'. If, as seems probable, Dr. Allen ad- vised the sending of these expeditions, we cannot think highly of his political sagacity. Again we find Dr. Allen in Paris in the year 1582, busying himself with the schemes of Esme Stuart, Lord of Aubigny, and cousin to the King of Scotland, James VI. Two years were spent in trying to interest the King of Spain and the Duke of Guise in Aubigny 's plan for the overthrow of Elizabeth, but the affair came to the knowledge of the English government, and the Duke of Lennox died without accomplishing anything. "We know that Dr. Allen wrote most en- thusiastically of this enterprise to the Pope, Gregory XIII, describing two interviews that he had had with the Duke of Guise in Paris. He seemed to share with Father Persons the opinion that the majority of the people in England were prepared to rise against their queen on the mere appearance of French or Spanish troops. Father Persons' influence on Dr. Allen was supreme, and the latter 's long absence from his native land had caused him to get out of touch with the deepest instincts of the nation, despite the constant intercourse that went on between Rheims and Eng- land. Another instance which shows how foreign were his ways of thinking to the majority of his Catholic fellow-countrymen, was his written defense of the treason of Sir William Stanley, who had delivered 148 STUDIES IN CHURCH HISTORY Deventer over to the King of Spain. Dr. Allen char- acterized this treason as "a lawful and a laudable act," which so astounded many Catholics in England that they deemed his work "a forgery of some ma- licious man to make our cause odious to the world." Memorandum after memorandum was laid before the Pope by the Spanish Ambassador, Olivares, urging the elevation of Dr. Allen to the purple, because of his staunch advocacy of the claims of Philip II to the English crown, and as a first step towards the long talked-of English expedition. The Pope finally yielded in the Consistory of August 7, 1587, in the hope that Philip's attack upon England would be made without delay. But the dilatory King allowed a year to go by, thus giving Elizabeth ample time to prepare. Dr. Allen himself expressly states that his cardinalate was due to Jesuit influence at the Court of Spain, and chiefly to Philip's great friend, Father Persons. It is rather pathetic now to read of Cardi- nal Allen's drawing up a paper for the guidance of the King, containing "suggestions as to the way of filling up the churches and offices of the King and kingdom of England, if God gives the success which is hoped for from His mercy." The Armada went to its defeat a year later, and the English Catholics, despite their cruel treatment by Elizabeth, were loyal to a man in repelling the Spanish invaders. To his dying day. Cardinal Allen remained con- vinced that the only hope for England lay in Spanish interference. We can imagine his chagrin, therefore. CARDINAL ALLEN 149 it tlie utter defeat of the Armada, and Philip 's aban- ionment of the enterprise. Our author regrets — and rightly, too — ^that Cardinal Allen should have ever Eombined his successful spiritual welfare, which he 30 well understood, with a disastrous political cam- paign which he understood so little. Cardinal Allen's tact and large-mindedness are never so apparent as in his dealings with the dissen- sions in the English College at Rome. From the out- set the English students were ever setting forth their grievances, whether the college was under the "Welsh- man, Dr. Clenock, who was singularly lacking in the talent of governing, or under the Italian Jesuits, who were disliked because of "the open penances in hall, and the surveillance and espionage, which," as Ely says in his Certain Brief Notes, "had they been at- tempted at Oxford and Cambridge, the offenders would have risked being torn to pieces." A third reason was the favor supposedly shown to those students who showed any inclination to join the Society. As a matter of fact, sixty-nine Englishmen had be- come Jesuits between the years 1556 and 1580, and yet the number sent into England had been surpris- ingly small. Mr. Haile writes: "There were seldom more than four or five Jesuits at a time in England, and even so late as 1598, eighteen years after Campion and Persons arrived in the country, they numbered only sixteen, of whom one was in prison. The same proportion held good among 150 STUDIES IN CHURCH HISTORY those who fell in defense of the faith. During the forty-four years of Elizabeth's reign, although the persecution raged even more hotly against the Jesuits than the seculars, one hundred and sixty seminary priests were martyred to seven Jesuits, one Benedic- tine and one Franciscan. Of the Jesuits, four — Father Briant, John Cornelius, Roger Filcock, and Francis Page — were all secular priests who joined the Society shortly before their death." Cardinal Allen was always called upon to play the role of peacemaker. We find him called to Rome to restore harmony and good will between the students and the authorities in 1579, and again six years later he pours oil upon the waters by having the Pope, Sixtus V, appoint William Holt, an English Jesuit, to take the place of the Italian Father Agazzari. Besides the four works already mentioned. Cardinal Allen wrote a Latin Treatise on the Sacraments, which was highly esteemed and used by Cardinal Bellarmine ; an Apology for the two English colleges of Rheims and Rome ; a Life of Father Campion; a Defense of English Catholics, against the lying and slanderous pamphlet of Lord Burleigh ; ° Instructions Concerning the Government of Seminaries, and prob- ably the famous Admonition, which the appellant priests ascribed to Father Persons. His controversial writings so angered the English government, that it not only issued a writ for his arrest, but did its utmost to have Henry III deliver him into its hands. Secre- Published lately by the Catholic Library of England. CARDINAL ALLEN 151 iry Walsingliam had deputed, moreover, the notori- is Egremont Radcliffe to assassinate Dr. Allen, as ell as Don Juan of Austria, as Eadcliffe himself con- issed on the scaffold. Removal by assassination ;ems to have been part of the politics of the sixteenth intury, for we recall Catherine de Medici's attempt pon Coligny, which prepared the way for the mas- icre of St. Bartholomew, and Philip II 's approval of le plan to assassinate Elizabeth. Jilany politicians f that day looked upon the murder of an enemy not s a crime, but as an act of war, as part and parcel f the general attack upon an enemy against whom ostilities were opening. It is hard for us at the pres- Qt time to realize this viewpoint, and it is good to emember that the Popes never gave the slightest ountenance to such a false and brutal doctrine, 'ope Pius V has indeed been accused by non-Catholic ontroversialists of advocating assassination with re- ard to the Huguenot leaders in France, and with egard to Elizabeth in England, but not the slightest vidence has ever been brought forward for this false ccusation. Ever since the Council of Trent had declared the jatin Vulgate the authentic version of the Sacred Icriptures, the Popes had been anxious to publish a orrected recension. Pius IV had appointed a eom- lission of Cardinals for that purpose. In 1579 Car- inal Montalto urged upon Gregory XIII the impor- ance of preparing a more correct edition of the leptuagint as a preliminary to the recension of the 152 STUDIES IN CHURCH HISTORY Vulgate. Cardinal Caraffa was appointed to take up the matter, and among the scholars whom he chose to assist him is found the name of Cardinal Allen. How much work he did on this commission is not known, but he must have spent some time upon it during his five months' stay in Rome during the winter of 1579- 1580, and again on his return in 1585. This cor- rected edition of the Septuagint was finally published by Sixtus V in 1587. He was unable to complete the "Vulgate, for we find Pope Gregory XIV appointing a new commission in 1591. Fitzherbert speaks of Cardinal Allen's labors on this commission, as well as his work in the two Congregations of the Index and the Affairs of Germany. On the death of Cardinal Caraffa, Cardinal Allen was appointed by the Pope apostolic librarian. One of his labors in this ofSce was the correcting of the text of St. Augustine, which he undertook in cooperation with other scholars. Death alone prevented him from completing it. We must not forget that we owe our English Bible to Cardinal Allen. Soon after the transference of the English College to Rheims, he commissioned Greg- ory Martin to work on a translation of the Bible. Personally he preferred to keep the Scriptures in the original, but as many corrupt versions were in circu- lation, he deemed it necessary to have a faithful and correct text that Catholics might trust. Martin began his translation on October 16, 1578, and it was re- vised and corrected page by page, as it proceeded, by Bristow and Cardinal Allen. The New Testament CARDINAL ALLEN 153 was completed in March, 1582, and the Old Testament in 1611, Dr. Allen collecting all the necessary funds — about $25,000 — for the publication. Martin did his work well. Henceforth the English- speaking Catholics were to have a correct translation of the Bible, which they could confidently quote in answer to the faulty Protestant versions, gotten up to promote the theological errors and heresies of their translators. It put an end to the many Protestant versions then in use, and caused the publishing of the King James Version of 1611. The translators of the Authorized Version made great use of the labors of Gregory Martin, as is clear from their adoption of many of his renderings. Some superficial writers have spoken of the Douay Bible as overloaded with Latinism, and have ascribed this fault to the fact that the translators and revisers were exiles, who had grown unfamiliar with their na- tive tongue. Martin forestalled this objection by de- claring that he followed the Vulgate to the best of his ability, because it had been declared authentic by the Council of Trent. He preferred to follow a bit closely the Latin text, rather than endanger the true sense by the use of more familiar words. All con- cerned with the translation were Oxford men, and all but Allen himself had but lately left the university. Scholars of late have come to acknowledge the excel- lent English of the Douay Bible. As a writer in The Catholic World, November, 1870, well says: "Mar- tin's translation is terse, close, vigorous, grand old 154 STUDIES IN CHURCH HISTORY English of the very best era of English literature, coeval with Shakespeare, Ben Jonson, and Spenser." Cardinal Allen will always be held in reverence for his scholarship, his skill and earnestness in contro- versy, his indefatigable labors in maintaining the faith in England by his continual supply of learned and holy missionaries, his translation of the Bible, and his general character of sweetness and charm of man- ner which did so much to quiet the dissensions of the English Catholics of his time. His one fault was his entering into politics, for which he was absolutely un- fitted, and his submitting to being made a tool of by the King of Spain. His political prejudices were with him even to the last, for one year before his death we find him drawing up a strong indictment against Henry of Navarre for his "pretended" conversion. Luckily for France and for the peace of Europe, Clement VIII believed in Henry's sincerity. The Pope 's solemn absolution of the King ended the thirty years of religious wars in Prance, and made France a powerful ally of the Holy See. THE CONDEMNATION OF GALILEO We can readily understand how in the seventeenth century the condemnation of Ualileo caused a stir out of proportion to the real merits of the case. For that age was preeminently the age of transition. The nat- ural sciences — physics, astronomy, and mechanics — were still in their infancy, and were studied simply as divisions of philosophy. They were looked upon as useful auxiliaries, it is true, but they were without any individuality or method of their own. Galileo, although not the first, was the most ener- getic and the most prominent defender of the new physical sciences, which were based no longer on the authority of Aristotle, but on personal observation of phenomena and mathematical analysis. When he pro- claimed the absolute freedom of physics and astron- omy from their old-time dependence upon a priori speculations, and declared open war upon the indig- nant followers of the scholastic philosophy, they were up in arms at once, eager to combat so daring and persistent an innovator. Did not every Doctor in the schools swear by the word of the Master? Had not the physical teaching of Aristotle held the field for centuries and furnished many an exact and ingenious explanation of natural phenomena? Again Galileo's place in the intellectual world, due 155 156 STUDIES IN CHURCH HISTORY to his marvelous discoveries, his influential lay and clerical friends, especially in Tuscany and at the Papal Court; his obstinate determination to meet the theo- logians of his day on their own vantage ground of Biblical exegesis; the aggressiveness and bitterness wherewith he attacked every one, no matter how powerful, who dared disagree with him — these were some of the reasons that brought about his condemna- tion, and at the same time gave it a prominence alto- gether unique. At the outset it may be of interest to give a brief historical sketch of the two sets of ofScial documents in the archives of the Inquisition relating to the Galileo case, viz., the trials and the decrees. The trial registers contain all the documents that were used by the theological consultors and the In- quisitors in coming to their final decision — autograph letters of accusation and defense; the official reports of the interrogatories; the various opinions of the judges ; the copies of the sentences given, and the like. The decree registers contain the minutes of the various sessions of the Congregation, the arguments pro and con, and the final judicial sentence. The records of the trial were kept at Rome in the archives of the Holy Office until the beginning of the nineteenth century, and all access to them was for- bidden in accord with the traditions of that secret