THEOLOGICAL CONTROVERSIES AND STUDIES
(a) Baianism.
Schwane, /Dogmengeschichte der neuren zeit/, 1890. Turmel,
/Histoire de la theologie positive du concile de Trente au concile
du Vatican/, 1906. Denzinger-Bannwart, /Enchiridion Symbolorum/,
11th edition, 1911. Duchesne, /Histoire du Baianisme/, 1731.
Linsenmann, /Michael Baius/, 1863.
The Catholic doctrine on Grace, round which such fierce controversies
had been waged in the fifth and sixth centuries, loomed again into
special prominence during the days of the Reformation. The views of
Luther and Calvin on Grace and Justification were in a sense the very
foundation of their systems, and hence it was of vital importance that
these questions should be submitted to a searching examination, and
that the doctrine of the Catholic Church should be formulated in such
a way as to make cavilling and misunderstanding impossible. This work
was done with admirable lucidity and directness in the fifth and sixth
sessions of the Council of Trent, but nevertheless these decrees of
the Council did not prevent the theories of Luther and Calvin being
propagated vigorously, and from exercising a certain amount of
influence even on some Catholic theologians who had no sympathy with
the religious revolt.
Amongst these might be reckoned Michael Baius (De Bay, 1513-89) a
professor at the University of Louvain and John Hessels, one of his
supporters in the theological controversies of the day. They believed
that Catholic apologists were handicapped seriously by their slavish
regard for the authority and methods of the Scholastics, and that if
instead of appealing to the writings of St. Thomas as the ultimate
criterion of truth they were to insist more on the authority of the
Bible and of the works of the Early Fathers, such as St. Cyprian, St.
Jerome, and St. Augustine, they would find themselves on much safer
ground, and their arguments would be more likely to command the
respect of their opponents. Hence at Louvain, in their own lectures,
in their pamphlets, and in private discussions, they insisted strongly
that Scholasticism should make way for positive theology, and that the
Scriptures and patristic literature should take the place of the
/Summa/. Not content, however, with a mere change of method they began
to show their contempt for traditional opinions, and in a short time
alarming rumours were in circulation both inside and outside the
university that their teaching on Original Sin, Grace, and Free-will,
was not in harmony with the doctrine of the Church. The Franciscans
submitted to the judgment of the Sorbonne a number of propositions
(18) selected from the writings or lectures of Baius and his friends,
and the opinion of the Sorbonne was distinctly unfavourable. As the
dispute grew more heated and threatened to have serious consequences
for the university and the country, Cardinal Granvelle, believing that
the absence of the two professors might lead to peace, induced both to
proceed to the Council of Trent as the theologians of the King of
Spain (1563). Though the opinions of Baius found little sympathy with
the Fathers of Trent, yet since the subjects of Original Sin and Grace
had been discussed and defined already, nothing was done. On his
return (1564) from the Council of Trent Baius published several
pamphlets in explanation and defence of his views, all of which were
attacked by his opponents, so that in a short time the university was
split into two opposing camps.
To put an end to the trouble the rector determined to seek the
intervention of Rome. In October 1567 Pius V. issued the Bull, /Ex
omnibus afflictionibus/, in which he condemned seventy-nine
propositions selected from the writings or lectures of Baius without
mentioning the author's name.[1] The friends of Baius raised many
difficulties regarding the reception and the interpretation of the
papal document, and though Baius himself professed his entire
submission to the decision, the tone of his letter to the Pope was
little short of offensive. The Pope replied that the case having been
examined fully and adjudged acceptance of the decision was imperative.
Once more Baius announced his intention of submitting (1569), and so
confident were his colleagues of his orthodoxy that he was appointed
dean of the theological faculty, and later on chancellor of the
university. But his actions did not correspond with his professions.