tribunal. In 1811, some time after the French occupa- tion of Rome, Napoleon ordered all the records of the Inquisition sent to Paris. He commanded his libra- THE CONDEMNATION OF GALILEO 157 nan, Barbier, to publish at once the documents in the Galileo case, but he was deterred by the difficulty of the task, and the Emperor was too busily engaged with his last campaigns to see that his orders were carried oiit. These papers, although asked for twice by Pius VII, did not find their way back to Rome until 1845, when they were returned to the Pope by Count Rossi, with the express condition that they be published in their entirety. Pius IX at once entrusted them to the Prefect of the Vatican Archives, Mon- signor Marini, who on July 8, 1850, deposited them in the Vatican library. Thence they were transferred to the secret archives of the Vatican, where they still remain. The promise made to Count Rossi was partially carried out in 1850 by Monsignor Marini, who pub- lished a portion of the documents in his work, Galileo and the Inquisition, an Historical and Critical Memoir. This edition, however, was so imperfect that it made the scholarly world feel that there were certain things in the record which the ecclesiastical authorities were anxious to hide. For nearly twenty years scholars asked Rome in vain for permission to consult these documents. This favor was finally granted in July, 1867, through the courtesy of the Vatican Librarian, Father Theiner, to Henri de I'Epinois. Soon after he published some of the most important passages in the Revue des Questions Historiques of Paris, with a brief summary of the remainder. A third and a fourth edition, more complete but still imperfect, were pub- 158 STUDIES IN CHURCH HISTORY listed by Berti at Rome in 1876 and 1878. In 1877 two fairly complete editions were published, the one in Paris by Henri de I'Epinois, and the other in Stutt- gart by Charles von Gebler. It was not until 1907 that a final and minutely critical text was published in Florence by A. Favaro. The manuscripts of the decrees had also a rather interesting history. The agents of Napoleon did not find them among the papers that they carried with them to France in 1811. Scholars who felt that they must be in Rome, asked the authorities there more than once for the privilege of consulting them, but they were always met with a polite refusal. "When Pius IX went into exile at Gaeta in 1848, the Roman Constituent Assembly transferred the archives of the Inquisition to the Church of Sant' Apollinare. Two of the Roman officials, Gherardi and Manzari, went several times to look for the papers that referred to the Galileo case. They, of course, did not find the records of the trial, as they were safe in the hands of Monsignor Marini, but Gherardi did discover seven- teen authentic decrees, and an eighteenth century copy of thirty-two decrees. He published them in 1867, just about the time that the records of the trial were being edited in Germany and Prance. It was not until thirty years later that the critical edition of Favaro was published. About the same time, 1908, Favaro also published a new edition of the works of Galileo in twenty volumes, under the auspices of the King of Italy. THE CONDEMNATION OP GALILEO 159 It is, therefore, only in the last seven years that one can discuss the Galileo case with a perfect grasp of all the facts. All scholars writing before 1908 were unaware of the existence of some very important documents. The most complete bibliography we possess of the Galileo case was published at Rome in 1896 by A. Carli and A. Favaro. This Biblioffrafia Galileiana gives a list of 2,108 publications with their dates. Favaro 's critical edition of the trials and the de- crees is entitled Galileo e I'Inquisizione (Florence, 1907). We mention here a score of the best books in the order of their publication. Berti, Eome, 1876. II Processo di Galileo Galilei. H. de I'Epinois, Paris, 1877. La Question de Galilee. Von Gebler, Stuttgart, 1877. Die Aden des Gali- leischen Processes. Schanz, Wiirzburg, 1878. Galileo Galilei und sein Process. Pieralisi, Rome, 1878. Uriano VIII e Galileo Galilei. Pieralisi, Rome, 1878. Novi Ohservazioni sopra il Processo di Galileo. Reusch, Bonn, 1879. Le Proces de Galilee et les Jesmtes. Grisar, Eatisbon, 1882. Galileistudien. Bourquard, Paris, 1886. Galilee, son proces, sa con- demnation, et les Congregations Bonmines. 160 STUDIES IN CHURCH HISTORY Jaugey, Paris, 1888. Le Proces de GalilSe et la Theologie. Vaeandard, Paris, 1905. Etudes des Critique et d'Histoire Beligieuse. Vol. I. Miiller, Fribourg, 1909. Der Galilei Prozess. Miiller, Fribourg, 1909. Galileo Galilei, und das Eopernikanische Weltsystem. Aubanel, Avignon, 1910. Galilee et I'^glise. P. de Vregille, Paris, 1911. Galileo. An article in the Dictionaire Apologetique de la Foi Catholique. Vol. II, col. 147-192. Paet I Galileo Galilei, born at Pisa, February 18, 1564, was Professor of Physics and Mathematics at the Uni- versity of Pisa, 1589-1592, and at Padua, 1592-1610. In the early days of his professorship he taught the Ptolemaic theory. When he became a convert to the Copernican theory will never be known with certainty. Some declare that it was due to the arguments of his friends. Christian "Wursteisen, of Basle, and Michael Mastlin, who had been Kepler's professor. It is cer- tain that he held it as early as 1597, for he mentions the fact in a letter to Kepler on August 4 of that year. The frequent statement that his abandonment of the old theory was due to the appearance in September, 1604, of a new star in the Constellation Serpentarius is now disproved. Hans Lippershey's discovery of the telescope in THE CONDEMNATION OP GALILEO 161 October, 1608, afforded Galileo, who at once increased its magnifying power over thirtyfold, a most effective instrument of research into the constitution and rela- tion of the heavenly bodies. In March, 1610, he published at Venice his Sidereus Nuntius, which described the mountains and valleys of the moon, the groups of lesser stars known as the Milky Way, and the four satellites of Jupiter, which he had discovered on January 7 and named Medicea Sidera, in honor of the Grand Duke of Tuscany, Cosmo II. This work was received with the greatest enthusiasm by the scientific world. Galileo was named honorary professor of the University of Padua, and made official mathematician of the Grand Duke. This was no mere compliment, as it gave him one of the Duke 's villas for his summer residence, and an annual income of 1,000 scudi (about $2,000). Beforp the end of the year he discovered the ansated or, as he thought, the triple form of Saturn, the phases of Venus and of Mars, and the spots upon the sun. In a letter to Prince Cesi about this time he declared that this last discovery utterly destroyed Aristotle's theory of the incorruptibility of the heavenly bodies. The followers of Aristotle at once answered him, some asserting correctly that his proofs were not at all demonstrative, while others, in their prejudice, went so far as even to deny the truth of his discoveries. They maintained that they were mere optical illu- sions, due to the imperfection of the instrument he had used. As he put it sarcastically in one of his 162 STUDIES IN CHURCH HISTORY letters, "some tried to drive the new planets out of tlie heavens by means of syllogisms." In March, 1611, he went to Rome, where he was most cordially received by Pope Paul V, Prince Cesi, and the entire Papal court. The Academy of the Lineei admitted him to membership, and the astrono- mers of the Roman College discussed his discoveries with him in a most friendly manner. He dined fre- quently with Cardinal Farnese, Cardinal del Monte, and Cardinal Barberini, the future Pope Urban VIII. The defenders of the Ptolemaic system were indig- nant at this kindly reception. They began a most energetic crusade against the Copernican theory, de- claring that it was contrary to the teaching of the early Fathers and the old theologians, made little of Aristotle and the scholastic philosophy, expressly con- tradicted the plain words of the Sacred Scriptures (Jos. ix. 12, 13 ; Eccles. i. 4, 5 ; Eceli. xliii. 26 ; Ps. xviii. 6, 7; Ps. xci. 1; Ps. ciii. 5), and was therefore evidently heretical. It is true that Nicholas de Cusa, as far back as 1445, had published in Basle his work, De Docta Ignorantia, which defended the Copernican theory. He dedicated it to Cardinal Cesarini, who read the work with great pleasure and interest. Instead of his being condemned by the Roman authorities, he was made a Cardinal in 1448. But he did not put forth his theory as an ob- jective fact, or declare that it was in perfect accord with the teaching of the Fathers and the Scriptures; he simply maintained it as an ingenious hypothesis. THE CONDEMNATION OF GALILEO 163 Copernicus at Nuremberg in 1543 had published his De Bevolutionibus Orbium CcelesUwm, in defense of the theory that still bears his name. At the instance of Cardinal de Schomberg, it was dedicated to Pope Paul III, and by him was well received. The followers of Ptolemy never raised the slightest question about it, for its editor, Andrew Osiander, was clever enough to omit Copernicus' own preface, and substitute one of his own, which asserted — falsely, it is true — that the new theory was not defended as the objective truth, but merely as an hypothesis to aid in the study of astronomy. Galileo says in one of his letters: "While Copernicus acquired an immortal glory among a few, the vast majority laughed at him and made little of his learning." In Germany and Austria his views made little or no progress, because of the influence of Tycho-Brahe, who strenuously combated them. The Protestant world was also hostile, because of the bitter opposition of the leading Reformers, Luther and Melanchthon. In Italy, on the other hand, Pope Clement VII was rather favorable, for he had John Widmanstad defend the Coperniean theory in his presence. But Galileo was not content with holding his theory as a mere scientific hypothesis; he wished to convince the world of its objective truth. His kindly reception in Rome emboldened him to set forth his views even more strongly in two new works, A Discourse on Float- ing Bodies (Florence, 1612), and A History of the Solar Spots (Rome, 1613). 164 STUDIES IN CHURCH HISTORY Towards the end of 1611 a Florentine monk, Fran- cesco Sizi by name, published at Venice his book, Dianoia Astronomica, which declared that Galileo's theories were in direct contradiction to the teaching of the Scriptures. Had Galileo been prudent enough to follow the advice of his friends, who warned him earnestly "to keep out of the sacristy," he would have utterly ignored this attack. But his natural impetu- osity and love of controversy made him enter the lists, and endeavor to meet the theologians on their own ground. This was a fatal mistake. The Church has always been suspicious, and rightly so, of the lay theo- logian, and the churchmen of that day were especially on the alert, because of the spread of the false Protes- tant principle of the private interpretation of the Bible. Galileo met the objection of his opponent in a letter which he wrote to the Benedictine Father Castelli (1613) . In it he gave his interpretation of the various texts of the Bible which seemed to go against his theory, and also laid down certain rules of exegesis, which were to guide the scientist and the theologian in discussing natural phenomena. Two years later he wrote to Christina of Lorraine, the mother of the Grand Duke, a defense of the Copernican theory, in which he developed the same ideas. In his letter to Father Castelli, he said, among other things : ' ' The Bible cannot err or deceive us ; the truth of its words are absolute and unassailable. But they THE CONDEMNATION OP GALILEO 165 who explain and interpret the Scriptures may be de- ceived in many ways, and commit many fatal errors by always slavishly following the literal sense of the words. By so doing they may even teach contradic- tory and impious doctrines and errors, for they would be forced to ascribe to God hands, feet, eyes, etc. . . . In questions of natural science the Bible ought to take the last place. Both nature and the Bible come from God; the one has been inspired by the Holy Spirit, while the other faithfully obeys the laws established by God. But while the Bible, accommodating itself to the average intelligence of man, often speaks, and rightly so, according to appearances, and used terms that are not intended to express the absolute truth, nature conforms rigorously and invariably to the rules prescribed to it. One, therefore, ought not to cite texts of Scripture against a fact clearly proved by careful observation. . . . The Holy Spirit has no intention of teaching us through the Holy Scriptures that the sun moves or that the sun does not move. . . . Can any one maintain that the Holy Spirit wishes to teach us anything which does not concern the soul's salvation?" Most of this letter to-day would be considered com- monplace and orthodox enough, with the exception of a few statements like that expressed in the last sen- tence. Indeed, even at that time the theologian to whom this letter was referred by the Congregation of the Index declared that, save for three expressions, it 166 STUDIES IN CHUECH HISTORY contained nothing worthy of condemnation, and that even these three might be interpreted in an orthodox sense. Still this doctrine was novel to the ears of the seven- teenth century, and the average theologian deemed it heretical. The Dominican Father Caccini, preaching on Josue in the Church of Santa Maria Novella in Florence, declaimed vehemently against the opinion of Galileo, which he asserted was "incompatible with the Catholic Faith, inasmxich as it contradicted several passages of the Scriptures, and was quasi-heretical." The Superior of the Dominicans apologized to Galileo for this outburst, and deplored the great folly and im- prudence of the preacher. Still this open denuncia- tion of Galileo caused a great stir not only in Flor- ence, but all over Italy. Galileo was very much incensed at this attack, and was anxious to bring his accuser before the Roman tribunals, but his friend. Prince Cesi, dissuaded him, for he feared that a thorough examination of the question in the present state of public opinion would result in an adverse decision. The future was to prove how well founded his suspicions were. But the oppo- nents of the Copernican theory were nothing loath to bring the matter to the official attention of the Roman authorities. On February 15, 1615, Father Lorini, a Dominican of Florence, sent a copy of the Castelli letter to Car- dinal Sfondrati, the Prefect of the Congregation of the Index. He also sent with it a letter of his own. THE CONDEMNATION OF GALILEO 167 in which he pointed out the erroneous expressions that he wished examined. They were as follows : ' ' Certain expressions of the Scriptures were not accurate; in discussions of natural phenomena, the Bible held the last place; the Doctors of the Church were often de- ceived in their explanations; the Bible ought not to be cited in matters outside of the domain of faith ; in natural science, the philosophical or astronomical argument had more force than the divine argument; the command of Josue to the sun was not addressed to the sun at all." In a word, to his thinking, the theory of Galileo "contradicted the Scriptures, the teaching of the Fathers and of St. Thomas, besides making little of the philosophy of Aristotle." He added, however, that he wrote merely in the interests of religion, and that he had no intention of making a juridical deposition. Cardinal Sfondrati at once sent these two docu- ments to the Holy Office, which, according to its cus- tom, began a secret inquiry, which lasted some months. Although both the report and the inquiry into its merits were supposed to be carried on in absolute secrecy, Galileo was informed of them by his many friends in Eome. He at once hurried to Rome, eager to defend his views against his opponents, and hoping to win accept- ance for them by reason of his many influential friends in that city. He was assured of the support of Monsignor Dini, Monsignor Ciampoli, and Cardinals Orsini, del Monte, Bellarmine, and Barberini. But, 168 STUDIES IN CHUECH HISTORY on the other hand, the Dominicans who ruled the Holy Office were all opposed to him, and although a few Jesuits, like Father Greinberger and Father Tor- quatus de Cupis, shared his views, the Order as a whole had been commanded by its superior to be loyal to Aristotle. Cardinal Bellarmine, a great friend of the Pope, and a prominent member of the Holy Office, did not himself believe that the Copernican theory could ever be proved, although he admitted its possi- bility. He told Galileo he need not worry in the least, provided he was ready to accept any decision that the Church might see fit to give. Galileo, if we are to believe his letters, was most submissive, for we find him writing to Monsignor Dini: "I would rather pluck out my eye than give scandal. I would do anything rather than resist my superiors and injure my soul, by maintaining against them an opinion which at present seems to me to be evident and worthy of credence." At Rome, Galileo met with the same cordial recep- tion which he had received on his former visit. He at once began to plead his cause with every one who would listen to him. In the salons of the chief families he attacked the views of his opponents with the greatest bitterness, so much so that his friends urged him to be less emphatic in his assertions, to confine himself to mere scientific arguments, and, above all, not, as a layman, to enter the provinces of the cleric by citing the Scriptures in his favor. This was excellent ad- vice, but, it is needless to say, Galileo utterly dis- THE CONDEMNATION OF GALILEO 169 regarded it. As the Grand Duke's ambassador, Guiceiardini, wrote at the time, "It was his aggres- siveness and imprudence that rendered inevitable the intervention of the Holy Office." About this time two other works appeared which defended the Copernican theory and declared it in perfect accord with the Scriptures. One was A Com- mentary on the Book of Joi, by Father de Zuniga, and the other Father Foscarini's treatise on The Sys- tem of the World. The latter, by publishing his work in the vernacular, caused so great a stir that a decision became all the more imperative. Until the last moment, Galileo thought that the de- cision of the Congregation might be postponed in- definitely, or that it might even decide in his favor. We find him writing on February 20, 1616 : " I will succeed in revealing the fraud of my adversaries. I will oppose them, and prevent any declaration being made that might cause scandal to the Church." But only the day before he wrote this letter, the theologians of the Holy Office had received a copy of the following propositions to censure: 1. The sun is the center of the world, and altogether immovable. 2. The earth is not the center of the world, nor immovable, but has a diurnal motion of rotation. On February 23 the theologians met and agreed upon the following censures : The first proposition was declared "stupid and absurd in philosophy, and for- mally heretical, inasmuch as it expressly contradicted many passages of the Holy Scriptures, according to 170 STUDIES IN CHURCH HISTORY the sense of the text, and the common interpretation and opinion of the Holy Fathers and learned theo- logians." The second proposition received the same censure in philosophy, and theologically was declared to he at least "erroneous in faith." On February 24 these censures were proposed to the Cardinals who were members of the Holy Office and approved by them. On February 25 these censures were read again in a final meeting, over which Pope Paul V presided. The Pope then ordered Cardinal Bellarmine to sum- mon Galileo and warn him to abandon his opinions. If he refused to promise "not to teach, defend or discuss his doctrine or opinion," he was to suffer im- prisonment. On February 26, Galileo appeared be- fore Cardinal Bellarmine in his palace, and promised to obey the orders that were given him. On March 3, in a session of the Inquisition over which the Pope presided. Cardinal Bellarmine de- clared that the orders of the Pope and the Congrega- tion had been carried out, and that Galileo had sub- mitted. Some writers used to question the fact of this order ever having been given to Galileo. They pretended that the registers of the Holy Office were falsified at the time of the second trial, in order to justify jurid- ically the condemnation for which his enemies were clamoring. But the publishing of the original docu- ments utterly refutes this false and arbitrary sup- position. THE CONDEMNATION OF GALILEO 171 On March 5 the Pope ordered the Master of the Sacred Palace to publish the decree of the Index, con- demning absolutely the work of Fosearini, prohibiting the works of Copernicus and de Zuniga until they were corrected, and, as a general law, banning all books that taught the immobility of the sun, and the movement of the earth. It is worthy of note that out of respect to Galileo 's great services to science, and his ready acceptance of the decree issued against his cherished views, the decree made no mention either of his name or his writings. The order given him not to defend in future the Copernican theory was a personal one, and all the members of the Congregation who knew of it were bound by their oath to keep it secret. Some of Galileo 's opponents, who did not relish this delicacy on the part of the Roman authorities, falsely spread the report that the Inquisition had imposed a penance upon him, and had forced him to abjure his heretical views. To answer these calumnies, Galileo wrote to Cardinal Bellarmine for a written statement of the facts. On May 26 the Cardinal wrote in reply : "Galileo has not abjured any of his opinions or doc- trines before me or any one else, at Eome or elsewhere, nor has he submitted to any penance. He has simply been notified of the declaration made by His Holiness, and published by the Congregation of the Index, viz., that the doctrine of Copernicus, according to which the earth moves around the sun, and the sun remains in the center of the world, is contrary to the Sacred 172 STUDIES IN CHURCH HISTORY Scriptures, and that, therefore, it cannot be defended or believed." On March 11, Galileo was most kindly received in a long private audience by Paul V, who assured him that he was perfectly aware of the purity of his mo- tives, and urged him not to worry in future over the attacks of his enemies. "While I live," he added, "you may be certain that your calumniators will not be believed." We may mention here in brief the subsequent his- tory of this decree of the Index. Kepler's Epitome AstronomicB Copernicance was put on the Index in 1619; Campanella's Apologia pro Galileo in 1632, and Galileo's Dialogo in 1634. The work of Copernicus was taken off the Index in 1620, certain words being inserted which declared it a mere scientific hjrpothesis. The full text of the decree was published in all the editions of the Index until 1664, when it was replaced by the words, "All books teaching the movement of the earth and the immobility of the sun. ' ' It was not until 1822 that books teaching the Copernican theory could be printed in the city of Rome. Finally in 1825 all mention of any prohibition on this point was omitted from the Index. Galileo, soon after the trial of 1616, left Rome for Florence, where he again took up his mathematical studies under the patronage of his friend, the Grand Duke of Tuscany. The letters of this period show clearly that the recent happenings at Rome had not in the least interfered with his reputation in either THE CONDEMNATION OF GALILEO 173 the scientific or the ecclesiastical world. Monsignor Cesarini wrote him that "he was the unique glory of Italy and of science," while Cardinal Barberini, the future Urban VIII, dedicated to him in 1620 a long Latin ode. A pupil of Galileo's, Mario Guiducci, in his Dis- course on the Comets of 1618 (Florence, 1619), at- tacked before the Academicians of Florence the work of Father Horace Grassi on the same subject (1619). The latter, convinced that Galileo was attacking him in the name of his pupil, replied in a work entitled Mbra Astronomica (Perugia, 1619), under the nom de plume of Sarsi. Galileo in turn answered this work four years later in his II Saggiatore (Borne, 1623). This appeared under the form of a letter to his friend, Monsignor Cesarini, the Maestro di Camera of the new Pope, Urban VIII. In it he stated that the theory of Coper- nicus was in perfect accord with the observations of the telescope, and that the Ptolemaic theory was un- tenable. He then argued that as the first opinion had been condemned by the ecclesiastical authorities, and the second was contrary to reason, scholars were bound to look for a new theory which would be iu accord with both reason and the Bible. Although the sub- stance of the book was in reality only a skillfully veiled defense of the Copernican theory, Monsignor Riceardi did not perceive it, and at once gave it his imprimatur. In fact, he wrote of it in the most glow- ing terms. He said: "I have read II Saggiatore, and 174 STUDIES IN CHUECH HISTORY found nothing in it against good morals or the super- natural truths of faith. On the contrary, I discovered in it excellent teachings on natural philosophy which will make our age famous in ages to come. ... I am happy to be the contemporary of so learned a man. ' ' Pope Urban VIII was also deceived, and allowed Galileo to dedicate the book to him. More than this, he declared that he read it through with the greatest pleasure. Angered at the book's success, Father Grassi again attacked Galileo in his Ratio Ponderum Libra et Simhellce. Galileo ignored this attack, and allowed his pupil Guiducci to carry on the controversy alone. The flattering reception given his new book by the Pope, encouraged Galileo in the belief that he would succeed in having the adverse decree of Paul V an- nulled. Many of his friends at Rome were of the same opinion, and, at their invitation, Galileo again visited Rome in 1624. His reception was even more enthusiastic than be- fore, for we find him writing on June 8 to Prince Cesi: "His Holiness has accorded me great honors, and I have had six long audiences with him. Tester- day he promised me a pension for my son, and three days ago he gave me a beautiful picture, a gold and a silver medal, and a number of Agnus Dei." In a letter to Ferdinand II, the Grand Duke of Tuscany, the Pope praised Galileo highly, both for his scientific genius and his ardent piety, and urged this prince to continue the patronage graciously accorded by his THE CONDEMNATION OP GALILEO 175 predecessor. Galileo was unable, however, to persuade the Pope to accept the Copernican theory. Elated by the special kindness of the Pope, Galileo forgot all about the promise he had made the Roman authorities in 1616. During his visit to Rome, he did his utmost to gain adherents to his cause, and wrote a letter to Monsignor Ingoli, in which he plainly de- fended the condemned theory. But, for some reason or other, this letter was altogether ignored by his oppo- nents. Six years passed, during which he worked upon an open defense of the Copernican theory. He made a fourth visit to Rome in 1630, in order to obtain the required imprimatur for his projected work from Monsignor Riceardi, the Master of the Sacred Palace. On examining the manuscript, Monsignor Riceardi saw at once that Galileo had utterly dis- regarded the promise he had made in 1616 to the Roman Congregation. He, therefore, required him to add a preface and a conclusion to his book, clearly stating in them that he set forth the Copernican theory merely as a scientific hypothesis, and that his argu- ments against the Ptolemaic theory were not to be regarded as decisive proofs of its falsity. The revision ia detail was handed over to the Dominican Father, Raphael Visconti, who suggested a few further correc- tions. Galileo, much against his will, agreed to all these requirements. Monsignor Riceardi, therefore, granted the imprimatur for Rome, reserving to him- self the right to correct the proofs of the book as they appeared. Pope Urban VIII, when informed about 176 STUDIES IN CHURCH HISTORY the proposed volume, asked his private secretary, Mon- signor Ciampoli, to make special inquiries about its publication. He was at once assured that Galileo was ready to fulfill all the conditions required by the Master of