Various arguments were put forward to weaken the force of the papal
condemnation until at last Gregory XIII. was forced to issue a new
Bull, /Provisionis nostrae/ (1579), and to send the learned Jesuit,
Francisco Toledo, to demand that Baius should abjure his errors, and
that the teaching of Pius V. should be accepted at Louvain. The papal
letter was read in a formal meeting of the university, whereupon Baius
signed a form of abjuration, by which he acknowledged that the
condemnation of the propositions was just and reasonable, and that he
would never again advocate such views. This submission relieved the
tension of the situation, but it was a long time before the evil
influence of Baianism disappeared, and before peace was restored
finally to Louvain.
The system propounded by Baius had much in common with the teaching of
Pelagius, Luther, and Calvin. His failure to recognise the clear
distinction between the natural and the supernatural was the source of
most of his errors. According to him the state of innocence in which
our first parents were created, their destination to the enjoyment of
the Beatific Vision, and all the gifts bestowed upon them for the
attainment of this end were due to them, so that had they persevered
during life they should have merited eternal happiness as a reward for
their good works. When, however, man sinned by disobedience he not
merely lost gratuitous or supernatural endowments, but his whole
nature was weakened and corrupted by Original Sin which, in the system
of Baius, was to be identified with concupiscence, and which was
transmitted from father to son according to the ordinary laws of
heredity. This concupiscence, he contended, was in itself sinful, as
was also every work which proceeds from it. This was true even in case
of children, because that an act be meritorious or demeritorious Free-
will was not required. So long as the act was done voluntarily even
though necessarily, it was to be deemed worthy of reward or
punishment, since freedom from external compulsion was alone required
for moral responsibility.
From the miserable condition into which man had fallen he was rescued
by the Redemption of Christ, on account of which much that had been
forfeited was restored. These graces procured for man by Christ may be
called supernatural, not because they were not due to human nature,
but because human nature had been rendered positively unworthy of them
by Original Sin. The justice, however, by which a man is justified,
consisted not in any supernatural quality infused into the soul, by
which the individual was made a participator of the divine nature, but
implied merely a condition in which the moral law was observed
strictly. Hence justification, according to Baius, could be separated
from the forgiveness of guilt, so that though the guilt of the sinner
may not have been remitted still he may be justified. In sin two
things were to be distinguished, the act and the liability to
punishment. The act could never be effaced, but the temporal
punishment was remitted by the actual reception of the sacraments,
which were introduced by Christ solely for that purpose. The Mass
possessed, he held, any efficacy that it had only because it was a
good moral act and helped to draw us more closely to God.
----------
[1] Denzinger, op. cit., nos. 1001-1080.
(b) The Molonist Controversy.
See bibliography VI. (a). Molina, /Liberi arbitrii cum gratiae
donis ... concordia/, 1588. Augustin Le Blanc, /Historia
congregationis de auxiliis/, etc., 1699, 1709. Elutherius,
/Historia controversiarum de auxiliis/, etc., 1705-15. Schneeman,
/Enstehung und Entwicklung der thomistich-molinistischen
Kontroverse/, 1880. Gayraud, /Thomisme et Molinisme/, 1890.
Dummermuth, /S. Thomas et doctrina praemotionis physicae/, 1886.
Frins (S.J.), /S. Thomas Aquin, doctrina de cooperatione Dei/,
etc., 1892. Dummermuth, /Defensio doctrinae S. Thomae/, etc.,
/Responsio ad P. Frins/, 1895.