the Sacred Palace. At this juncture Galileo left Rome for Florence. Hardly had he arrived there when he wrote Monsignor Riccardi for permission to publish it in that city. This permission was at first refused. Galileo wrote again, backing up his request by a personal letter from the Grand Duke. Monsignor Riccardi then wrote to the Inquisitor of Florence, leaving the matter en- tirely in his hands. He sent him, moreover, a list of all the corrections already agreed upon, and insisted on their being made before the imprimatur was granted. In 1632 the book finally appeared under the title, Dialogo di Oalileo delli due Massimi Sistemi del Mondo. It bore the authorization of the Inquisitor and the Vicar-General of Florence, and also the im- primatur of Monsignor Riccardi, although the condi- tions insisted upon had not been fulfilled. The preface and conclusion did appear, as promised, to satisfy the letter of the law, but they were evidently written in a spirit of ridicule and mockery. The book itself was undoubtedly a clear and formal defense of the Coper- nican theory. Two of Galileo's friends, Sagredo of Venice and Salviati of Florence, defended his views, and attacked his opponents most vehemently. An imaginary philosopher, Simplicio (imbecile), defended THE CONDEMNATION OF GALILEO 177 the Ptolemaic theory in such a way as to bring out the force and strength of his adversaries' arguments. This publication caused a great stir all over Italy, especially in Rome. Pope Urban VIII was very angry at the palpable dishonesty and trickery of Galileo, in having this book published without conforming to the conditions laid down by Monsignor Riccardi. Others say that he was indignant because he recognized some of his own arguments in the mouth of the stupid and ridiculous Simplicio. Galileo, hearing of this, wrote at once to the Pope's nephew. Cardinal Barberini, de- claring that he had not the slightest intention of ridiculing the Pope in his book. Monsignor Riccardi at once ordered the printer in Florence to stop the sale of the Dialogo, and the Pope referred it, in August, 1632, to a special commission of theologians. This commission found him guilty, first of having dis- obeyed the Orders of the Holy Office, and of having broken his promise made to that tribunal in 1616, and, second, of having treated the Copernican theory, not as a hypothesis but as an absolute fact. On September 23, 1632, the Pope ordered the In- quisitor at Florence to have Galileo appear in Rome for trial by October. Galileo, feeling certain that he would be condemned, did all he could to put off his journey to Rome. He first wrote for permission to appear before the Inquisitor of Florence, giving as his reasons his great age (he was nearly seventy), his ill health, and the fatigue incident upon the long journey to Rome. A second citation of November 19 allowed 178 STUDIES IN CHURCH HISTORY Galileo another month 's grace, but at the end of three months the Pope's patience was exhausted. Firmly convinced that all Galileo's excuses were mere subter- fuges, he wrote the Inquisitor of Florence on Decem- ber 30 to send Galileo to Rome, if need be in chains. There was no need to carry out this threat. Galileo, at last certain that he could no longer delay his jour- ney to Rome, left Florence on January 29, 1633. He traveled in the litter of the Grand Duke, and arrived at Rome in perfect health on February 16. According to law, he should have been imprisoned in one of the cells of the Inquisition, but an exception was made in his case, and the Villa Medici, the beau- tiful mansion of his friend Nicolini, was assigned to him as his residence. Later on, for convenience' sake during the interrogatories, he was assigned, not to the loathsome dungeon spoken of by ignorant controver- sialists, but to the apartments of the treasury of the Inquisition, where three good rooms were placed at his disposal. He remained there with his servant in per- fect comfort, as he himself assures us, for twenty-two days, his meals being provided by his friend, Nicolini, the ambassador of the Grand Duke. Many of Galileo's friends assured him that he would not be condemned, but he himself was not so sanguine. Nicolini advised him not to discuss matters at all with his Inquisitors, but to grant at once all they asked, and to retract all that they demanded. "Otherwise," said he, "you will cause yourself no end of trouble." The first interrogatory took place on the 12th of THE CONDEMNATION OF GALILEO 179 April, and the last on the 21st of June. According to the general procedure of the Holy Office, the inter- rogatories dealt with two points, viz., the question of heretical fact and the question of heretical intention. 1. The question of Fact. Had Galileo taught in the Dialogo the opinion condemned by the decree of 1616, and which the Congregation of the Index had for- bidden him to defend in any form (quovis modo) ? 2. The question of Intention. Had Galileo, as a matter of fact, held as true this condemned theory ? To the first question Galileo replied in substance as f oUows : " I did not understand that the Congregation of the Index had forbidden me to teach the Copernican theory in any form. These words, quovis modo, in- deed, are found in the official text of the decree of February 26, 1616, but I have no remembrance of them whatever. They are not to be found in the letter that Cardinal Bellarmine wrote me on May 26 of that year. He said simply that this theory was not to be held or defended {non si possa difendere ne tenere). I supposed that these words, written by one of the Inquisitors, expressed the mind of the Holy Office accurately, especially when they were viewed in the light of another letter which Cardinal Bellarmine wrote to Father Foscarini on April 12, 1616. In it are the words : ' Galileo will act prudently, if he con- tents himself with speaking ex suppositione, as Coper- nicus did.' " He, therefore, thought he was perfectly justified in defending the Copernican theory in his Dialogo as a 180 STUDIES IN CHURCH HISTORY mere hypothesis, but when the three consultors as- serted that his book taught the theory positively and categorically as an objective truth, he admitted that through ignorance or inadvertence he had adduced two arguments which did favor too plainly the Coper- nican theory. He further promised that if ever again he were to write on the subject, he would put these two arguments in such a form that they would be deprived of all their effectiveness. He then signed his deposi- tion, and again promised, if the requisite permission were given him, to refute all the arguments that seemed to favor the condemned theory. Notwithstanding this labored denial of Galileo, the Inquisitors declared against him on the question of fact, agreeing with the consultors, who declared that the Dialogo taught the Copernican theory as an ob- jective truth, and not as a mere hypothesis. On June 16 the Pope, presiding at a solemn ses- sion of the Inquisition, ordered the Inquisitors to question Galileo about his intention. They were to threaten him with torture (examen rigorosum), and if he persisted in denying that he had really held the condemned opinion, they were to condemn him to the prison of the Holy Office. He was also to make a public abjuration, inasmuch as he was "vehemently suspected of heresy." They were also to order him henceforth never to discuss the condemned opinion in any form, or he would be considered a relapsed heretic. His Dialogo was to be prohibited, and copies of his THE CONDEMNATION OF GALILEO 181 sentence were to be sent to all Nuncios and Inquisitors, especially the Inquisitor of Florence. On being questioned about his intention on June 21, Galileo replied: "Prior to the decree of 1616, I was undecided, believing that both theories were equally- probable, and might be scientifically defended. After the prohibition of 1616, relying on the wisdom of my superiors, I held that the Ptolemaic theory was alone indubitably true." He persisted in this statement, even though the judges pointed to his Dialogo as proving the contrary, and threatened him with tor- ture {territio verhalis). It is now universally admitted that although Galileo was threatened with torture, he escaped it because of his age and the influence of his many powerful friends in Rome. The only modern author that main- tains he was tortured is "Wohlwill, in his work, 1st Galileo gefoliert warden, published in 1887. Father Grisar has proved conclusively that the arguments of Wohlwill rest on an arbitrary and incorrect rendering of the words esame rigoroso. The acts of the trial, which of course Wohlwill did not possess in their en- tirety when he wrote, are utterly silent on the matter, which is the best possible proof that Galileo's judges did not proceed to this extremity. Besides, neither he nor his friends in any of their writings ever said one word about the use of torture. The next day, June 22, at the Dominican Convent of Santa Maria sopra Minerva, Galileo 's condemnation 182 STUDIES IN CHURCH HISTORY was read in the presence of seven Cardinal Inqtiisitors. They declared him "vehemently suspected of heresy," inasmuch as he had held and believed a doctrine "false and contrary to the Sacred Scriptures." They made him read and sign an act of abjuration, in which he declared himself rightly suspected of heresy; they forbade the publication of the Dialogo, condemned him to the prison of the Holy Office, and imposed as pen- ance the seven penitential psalms to be said once a week for three years. It is at this meeting, after he had signed his ab- juration, that Galileo was supposed to have stamped his feet in anger and to have cried out: "E pur si miiove — iut it does move." This ridiculous statement was first made by the unreliable Abbe Irailh in 1761, in the third volume of his Querelles Litteraires. No scholar to-day believes this fable. The records of the trial present Galileo as most submissive throughout. He would not have dared make such a statement, for it would have angered his judges, and have made them proceed at once to the harshest measures. As a matter of fact, on the very day of the sentence which con- demned him to the special prison of the Holy Office, Pope Urban VIII commuted this penalty by assigning as his prison the villa and gardens of his staunch friend, Nieolini. Galileo left on June 30 for Siena, where he enjoyed for five months the hospitality of another devoted friend. Cardinal Piccolomini. Towards the end of the year, on December 1, he received permission from the THE CONDEMNATION OF GALILEO 183 Pope to retire to his own villa of Arcetri, near Flor- ence. This was very near the Convent of St. Matthew, in which two of his daughters lived as religious. While he could receive visitors, he was not allowed to leave his house without the special permission of the In- quisition; and once even we know that this was re- fused, when he asked to go to Florence for a few days' medical treatment. The reason of this refusal was an anonymous letter sent to the Inquisition at the time accusing him and his friend, the Archbishop of Siena, "of un-Catholic opinions." When the storm caused by this accusation calmed down, he obtained leave to visit Florence for a fortnight, but all the efforts of his many friends, princes and prelates to have the penalty of imprisonment entirely remitted were of no avail. He continued his studies undaunted until the end, and was visited by scholars from all over the world. He discussed scientific matters with many of his friends, and kept up a very large correspondence. He became blind in 1638, and this, together with the con- tinual nagging of his opponents, rather embittered his last days, as we see in many of his letters. Still he edified those about him by his faithful performance of every religious duty. The Pope continued to grant him the pension of one hundred crowns which he had given him ever since 1630, and on his deathbed, Janu- ary 8, 1642, he sent him the Apostolic Benediction. His friends wished to erect a monument to him in the Santa Croce Church of Florence, but the Pope refused permission, saying to Nicolini : " It would not 184 STUDIES IN CHUECH HISTORY be a good example for the Grand Duke to erect a monument to a man condemned by the Holy Office for a false and erroneous opinion which had seduced so many minds, and caused so great a scandal through- out Christendom." The honor long denied him was at last granted by the Holy Office on June 14, 1734, when he was buried in the Church of Santa Croce. The following in- scription was placed over his tomb : GALIL^US GALILEIS GEOMETRIC ASTRONOMIC PHILOSOPHIC MAXIMUS RESTITUTOR NULLI CTATIS SVJE COMPAEANDUS Paet II Now that we have a complete record of all the facts regarding the condemnation of Galileo, we are ready to answer the chief objections that non-Catholics are continually urging from them against the Catholic Church. There are, in substance, three in number, and may be worded, as they have actually been worded, on our missions to non-Catholics, as follows : 1. How can the Catholic Church claim to be infalli- ble, when we know that in the seventeenth century she condemned the scholar Galileo as a heretic, simply because he held the Copernican system of astronomy 3 Did not the Popes of that day expressly declare that his views were against the teaching of the Bible, and will you not admit that they were wrong? 2. Does not the condemnation of Galileo prove that THE CONDEMNATION OF GALILEO 185 the Catholic Church is in reality hostile to science? Did not the Popes, Paul V and Urban VIII, by their obscurantist opposition, do everything possible to hin- der the progress of scientific studies in Europe ? 