The teaching of St. Thomas on Grace was the teaching followed
generally, not merely by the Dominicans, but by most of the
theologians belonging to the secular clergy and to the other religious
orders. When, however, the systems of Calvin and Luther began to take
root some of those who were brought into close contact with the new
doctrines arrived at the conclusion that the arguments of their
opponents could be overcome more effectually by introducing some
modifications of the theories of St. Thomas concerning the operation
of Grace and Free-will. The Jesuits particularly were of this opinion,
and in 1584 the general, Aquaviva, allowed his subjects to depart in
some measure from the teaching of the /Summa/. This step was regarded
with disfavour in many influential quarters, and induced scholars to
be much more critical about Jesuit theology than otherwise they might
have been. In their College at Louvain there were two Jesuit
theologians Lessius (1584-1623) and Hamel, who both in their lectures
and theses advanced certain theories on man's co-operation with Grace
and on Predestination, that were deemed by many to be dangerously akin
to the doctrine of the Semi-Pelagians (1587). The fact that the
Jesuits had been the consistent opponents of Baianism induced Baius
and his friends to cast the whole weight of their influence against
Lessius. A sharp controversy broke out once more in the Netherlands.
The Universities of Louvain and Douay censured thirty-four
propositions of Lessius as Semi-Pelagian, while the Universities of
Ingolstadt and Mainz declared in favour of their orthodoxy. The matter
having been referred to Rome, Sixtus V. imposed silence on both
parties, without pronouncing any formal condemnation or approval of
the propositions that had been denounced (1588).
The controversy in the Spanish Netherlands was only the prelude to a
much more serious conflict in Spain itself. In 1588 the well-known
Jesuit, Luis de Molina (1535-1600) published at Lisbon his celebrated
work, /Concordia liberi arbitrii cum gratiae donis etc./ with the
approbation of the Dominican, Bartholomew Ferreira, and the permission
of the Inquisition. Hardly had the work left the printing press than
it was attacked warmly by Domingo Banez (1528-1604), the friend and
spiritual director of St. Teresa, and one of the ablest Dominicans of
his time. He had been engaged already in a controversy with the
Jesuit, Montemaior, on the same subject of Grace, but the publication
of Molina's book added new fuel to the flame, and in a short time the
dispute assumed such serious proportions that bishops, theologians,
universities, students, and even the leading officials of the state,
were obliged to take sides. The Dominicans supported Banez, while the
Jesuits with some few exceptions rallied to the side of Molina. The
latter's book was denounced to the Inquisition, but as a counterblast
to this Banez also was accused of very serious errors. If Molina was
blamed for being a Semi-Pelagian, Banez was charged with having
steered too closely to Calvinism. In the hope of restoring peace to
the Church in Spain Clement VIII. reserved the decision of the case to
his own tribunal (1596).
To get a grasp of the meaning of the controversy, it should be borne
in mind that in all theories concerning the operation of Grace three
points must be safeguarded by all Catholic theologians, namely, man's
dependence upon God as the First Cause of all his actions natural as
well as supernatural, human liberty, and God's omniscience or
foreknowledge of man's conduct. Following in the footsteps of St.
Thomas, the Dominicans maintained that when God wishes man to perform
a good act He not only gives assistance, but He actually moves or
predetermines the will so that it must infallibly act. In this way the
entire act comes from God as the First Cause, and at the same time it
is the free act of the creature, because the human will though moved
and predetermined by God acts according to its own nature, that is to
say, it acts freely. In His eternal decrees by which God ordained to
give this premotion or predetermination He sees infallibly the actions
and conduct of men, and acting on this knowledge He predestines the
just to glory /ante praevisa merita/. According to this system,
therefore, the efficaciousness of Grace comes from the Grace itself,
and is not dependent upon the co-operation of the human will.