3. Did not the Eoman Inquisition, by compelling Galileo to abjure as false a theory which he held as certainly true, encourage hypocrisy, and prove itself thereby guilty of the worst form of intolerance ? As the vast majority of non-Catholics have the most erroneous notions with regard to the infallibility of the Pope, it may be good to cite here the Vatican de- cree on the subject. It runs as follows: "We teach and define it to be a doctrine divinely revealed that the Roman Pontiff, when he speaks ex cathedra, i. e., when he is in the exercise of the office of pastor and doctor of all Christians, by virtue of his supreme apostolic authority, defines a doctrine regarding faith and morals to be held by the Universal Church, by the divine assistance promised him in Blessed Peter pos- sesses that infallibility with which the Divine Re- deemer willed His Church to be endowed in the definition of a doctrine regarding faith or morals ; and that, therefore, such definitions of the Eoman Pontiff are irreformable in themselves, and not in virtue of the consent of the Church." All theologians, there- fore, teach that the Pope is infallible only when the four conditions of the Vatican Council are verified, viz.: 1. When he speaks ex cathedra, i. e., as supreme Teacher and Doctor of the Universal Church. He is 186 STUDIES IN CHUECH HISTORY not infallible as a private theologian, as preacher or author, as local Bishop, Archbishop, or Primate, or as supreme legislator, judge, or ruler. 2. When he defines a doctrine, i. e., when he gives an absolutely final decision. 3. When he treats of faith or morals, including the entire revelation of God, and all the truths of philos- ophy and facts of history which are essential to the preservation, explanation, and defense of the content of revelation. 4. When he clearly manifests his intention of bind- ing the Universal Church. Since in the Galileo case not one of these four con- ditions was verified, we fail to. see how any one can bring it forward as an argument against infalli- bility. Before showing that the infallibility of the Popes is not at all involved in the present case, we will briefly mention what we consider as inaccurate answers made by some Catholic apologists. Some have explained the error made by the ecclesi- astical authorities by asserting that they dealt with a scientific question which was totally outside of their province. It was not a religious question at all, and, therefore, there can be no question of the infallibility either of the Church or the Popes. On the contrary, the question was essentially a religious one, because it involved the meaning of cer- tain passages of the Holy Scriptures. The Congrega- tions were called upon to decide whether or not the THE CONDEMNATION OF GALILEO 187 Coperniean theory was contrary to these passages, and whether, therefore, it was to be rejected by every Christian as heretical. Both decrees expressly declared that they were issued with the avowed intention of "utterly destroying a pernicious doctrine, which was causing great injury to the Catholic faith." The decree of 1616 says: "Ideo ne ulterius hujusmodi opinio in perniciem catholicce veritatis serpat." The decree of 1633 in like manner reads: "Vt prorsus tol- leretiir tain perniciosa doctrina, neque ulterius ser- peret in grave detrimentum catholicce veritatis." Other Catholic apologists, like Henri de I'Epinois, have declared that the Church could not be held re- sponsible in the present case, for both decisions were rendered, not in the name of the Popes, but only by two fallible Congregations of the Index and the In- quisition. But as we have seen above, both judgments were de facto rendered in the name of the two Popes, Paul V and Urban YIII. On February 25, 1616, Paul V ordered Cardinal Bellarmine to command Galileo to abandon the Coper- niean theory, which the Consultors of the Congrega- tion had censured as heretical. On March 3 he pre- sided at the session of the Congregation, in which Cardinal Bellarmine declared that his orders had been carried out. On March 5 the Pope ordered the Master of the Sacred Palace to publish the decree of the Index which prohibited all books teaching the Coperniean theory. On May 26, in the document that Cardinal Bellarmine gave to Galileo to answer the calumnies of 188 STUDIES IN CHUECH HISTOEY his enemies, we find mention again of the Pope's declaration, "that the Coperniean theory was contrary to the Scriptures, and could not be defended or be- lieved." Finally in the letter sent by the Prefect of the Congregation of the Index to all the Nuncios and Inquisitors, we read that the condemnation was made "by order of His Holiness." The same holds good of the decree of 1633. On June 16, Pope Urban VIII presiding at a solemn session of the Inquisition, ordered the Inquisitors to question Galileo regarding his intention. The Pope also or- dered him never again to discuss the condemned opin- ion, under penalty of being considered a relapsed hertic. The Pope also ordered the suppression of the Dialogo, and had copies of the sentence sent to all Nuncios and Inquisitors. It is, therefore, as clear as the noonday sun that the condemnation of Galileo and of the Coperniean theory in 1616 and 1633 were really acts of Papal authority, and, therefore, acts of the Head of the teaching Church. "It is true," writes Jaugey,^ "that the Pope exer- cises his power at times directly and at times indirectly by means of the Eoman Congregations, to whom he delegates a portion of his supreme authority. But in both cases, the decrees rendered have their origin and their effectiveness in the power of the Pope. The Eoman Congregations form with the Pope but one and the same tribunal, as the Vicar-General with the Bishop; they are the instruments the Pope uses to 1 Le Prods de OaliUe et la ThMogie, p. 35. THE CONDEMNATION OF GALILEO 189 govern and to teach. If this is true when the Eoman Congregations render their decisions in virtue of the general powers which they have received of the Sovereign Pontiff, it is still more true when the Pope intervenes personally in the decisions, as in the pres- ent case." A few apologists, like the Jesuit Father Grisar, have endeavored to show that the opinions of Galileo were not condemned as heretical, but only as "temerari- ous," or, "contrary to the Scriptures." But his ar- guments fail to prove his contention. The words of Urban VIII, in a private conversation, and the per- sonal opinions of a few theologians, prove nothing against the plain wording of the decrees of 1616 and 1633. This is the view of the great majority of Catholic scholars. A careful study of the text of the two decrees proves to evidence that they were in no sense infallible pro- nouncements. There is no question in either of them of any ex cathedra teaching, or of any intention of proposing a doctrine to be held by the Universal Church. The decree of 1616 merely prohibits all books that teach the Copernican theory. It does not command the faithful to hold the Ptolemaic theory as true, and the Copernican theory as false. It is, therefore, evi- dently a disciplinary decree, prescribing what one must do, and not what one must believe. It is true that the reasons that prompted the Popes and the Cardinals to pass the decree were doctrinal, but these 190 STUDIES IN CHURCH HISTORY reasons never form an integral part of the decree itself. Even in an infallible decision they may be considered erroneous, as all theologians teach. That these reasons do not belong essentially to the decree itself is proved by the action of the Congregation of the Index, which in 1664 omitted all the words declar- ing the falsity of the Copernican theory, and made the decree read: "All books teaching the movement of the earth, and the immobility of the sun. ' ' We know also that before 1854 the Popes issued several dis- ciplinary decrees on the Immaculate Conception, with the idea of strengthening that belief in the minds of the faithful; but no one ever dreamed of considering these decisions infallible. The decree of the Inquisition in 1633 is even more clearly disciplinary in its scope. It is simply an ofS- cial declaration of the guilt of Galileo, and an im- posing of a sentence upon him for his disobedience of orders. The reasons again were doctrinal, inasmuch as they tried him for what they considered heretical opinions. But the reason of their condemnation does not of itself constitute an article of faith. It is not a definition ex cathedra issued by the Pope for the acceptance of the Universal Church. The form in which both decrees were given also proves that they are not infallible pronouncements. The Abbe Vacandard writes : ^ "In a definition ex cathedra, it is the Pope who speaks in person ; he may, if he choose, ask the views of the Congregations, but 2 Etudes de Critique et d'Histoire, vol. i, p. 359. THE CONDEMNATION OP GALILEO 191 their opinion is regarded only as a mere consultation ; the sentence, properly speaking, is his work. In the trials of 1616 and 1633, the Popes order, but the Con- gregations act ; it is they that pronounce the sentence. If, therefore, infallibility be an incommunicable pre- rogative, it is manifest that their decision cannot be infallible." It is certain that neither in Galileo 's time, nor in the period immediately following, can one theologian or scholar be cited who considered the two decrees ren- dered against Galileo infallible. On the contrary, many can be quoted who plainly assert that they were not infallible decisions. In a letter to Father Foscarini, April 12, 1615, Cardinal Bellarmine wrote: "I wish to say that, if ever the Copernican theory be really demonstrated, we must then be more careful in explaining those passages of the Scriptures which appear contrary thereto. We must say then that we do not understand their meaning, rather than declare a thing false which has been proved to be true. But I do not think that such a demonstration will ever be made. ' ' The Jesuit Father Tanner, writing in 1626, cites the decree of the Index, and asserts that the Copernican theory cannot safely be taught. He does not say that it is heretical.^ Fromont, a professor at Louvain, and an ardent op- ponent of Galileo, declares expressly that he cannot consider the Copernican theory definitely condemned, 3 Theol. Scolast., ii, 6, 4. 192 STUDIES IN CHURCH HISTORY "at least," he says, "until I see something more pre- cise emanating from the Head of the Church. ' ' * Descartes in his letters assures his friends of his loyalty to the decisions of the Roman Congregations, but he openly expresses the hope that one day they will be reversed/ In 1643, Gassendi, a great friend of GalUeo's, after declaring his willingness to give up the Copernican theory in view of its condemnation at Rome, adds: "I do not, however, consider their decision an article of faith. I do not believe that the Cardinals have so declared it, nor that their decrees have been promul- gated or received by the whole Church. Their deci- sion, however, should have great weight in the minds of the faithful. "« The Jesuit Father Riccioli wrote in 1651: "As in this matter there has been no definition by the Sov- ereign Pontiff, nor by a Council directed or approved by him ; it is by no means of faith that the sun moves and that the earth is immovable, at least in virtue of the decree.'" Bishop Caramuel, writing in 1651, says: "What would happen if scholars were one day to demonstrate the truth of the Copernican theory 1 ' ' He replies : "In that case the Cardinals would allow us to interpret the words of Josue x. as metaphorical expressions. ' ' ^ * Anti-Aristarchus, p. 17. B Correspondance, vol. i, pp. 270, 288. Edit. Adam-Tannery. 8Z)e Motu Impresso, vol. iil, p. 471. ' Almagestum Novum, vol. i, p. 52. 8 Theol. Moral. Fund., vol. i, p. 273. THE CONDEMNATION OF GALILEO 193 The charge that the Catholic Church is essentially opposed to science has been frequently refuted in the writings of the Popes, and the decrees of the Councils, and is given the lie direct by the Church's history from the beginning. Pope Leo XIII declared the Church's attitude in his encyclical, Immortale Dei: "As all that is true comes necessarily from God, the Church recognizes in every truth which scientists discover a sort of vestige of the divine intelligence. And as in the truths of the natural order, nothing weakens one 's faith in the doc- trines revealed by God, while many things strengthen it ; and as every discovery of the truth can help us to know and love God, the Church will always welcome gladly any new discovery that will enlarge the bound- aries of human knowledge. She will always encour- age science which has for its object the knowledge of nature." The Vatican Council teaches clearly that there can be no real opposition between the truths of the natural and those of the supernatural order, but it asserts just as clearly the Church's right to condemn those scien- tific theories which go counter to the truths of divine revelation. The words are: "Although faith is above reason, there can never be any real opposition between faith and reason, since it is the same God Who re- veals mysteries and gives faith, and Who gives the human soul the light of reason. God, however, can- not contradict Himself, and the truth cannot contra- diet the truth. The vain appearance of such a con- 194 STUDIES IN CHUECH HISTORY tradietion comes principally from the fact that the dogmas of the faith are not understood and set forth according to the mind of the Church, or that false opinions are taken for the certain teachings of rea- son. ' ' "The Church which, with the apostolic mission to teach, has received the command to guard the deposit of faith, holds also from God the right and the duty to proscribe false science, so that no one 'be cheated by philosophy and vain deceit' (Col. ii. 8). That is why all faithful Christians must reject as false those opinions which are opposed to the teaching of the faith, especially if they are denounced by the Church. They must also consider them not as the legitimate conclusions of science, but as errors hidden under the deceitful appearance of the truth. . . . The Church does not prohibit the profane sciences from using, in their own sphere, their own peculiar principles, and methods ; but, while fully recognizing this true liberty, she watches carefully that they do not oppose the divine teaching by falling into error, or by going be- yond their true limits." In the case of Galileo, we must remember that the scientists of the day were as bitter against him as the theologians. The majority of scientists then believed firmly in the truth of the Ptolemaic theory, and they felt convinced, and rightly so, that Galileo had not adduced one scientific proof for his new opinions. The judges who condemned him rejected his views as scien- tifically false, as well as dogmatically heretical. THE CONDEMNATION OP GALILEO 195 Blame them if you will for believing too strongly in a current scientific theory, but do not be so ridiculous as to accuse them of any hostility to science it- self. As a matter of fact, did the condemnation of Galileo hinder the progress of scientific studies in Europe? That the Roman decisions retarded for a time the spe- cial researches that were one day to make the Coperniean theory morally certain, we are perfectly willing to admit. Descartes, for instance, was one who gave up his researches on the movement of the earth, and kept from publication his Monde, which contained a defense of the Coperniean theory. "He preferred," he said, "to be blamed for his silence rather than for his discourse." Of course, even after the decree of 1616, Galileo worked for years on the problem, and although after 1633 he desisted from further re- searches, his friends took up the problem where he had left it, although they had to pursue their studies in spite of the prohibition of the Holy Office. Is it not strange that those who bring out this fact, never mention the opposition made by the Protestant- ism of the day to the Coperniean theory? Luther thought Copernicus somewhat of a fool, while Me- lanehthon declared the new theory meant the destruc- tion of all science. In 1659 we find Calovius of "Wit- tenberg declaring that reason must give way to the teaching of the Scriptures, and that the Lutheran theologians of his day rejected the theory to a man. As late as 1744 we read of a Lutheran pastor of Ratze- 196 STUDIES IN CHURCH HISTORY burg declaring that the Copernican theory was an in- vention of the devil. That the Roman decrees hindered the general prog- ress of science is absolutely false, for the Italy of that period fairly swarmed with scientists and scientific academies. Jaugey writes in the work cited above, p. 112: "At Florence, Prince Leopold de Medici, later on Cardinal, founded the Academy of the Cim- ento, to foster the natural sciences, especially the study of astronomy. This institution did not last long, but it included among its members Rinaldini, Oliva, and Borelli. At Bologna, a pontifical city, were two fa- mous mathematicians, Ricci and Montalbani; the Jesuit Riccioli, the author of the Almagesium; the Jesuit Grimaldi who discovered the diffraction of light ; Cassini who later on was to make the Paris Ob- servatory famous; Castelli, Davisi, and a number of other scholars. In the same city, Mezzavacca pub- lished his Ephemerides astronomiques. At Rome Cas- sini discovered the satellites of Saturn; Megalotti studied the comets, and Plati made his remarkable dis- coveries on the eclipses of the sun," etc. We come now to the last objection, which looks at the case from the moral point of view. Did not the Roman Inquisition, by compelling Galileo to abjure as false a theory which he held as certainly true, en- courage hypocrisy, and prove itself thereby guilty of the worst form of intolerance? If we are to judge by the ofBcial documents, Galileo THE CONDEMNATION OF GALILEO 197 was not called upon by the ecclesiastical authorities to abjure what he believed to be certain. As we saw above, he declared in a letter to Monsignor Dini before his first trial in 1616 : "I would rather pluck out my eye than give scandal. I would do anything rather than resist my superiors and injure my soul, by main- taining against them an opinion which at present seems to me to be evident and worthy of credence." After the decree had been published he wrote again on March 5: "The result of this affair has proved that my opinion is not accepted by the Church. ' ' In the letters he wrote a year or two before the second trial, he also showed himself most submissive. He writes on May 3, 1631 : "If you could see with what submission and with what respect I am willing to con- sider as dreams, chimeras, equivocations, and falsities, all the proofs and all the arguments which in the judg- ment of my ecclesiastical superiors support a system, which they disapprove, you and the public would un- derstand how strong is the sentiment that I now pro- fess, never to have in this matter any other opinion or intention save that held by the Fathers and Doctors of Holy Church." Again on October 6, 1632, he writes: "I wish to show myself, as I am, a most obedient and zealous son of Holy Church." At the last interroga- tory in the second trial of 1633, he asserted that "after the decision of 1616, relying on the wisdom of my superiors, I held as undoubtedly true the opinion of Ptolemy." Even though they threatened him with 198 STUDIES IN CHURCH HISTORY torture, they were unable to make him admit that he had ever taught after 1616 the Oopernican theory as an objective truth. Yet despite all these positive assertions, we must admit that they contradict the general tone of his con- versations, his letters, and his works, especially the Dialogo, in which he plainly defended, and at time with the greatest bitterness, the Coperniean theory. How are we to reconcile this evident contradiction? Do the official documents give us an absolute cer- tainty with regard to Galileo's real sentiments, or are they, as many non-Catholics argue, merely the forced statements of a man unwilling to be a martyr for the truth ? ' ' This, ' ' says the Abbe Vacandard, " is a ques- tion very hard to answer. We think it very presump- tuous for any one to assert that Galileo's solemn dis- avowal of his writings was insincere. We have good reason, however, to think that his mind was not al- ways calm when he thought of his condemnation. It seems very probable that at times his mind reverted to the opinions which had been condemned. It is re- ported that his friend, Archbishop Piccolomini of Siena, assured him that "he had been unjustly treated by the Sacred Congregation, and that one day his ideas would prevail." Such a suggestion was calcu- lated to produce feelings of bitterness against his op- ponents. We are not surprised, therefore, to find him giving expression to these feelings, at least in secret. ' ' ° 9 iJtudes de Critique, vol. i, p. 363. THE CONDEMNATION OF GALILEO 199 In fact we have some notes of his found a few years ago in the library of the Seminary of Padua (ms. 352), which puts this beyond the shadow of a doubt. They are as follows: "Apropos of Novelties: And who doubts that this novelty of wishing that minds created free by God should become the slaves of another 's will, is not of such a nature as to cause great scandal ? To wish that others deny their own opinions, and submit to the will of another. To admit that persons ab- solutely ignorant of a science or an art are called upon to be the judges of savants, and have the power to treat them as they please in virtue of their authority. These are the novelties calculated to ruin republics and overthrow states. ' ' He then addresses the theologians directly, saying: "The new doctrines that cause harm are yours, whereby you try to force the mind not to think and the eyes not to see. ... It is you who are the occa- sion of heresy when, without any reason, you seek to interpret the Scriptures according to your private judgment, and desire scholars to deny their own views and convincing proofs. Tou are the authors of novel- ties which may cause the ruin of religion. ' ' "These notes prove," says de Vregille, "that de- spite his docility, he had not lost all faith in his genius and his discoveries. But there is nothing in them to prove that he regretted his abjuration. Intellectual submission to the Church's viewpoint was natural to him, although in his hours of questioning and suffer- ing, his will was not always in control. Besides, he 200 STUDIES IN CHURCH HISTORY was excusable, for the interior assent that was re- quired of him by the Roman decrees was neither com- plete nor absolute, but was based only on motives of prudence. ' ' ^^ As we have eeen above, there was no Catholic theologian at the time who considered these decrees infallible or irref ormable ; absolute assent could not possibly be required to them, for there was a possibil- ity that they might be erroneous. Jaugey thus writes on this matter of assent : ' ' The intellectual assent re- quired is proportioned to the motive on which it rests ; as, in the present ease, this motive is a declara- tion of the ecclesiastical authorities subject to revi- sion, the assent of the mind thereunto cannot be ab- solute. The intellect, commanded by the will, submits because it has confidence even in the fallible decisions of the Holy See. This confidence, moreover, rests on the habitual wisdom of the Popes, the ordinary graces given them by God to govern the Church well, and the knowledge and virtue of the various members of the Congregations, whom the Pope consults and speaks through. That is what Galileo meant when he de- clared that he had given up the Copernican theory after 1616, relying on the wisdom of his superiors." " All those who object to the forced abjuration of Galileo seem to think that he had demonstrated his theory. No scholar to-day holds that he did. He was much more skillful in answering the objections of his 10 Diet. Apol., vol. ii, col. 181. 11 Le Procis de OalU^e, p. 119. THE CONDEMNATION OF GALILEO 201 opponents than in setting forth positive proofs. The only three scientific arguments that he really did bring forward, based as they were on the phenomenon of the tides, the movement of the solar spots, and the appar- ent movement of the planets, either proved nothing at all in favor of the Copernican theory, or were in absolute contradiction to the facts. As the astronomer Laplace put it, he defended his views only by proofs from analogy. Such proofs have, undoubtedly, a real value, and even to-day they are the chief reasons for our belief in the rotation of the earth. But they are not capable of affording a demonstrative proof. Of course, he was ignorant of many facts that are known to the children of to-day, viz., the phenomena of aber- ration, the depression of the earth at the poles, the variation of the pendulum according to latitude, etc. We can hardly, therefore, blame his opponents when they refused to be convinced by arguments, which they thought — and rightly, too — proved their theory as much as his. It has frequently been stated that the Jesuits were responsible for the condemnation of Galileo. Like many another accusation against them, this rests on no positive proof. Galileo himself thought they had something to do with it, for we have a letter in which, writing to Elia Diodati, he quotes a statement of the Jesuit Father Grienberger, Professor of Mathematics at the Roman College : " 'If Galileo had known how to win the affection of the Fathers of the Soman College, he could have lived in peace and happiness, and could 202 STUDIES IN CHURCH HISTORY have written, as he thought fit, on any subject, even on the movement of the earth. ' You see, therefore, ' ' adds Galileo, "that they are not combating me on account of my ideas, but merely because I am in dis- grace with the Jesuits." We find this accusation re- peated years after in the bitter pages of Pascal. What are the facts? In the beginning we know that the Jesuits were his best friends. We find him writing, April 22, 1611, during his first visit to Rome: "Every one here is well disposed towards me, especially the Jesuit Fathers." Indeed, one of his first visits was to the Roman College, where Father Clavius, the Professor of Mathematics, received him most kindly, and assured him that he had verified his discoveries. Other ex- cellent mathematicians among them were his friends, such as Guldin, Grienberger, and van Maelcote. Of course, there were some members of the Society who protested against the enthusiasm of their confreres, and objected to the novel views of Galileo. After 1611, when Galileo began to venture into the field of exegesis, even his personal friends among them held a bit aloof. There is a letter of Father Grienberger 's to Monsignor Dini, written at this time, which says: "Let Galileo bring forward some convincing scientific proofs of his theory, before he begins to discuss the Holy Scriptures." Moreover, when Galileo began to attack Aristotle directly, they were obliged to take the field against him. For their fiftieth General Con- gregation, which assembled in 1593, had issued a de- THE CONDEMNATION OP GALILEO 203 cree commanding all members of the Society to defend Aristotle; and superiors everywhere saw that this decree was enforced. The bitter attacks of Father Grassi, and a controversy also with Father Scheiner, who claimed to have first discovered the solar spots, further embittered Galileo. By 1633 he had com- pletely broken with his old friends. But to accuse them of bringing about his condemna- tion is an altogether different matter. They had no special influence with Urban VIII, nor with the mem- bers of the Holy Office. Only one of the Consultors of 1633 was a Jesuit, and there was not one of them among the Inquisitors. The Dominicans were far more active in both trials, which was perfectly natural, considering their official position as members of the Congregation. Independently of any religious order, it was the vast majority of the theologians of the day that urged the Holy See to condemn Galileo, because of his at- tacks on Aristotle, whose scientific theories were then accepted as certain, and because of his unwise ventur- ing into the field of Scriptural interpretation. It is easy for us to-day to point out the mistakes they made in their overzeal for the defense of what they firmly be- lieved to be the truth, but is it just or reasonable to judge the seventeenth century from the viewpoint of the twentieth? Their motive was certainly a high one — to defend, as they thought, a truth of divine revelation. They were right in maintaining the gen- eral law of exegesis, that Scriptural texts are to be 204 STUDIES IN CHURCH HISTORY taken in their literal sense, unless there are good rea- sons to the contrary. They were wrong only in for- getting the wise teaching of both St. Thomas and St. Augustine, that in describing the phenomena of nature the Bible speaks according to appearances. In a certain sense, this condemnation of Galileo was providential. It proves conclusively that whenever there is apparent contradiction between the truths of science and the truths of faith, either the scientist is declaring as proved what in reality is a mere hypothe- sis, or the theologian is putting forth his own personal views instead of the teaching of the Gospel. THE FALSE DECRETALS For the past four hundred years the opponents of the Papacy have asserted that its power and authority from the Middle Ages onwards were based chiefly on a collection of forged letterg and decrees. We are informed that "they brought about a complete change in the constitution and government of the Church, and were eargerly seized upon by Pope Nicholas I. to be used as genuine documents in support of the new claims put forward by himself and his successors."^ Canon Gore, following the unscholarly Milman,^ declares that "they represent a step of immense im- portance in the aggrandizement of the Papal claim, and that they inaugurate a wholly new epoch of canon law. ' '^ The learned and saintly Pope Nicholas I. has been accused of ambition and dishonesty in giving deliberate sanction to a pious fraud that enabled him "to revolutionize the Chuch, and reduce the churches of the world to servitude. ' '^ One of the earliest and best known authentic collec- tions of canons in the Church had been compiled by Dionysius the Little at Rome in 510. It contained 'Janus, The Pope and the Council, pp.. 97, 99. 'Latin Christianity, vol. iii., p. 60. 'Soman Catholic Claims, p. 121. *Lagarde, The Latin Church in the Middle Ages, p. 283;' Littledale, Plain Seasons, p. 100; Milman, I. c, 65, 66. 205 206 STUDIES IN CHURCH HISTORY fifty apostolic canons, the decrees of the Oriental Coimcils as far as Chalcedon, the Councils of Sardica and Africa, and the decretals of the Popes from Siricius (385) to Anastasius II. (498). It had been sent to Charlemagne by Pope Hadrian I. (772-795). A more complete collection was made in Spain about 610, and falsely attributed to St. Isidore, Bishop of Seville (636). A French edition of this collection, known as the Eispana GalUca, was circulated widely in the Prankish kingdom from the end of the seventh century. In the middle of the ninth century there appeared four spurious collections of canons, the Capitularies of Benedict the Deacon, the Capitularies of Angil- ramnus, Eishop of Metz, the canons of Isaac of Langres, and the decretals of the Pseudo-Isadore. The compiler of the last-named forgery called himself Isidorus Mercator, combining the name of the well- known Bishop of Seville with Marius Mercator, a canonist of the fifth century. He put forth his work merely as a new and enlarged edition of the Collectio Eispana, using a very imperfect French edition (Autun) which some consider his own invention. Neander in his General Eistory of the Christian Be- ligion^ says that "this fraud was so clumsily contrived and so ignorantly executed that in a more critical age it might have been easily detected and exposed." It is certainly true that this collection is full of anachro- nisms. Popes of the first three centuries write in Prankish Latin of the ninth century on mediaeval conditions in Church and State, besides quoting 'Vol. iii., p. 347. THE FALSE DECRETALS 207 docmnents of the fourth and fifth centuries; later Popes up to Gregory I. (604) use documents of the seventh, eighth and ninth centuries. For example, Pope Victor -writes to Theophilus of Alexandria, who lived in the fourth century, on the Paschal contro- versy of the second; Popes living before St. Jerome quote the Vulgate. Still it is inaccurate to state that the False Decretals were clumsily contrived and igno- rantly executed. On the contrary they were the work of a most learned, if unscrupulous, canonist. He de- ceived the best scholars of his age — ^men like Hincmar, the Archbishop of Rheims, who for forty years domi- nated the Frankish Church — ^by cleverly intermingling authentic with spurious documents. He inserted many genuine decrees of councils and Papal letters drawn from other canonical collections, introduced whole pas- sages from writers like Rufinus and Cassiodorus, and quoted largely from the Roman Law. He frequently used the Liber Pontificalis as a background, forging the lost letters alluded to in that well-known work. Frequently he cited real letters of Popes like Leo I. (440-461), but ascribed them to Popes living in a previous century. Modern scholars have found at least one hundred thousand passages in his collection borrowed from other writers. These authentic passages were numerous enough, therefore, to conceal for centuries the fact and extent of the compiler's forgeries. Had the False Decretals introduced a complete change in the constitution and government of the Church, they would certainly not have been so readily accepted. They won approval simply because they introduced no new principle of 208 STUDIES IN CHURCH HISTORY canon law, and taught nothing new in dogma, liturgy or penitential discipline. The False Decretals are divided into three parts. The first part contains, besides the preface and certain introductory sections, the fifty Apostolic Canoms of the collection of Dionysius, fifty-nine apocryphal de- cretals of the Popes from St. Clement I. (88-97) to Melehiades (311-314), a spurious letter of Aurelius of Carthage, one of St. Jerome (380), and two of St. Clement I. to the Apostle St. James, copied from another collection. The second part contains the authentic canons of the Eastern, African, Gallican and Spanish Councils from Nice (325) to the second Council of Seville (619), which formed part one of the Collectio Eispana. Pseudo-Isidore interpolated a canon on the chorepiscopi, two spurious letters of Attieus of Constantinople (406-426) and Aurelius of Carthage (411), the forged Donation of Constantine, and some personal notes on the primitive Church and the Council of Nice. The third part continues the decretals from Syl- vester (314-335) to Gregory II. (715-731). The authentic decretals of the second part of the Hispana began with Siricius (384-399). Pseudo-Isidore forged thirty letters, attributing them to Popes from Syl- vester to Damasus (366-384), added the authentic letters, and interpolated thirty-five spurious decretals under the name of Popes usually omitted from the Hispana. Despite his own statement in the preface it is certain that the compiler did not write as a serious and painstaking canonist. He made many flagrant omis- THE FALSE DECRETALS 209 sions (he did not say a word about benefices, tithes, simony, the monastic life, the pallium, rural parishes, etc.), and compiled as many false decretals as he did authentic. Every scholar, therefore, admits (Saltet, Pournier, Villien) that the compiler's object must be sought in the apocryphal decretals which were his chief concern. "We need not discuss the false decretals which treat of the heresies on the Trinity and the Incarnation, the administration of the Sacraments, the law of celibacy, fasts, festivals, midnight Mass, etc., for they are in no sense peculiar to this collection. "What Pseudo-Isidore did lay stress upon was the protection of the bishops from secular oppression, the immunity of ecclesiastical property, the constitution and good order of the Church, and its rights and privileges in relation to the State. The False Decretals may be divided into three dis- tinct classes — the defensive texts, which protect the Church against violence from without ; the construct- ive texts, which protect the Church against abuses from within ; and the aggressive texts, which deal with the relations of Church and State. The defensive texts declared that the trials of priests were no longer to be held before secular tri- bunals, but before competent ecclesiastical courts, appeals being allowed to the provincial council pre- sided over by the Metropolitan. Bishops were to be tried by the proviucial council, although they might appeal to the Pope. The existing law allowed a direct appeal to the Pope, if the bishop reasonably suspected the impartiality of his judge^. Pseudo-Isidore ex- 210 STUDIES IN CHURCH HISTORY panded this law by allowing the Pope to decide that the final trial was to be held ia Rome, and changed it by limiting the power of the provincial council to a mere hearing of the case, which must be referred to the Pope for judgment. This was against the Council of Sardiea (343), which had decreed that a bishop deposed by a provin- cial council could appeal to the Pope, but that the new trial should take place before the bishops of the neighboring province under the presidency of a Papal legate. Still from the fifth century the Popes had heard episcopal appeals in Rome. Pope Nicholas in maintaining this right quoted the second canon of the Council of Chalcedon, the letter of Sardiea to Pope Julius, and the letter of Innocent I. to Victricius of Rouen. Pope Innocent I. wrote : ' ' The more impor- tant eases {majores causce) were to be referred to the Apostolic See, after the decision of the bishops had been given in accordance with the synodal decrees and custom. ' ' Bishops' trials were made as difficult as possible. Laymen could not testify, seventy-two witnesses were required for condemnation, accusers and accused must both be present, confessions of guilt must not be for- cibly extorted, and the accused could refuse to be tried until restored to his see or translated to another. Pseudo-Isidore also insisted upon the inviolability of Church property. To seize it was sacrilege, and the laity were forbidden to dispose of it under any pre- text. No bishop could be brought to trial unless all his possessions had been restored to him. The constructive texts aimed at preserving the THE FALSE DECRETALS 211 Church from anarchy and ruin. In his picture of the Church's organization, Pseudo-Isidore insists on the loyalty of both people and priests to the bishop, elected and consecrated for a particular city with the consent of the bishops of the province. Disloyalty to him merits the severest censures. He attacks bitterly the chorepiscopi, falsely denying their episcopal powers." The feeling of the time was against them on account of their avarice,^ and because they were appointed by bishops who spent their time in secular affairs. He did his utmost to curb the tyranny of the Metro- politan Archbishop, by putting the province under the rule of the provincial Council. The Metropolitan had the right to preside, but he was not to direct its de- bates, nor to pass any decision without the consent of every comprovincial bishop. If he acted arbitrarily, he was to be called to account by either council or Pope; if contumacious, he was to be deprived of all authority by the Pope. One can readily see that Pseudo-Isidore had in mind powerful prelates, like Hinemar, the Archbishop of Rheims. He was a very strong-willed man, possessed of a most exalted idea of his position, authority and rights. Time and time again his lust for power and his imperious nature led him to acts of tyranny and injustice. He refused to recognize the ordinations of his predecessor, Arch- bishop Ebbo, who had been deposed by his friend, Charles the Bald (845) ; in 853 he forced the Council of Soissons to declare these ordinations invalid, and for many years refused to restore the suspended priests until finally Pope Nicholas I. threatened to 'Cf. Council of Neo-Cmsarea, 314, canons 13, 14. ''Council of Aix, 836. 212 STUDIES IN CHURCH HISTORY deprive him of his pallium ; he reinstated an unworthy- priest who had been suspended by Bishop Rothad, one of his suffragans, and excommunicated and im- prisoned the bishop when he objected to this crime against the canons ; he did his utmost to fight the ap- peals of Rothad to Nicholas I. and Hincmar of Laon to Hadrian II. ; he inspired the insulting letters sent to the Holy See by Charles the Bald and the Frankish bishops in 871; he resented the appointment of An- segisus of Sens by John VIII. as permanent legate to France and Germany. In fact he was so tenacious of what he deemed his canonical rights that anti-Catholic writers have pictured him as desirous of founding a national church, and as contemptuous of the Papal authority. But in every instance he yielded in the last resort to the Pope's commands, and in letter after letter set forth clearly the divine right of the Papacy. The Primates of the False Decretals were given authority to judge the cases of Metropolitans, and to hear the appeals of the provincial councils, but the texts bearing on them are most incoherent, inaccurate and uncertain. They were probably suggested by the Eastern councils which recognized the authority of Patriarchs over the Metropolitans. The Pope was the final, supreme authority. Pseudo- Isidore asserts his right to authorize the calling of all councils, provincial or national, and of approving their decisions. Put in this general way this was new legislation, although for centuries it was a common practice to have them approved by the Pope. Many ecumenical and provincial councils* had acknowledged 'Ephesus 431, Chaleedon 451, Mileve 416, Aquilea 381, Car- thage 416. THE FALSE DECRETALS 213 the Pope's authority. Independently of the False Decretals Pope Nicholas I. (858-867) always claimed the right to convoke, direct and ratify the decisions of councils, but he nowhere asserted that every coun- cil must have Papal approbation. The aggressive texts made the ecclesiastical author- ity supreme within its own sphere. Laymen were forbidden to make charges against clerics, to dispose of Church property, or to perform a spiritual of&ce. The King or Emperor was no longer to convoke coun- cils as Charlemagne had done. The Frankish clergy were to be free from the domination of secular courts and princes, and subject only to tbe bishops and the Pope. The bishops were also allowed a certain limited jurisdiction in secular matters as had been allowed under the old Roman law. They were the chief censors of kings and nobles who acted against the divine law, and were to excommunicate the recal- citrant. When and where were the False Decretals compiled ? The accepted date today is 850." Lupus, Abbot of Ferrieres, quotes them in 858 in a letter to Pope Nich- olas I.; the Coxmcil of Quierzy quotes them on the immunity of Church property in 857; Hincmar of Rheims quotes Pope Stephen in his diocesan statutes, November 1, 852; the Capitularies of Benedict the Deacon, one of the sources of the False Decretals, were not anterior to April 21, 847, for they speak of Bishop Otgar 's death on that day. Some ancient writers, misled by the name of St. Isidore of Seville, ascribed the False Decretals to •Fournier, Bevue d'Histoire Eccl., vol. iii., pp. 301-316. 214 STUDIES IN CHURCH HISTORY Spain, but that theory has been abandoned for at least four hundred years. The Abbe P. S. Blanc is the only modern scholar who maintains it.^" Old-time contro- versialists used to argue that they were compiled in Rome on the principle: 7s fecit cui prodest. But since the days of Theiner (1827) and Eiehorn (1831) no scholar worthy of the name maintains that they were written in Rome, or compiled directly in the interest of the Popes. Today both Catholic and non-Catholic scholars agree that they were forged in the Frankish kingdom about the middle of the ninth century. This is proved in many ways. The most ancient manuscripts we possess come from France ; iu that coimtry they were first quoted and their influence most marked. They were based in great part upon the Colleciio Dionysio- Hadriana which had been sent to Charlemagne by Pope Hadrian I., and the Collectio Quesnelliana which was undoubtedly of French origin. There is constant reference to small French provincial councils such eis Paris (829, 846), Aix la Chapelle (836), and Meaux (836, 845) . This theory becomes morally certain once we consider the conditions in Church and State at the time they were compiled. The great monarchy of Charlemagne did not long survive its founder. Withiri fifty years anarchy reigned throughout the empire. Louis the Pious (814-840) and his sons (840-876) waged continual war among themselves, and their weakness permitted the revolts of powerful princes like the Duke of Brittany (Nomenoe, 851) and the Duke of Septimania ^'Eistoire Eccl., vol. ii., p. 196. THE FALSE DECRETALS 215 (850). The Saracens harassed the coasts of the Medi- terranean, the Slavs ravaged the Eastern Marches, and the Normans pillaged scores of French and Ger- man cities, and even laid siege to Paris. The bishops, who were also secular princes and vast landed pro- prietors, frequently neglected their spiritual duties, and were oppressed and persecuted by their political enemies. They were falsely accused by princes and kings, condemned by councils ruled not by canon law but by political exigencies, dispossessed of their sees and robbed of their property. The higher clergy were often mere tools of the princes, and utterly ignored the canonical rights of their suffragans and inferior clergy. On every page the False Decretals image forth this state of affairs, and evidence the compiler's sincere desire to effect a genuine canonical reform. It is impossible to trace with certainty the origin of the False Decretals to any one city of the Frankish kingdom, although probable arguments point to Mayenee, Eheims or Tours. The defenders of Mayence (de Blasco, de Marca, Baluze, Knust, Wasserschleben, Gocke, Pitra and Denzinger) point out the dependence of the Pseudo-Isidore upon the Capitularies of Bene- dict the Deacon, and the many quotations from the letters of St Boniface. But it cannot be shown that Benedict was an historical character, or that these letters of St. Boniface are authentic. Bishop Otgar of Mayence, in whose favor the False Decretals are supposed to have been vsritten, died in 847, and his successor, Rhabanus Maurus, never alludes to them. 216 STUDIES IN CHURCH HISTORY A more popular theory today upholds Rheims (Weiz- sacker, Roth, Dove, Von Noorden, Hinschius, Fried- berg, Lurz, Tardif, Schneider, Lot and Lesne), and even names the compiler, Archbishop Ebbo, or one of his clergy, "Wulf ad, afterwards Archbishop of Bourges. It is true that many of the forged decretals seem to fit the ease of Archbishop Ebbo to a nicety, but, as we have already seen, bishops were robbed of their sees and dispossessed of their property in all parts of the Frankish kingdom. Besides the period during which the False Decretals were written (847-850) was one of calm for the suspended clerics of Ebbo. They were busy appealing their case to Rome, and it cannot be shown that they ever quoted the False Decretals against Archbishop Hincmar. Hiacmar's silence is also inexplicable, for if these priests whom he had suspended were compiling for- geries against him, he would have at once unmasked the fraud. Many other questions suggest themselves : Why do not the False Decretals mention the fact of priests appealing to Rome? Why do they not discuss the validity or invalidity of ordinations performed by a deposed bishop ? Why do they devote so much space to matters pertaining to the internal constitution of the Church, which were entirely irrelevant ? The two forged documents, The Apology of Ehio and the Nar- ration of the Clergy of Bheims, that were circulated in the diocese in defense of the deposed archbishop prove nothing, as they did not appear until 867. A final theory suggests Tours as the birthplace of the False Decretals. Its defenders (Fournier, Lan- gan, Simson, Duchesne, VioUet, Havet, Schneider and THE FALSE DECRETALS 217 Dollinger) maintain that the conditions of the Church in Brittany at the time point clearly to the reforms aimed at by the Pseudo-Isidore. In 845 Duke No- menoe had defeated Charles the Bald at Ballon, thus securing the independence of Brittany. In 846 he defeated the Frankish king again, and seized Nantes, Rennes, Anjou, Maine and Vendomois. In 847 he drove four Frankish bishops from their sees, and had them condemned by the Breton Council of Coetleu. Later on he dispossessed Actard, Bishop of Nantes, and made Dol, an obscure little village, a metropolitan see in place of Tours. He and his successor, Erispoe, refused to restore the expelled bishops despite the remonstrances of the Councils of Savonnieres (859), and the demands of Popes Leo IV., Benedict III., Hadrian II. and John YIII. It is certain that many of the forged decretals aim at remedying conditions similar to those of Brittany in 850. They decreed, for instance, that no new bishops should be consecrated in districts other than specially named cities ; that the limits of a province should be ever observed; that the rightful Metropolitan should be acknowledged ; that bishops should keep strictly to the bounds of their own dioceses; that bishops were to be protected against false charges of princes and un- just condemnations by packed political tribunals, and, if dispossessed, translated to other sees ; that bishops must have three conseerators intead of one; that parishes must be in charge of parish priests subject to the bishop, and not under monks subject to a neigh- boring monastery; that appeals to Rome should be allowed by provincial councils and by secular princes. Whether the object of the False Decretals was local 218 STUDIES IN CHUECH HISTORY and personal as the majority of scholars maintain, or whether their compiler had in view the whole Prank- ish Church in general, as Mr. Davenport holds, is unimportant. His immediate concern was certainly the protection and purification of the Church in Gaul. The False Decretals had very little immediate in- fluence upon the Frankish Church. After them, as before, princes and kings continued to interfere with the freedom of elections, to dispossess bishops and to confiscate Church property. The chorepiscopus died out naturally with the rise of the archdeacon. The Met- ropolitians did not lose their authority or power, but were called to account by the Popes for personal crimes against the canons as they always had been. The order of Primates was universally rejected. The protest against the interference of the State in Church affairs antedated the False Decretals, and the rulers of the Carloviagian decline were glad to use the authority of the Church in the maiatenance of law and order. The thesis of non-Catholic controversialists that the effect of the False Decretals on Eome was immediate and decided has been ably refuted by Foumier.^^ In fact they were not generally received in Rome until the latter half of the eleventh century; the Popes of the tenth practically ignored them. The Pope's con- trol over episcopal councils, his right to hear the appeal of bishops, and his insistence upon the restora- tion of dispossessed bishops to their sees before trial, were not new canons invented by the Pseudo-Isidore, "i. c, vol. viii., pp. 19-56. THE FALSE DECRETALS 219 but old laws and customs as vre learn from the letters of Nicholas I. The old charge that Pope Nicholas I. used the False Decretals to strengthen the Papal claims has been dis- proved often enough, but anti-CathoUc controversial- ists still repeat the calumny. It is certain that Pope Nicholas knew of the existence of the False Decretals from Bishop Rothad of Soissons in 864. But that he ever quoted them cannot be proved. In his letters he frequently cites the canonical collections of Dionysius the Little and of John of Antioch, but he never men- tions the Pseudo-Isidore. The only one citation common to him and the False Decretals is the letter of Pope Clement, a forgery of the fourth century, which he could easily have known from an independent source. Even when he quotes a genuine text found in the Pseudo-Isidore, we find him invariably ascrib- ing it to the real author, and citing it accurately. If he had not had doubts about the genuine character of the False Decretals, he would certainly have used them in his letters to the Emperor Michael and to Photius at the time of the Eastern schism, but he utterly ignored them. His successor Hadrian II. mentions them only once in a letter to the Council of Douzy (871) . John VIII. (872-882) possibly quotes them twice ia a Roman sjTiod. Stephen V. (885-891) also cites them twice ia his letters, although it cannot be proved that he used directly the text of Pseudo-Isidore. In fact they were rarely cited in Italy until the time of Gratian (1140), who inserted them in his Decretum, which became the official textbook of canon law. They are mentioned by 220 STUDIES IN CHURCH HISTORY John the Deacon (872) in his Life of Gregory the Great; by Auxilius (891) in his Ordinations of For- mosus; by Pseudo-Luitprand in his Lives of the Roman Pontiffs (970) ; by two reforming Bishops, Atto of VerceUi (960) and Rathier of Verona (972). In other parts of Europe they were included in the canonical collections of Regino of Priini (906) and Burchard of Worms (1025), and cited by provincial councils (Cologne 887, Mayence 888, Metz 889, Tribur 895, Trosley 909). They were brought to England by Lanfranc in 1070, and to Spain about two centuries later. The Pseudo-Isidore was no forger in the modern sense of the word. He wrote to edify the faithful like the hagiographers so well described by Deleheye in his Legends of the Saints. As Mr. Davenport well says: "Their idea of history was not ours. They were not concerned with accuracy either in chronology or geography, and historical sequence had no meaning for them. Their history was little short of legend . . . His (Pseudo-Isidore's) work, in fact, was not a forgery written with deceit ; it was rather a legend written with a moral.^^ This is partly true, but Mr. Davenport fails to bring out the fatal influence of the False Decretals upon historical writing in the Middle Ages. They increased the difiSculty of distinguishing true documents from false until it became almost insurmountable, and they blurred the whole historical perspective.^* It is good to remember, however, that their authen- ticity was questioned long before the Reformation by "The False Decretals, pp. 68, 70. "Saltet, Catholic Encyclopedia, toI. v., p. 779. THE FALSE DECRETALS 221 Catholic scholars and canonists. The first doubts came from Peter Comestor, Chancellor of the University of Paris (1178) , who was followed by Godfrey of Viterbo (1180) and Stephen of Tournai (1203). In the fif- teenth century two Cardinals, Nicholas de Cusa (1431) and Juan de Torquemada (1468), rejected the Dona- tion of Constantine and the letters of Popes Clement and Anacletus, although they did not succeed in shaking the common conviction of the collection's genuineness. The fradulent character of the Pseudo- Isidore became evident once it was printed at Paris in 1523 by Merlin in his Collection of Councils. The first to question it at this time were the Calvinist Diunoulin and the Catholic scholars, Erasmus, George Cassandre and Antoine le Conte. The Centuriators of Magdeburg (1559-1574) made a most bitter attack upon them for controversial reasons, and were fol- lowed some years later by Blondel (1620) . For a brief period a few Catholics, Torres, S. J., Malvisia, 0. S. F., and Cardinal Aguirre defended them, but many other writers of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries admitted that they were forgeries, viz., Antonio Augustin, Baronius, Bellarmine, du Perron, Labbe, Sirmond, de Marca, Baluze, Papebrock, Noris, Noel Alexandre, Van Espen, the Ballerini brothers, Blas- co and Zaccaria. The Catholic Church saw the False Decretals come and saw them go with the greatest equanimity, for she knew that the Papal claims could be proved in- dependently of the forged documents of a well- meaning but dishonest French canonist of the ninth century. 222 STUDIES IN CHURCH HISTORY BIBLIOGEAPHY. Bryce — The Holy Roman Empire. Davenport — The False Decretals. Davis — Charlemagne. De Bmet — Les Fausses Decretales. DicUonnaire de Theologie Catholique, vol. iv., pp. 213-222. Dictionnaire Apologetique de la Foi Catholique, vol. i., pp. 903-910. Dollinger — Sistory of the Church, vol. ii., 197-202. Encyclopcedia Britannica, vol. vii., pp. 915-917. Fournier — Etudes sur les Fausses Decretales ; Eevue d'hisfoire eccles., vol. viL (1906), pp. 33-51, 301-316, 543-564, 761-784; vol. viii. (1907), pp. 19-56. Gore — Soman Catholic Claims, p. 121. Guizot — History of Civilization, vol. ii., pp. 340, 341. Hergenrother — Historic de I'Eglise, vol. iii., pp. 202-207. HinscMus — Dicretales pseudo-IsidoriancB (the best edition of the False Decretals), Leipsig, 1863. Janus — The Pope and the Council, pp. 97, 99. Kleinclausz — L'Empire Carlovingien. Lagarde — The Latin Church in the Middle 'Ages, p. 283. Mann — Lives of^ the Popes in the Middle 'Ages, vol. iii., pp. 135-148. The Month, March, 1881. Neander — General History of the Christian Religion, vol. ii., p. 347. Eoy — S. Nicholas I. Sehaff — Church History, vol. iv., pp. 266-273. Taylor — The Mediwval Mind. WeUs — The Age of Charlemagne.