Against this Molina maintained that the human faculties having been
elevated by what might be called prevenient Grace, so as to make them
capable of producing a supernatural act, the act itself is performed
by the will co-operating with the impulse given by God. Man is,
therefore, free, and at the same time dependent upon God in the
performance of every good act. He is free, because the human will may
or may not co-operate with the divine assistance, and he is dependent
upon God, because it is only by being elevated by prevenient Grace
freely given by God that the human will is capable of co-operating in
the production of a supernatural act. It follows, too, that the
efficaciousness of Grace arises not from the Grace itself but from the
free co-operation of the will, and that a Grace in itself truly
sufficient might not be efficacious through the failure of the will to
co-operate with it. The omniscience of God is safeguarded, because,
according to Molina, God sees infallibly man's conduct by means of the
/scientia media/ or knowledge of future conditional events (so called
because it stands midway between the knowledge of possibles and the
knowledge of actuals). That is to say He sees infallibly what man
would do freely in all possible circumstances were he given this or
that particular Grace, and acting upon this knowledge He predestines
the just to glory /post praevisa merita/. The main difficulty urged
against Molina was, that by conceding too much to human liberty he was
but renewing in another form the errors of Pelagius; while the
principal objection brought forward against the Dominicans was, that
by conceding too much to Grace they were destroying human liberty, and
approaching too closely to Calvin's teaching on Predestination.
Needless to say, however much they differed on the points, both the
followers of St. Thomas and the friends of Molina were at one in
repudiating the doctrines of Calvin and Pelagius.
A special commission (/Congregatio de Auxiliis/), presided over by
Cardinals Madrucci and Arrigone, was appointed to examine the
questions at issue. The first session was held in January 1598, and in
February of the same year the majority of the members reported in
favour of condemning Molina's book. Clement VIII. requested the
commission to consider the evidence more fully, but in a comparatively
short time the majority presented a second report unfavourable to
Molina. Representatives of the Dominicans and Jesuits were invited to
attend in the hope that by means of friendly discussion an agreement
satisfactory to both parties might be secured. In 1601 the majority
were in favour of condemning twenty propositions taken from Molina's
work, but the Pope refused to confirm the decision. From 1602 till
1605 the sessions were held in the presence of the Pope and of many of
the cardinals. Among the consultors was Peter Lombard, Archbishop of
Armagh. The death of Clement VIII. in March 1605 led to an
adjournment. In September 1605 the sessions were resumed and continued
till March 1606, when the votes of the consultors were handed in. In
July 1607 these were placed before the cardinals for their opinions,
but a little later it was announced that the decision of the Holy See
would be made public at the proper time, and that meanwhile both
parties were at liberty to teach their opinions. Neither side was,
however, to accuse the other of heresy. Since that time no definite
decision has been given, and, so far as the dogmas of faith are
concerned, theologians are at full liberty to accept Thomism or
Molinism.
(c) Jansenism.
Rapin, /Histoire du Jansenisme depuis son origine jusqu' en 1644/,
1861. Paquier, /Le Jansenisme, etude doctrinale d'apres les
sources/, 1909. Dechamps, /De haeresi jansemiana ab Apostolica
Sede proscripta/, 1654. Du Mas, /Histoire des cinque propositions
de Jansenius/, 1699. Saint-Beuve, /Port Royal/, 3rd edition, 1867-
71. Seche, /Les derniers Jansenistes/, 1891. Van den Peereboom,
/Cornelius Jansensius septieme eveque d'Ypres/, 1882. Schill, /Die
Constitution, Unigenitus/, 1876. Fuzet, /Les Jansenistes du XVIIe
siecle/, 1876.
The influence exercised by Baius, and the ideas that he implanted in
the minds of his students had a very disturbing effect on the
University of Louvain. Amongst those who fell under the sway of
Baianism at this period the best known if not the ablest was Cornelius
Jansen (1585-1638). He studied at Utrecht, Paris, and Louvain. While
in this latter place he formed a resolve to join the Society of Jesus,
but for some reason or another he was refused admission, a slight
which accounts in some measure for the continued antipathy he
displayed during his life towards the Jesuits. At Louvain, too, he was
associated very closely with a brilliant young French student, John du
Verger de Hauranne (1581-1643), better known as the Abbot of St.
Cyran, whom he accompanied to Paris and afterwards to Bayonne, where
both lived for almost twelve years. During these years of intimate
friendship they had many opportunities of discussing the condition and
prospects of the Catholic Church, the prevalence of what they
considered Pelagian views amongst theologians, the neglect of the
study of the Fathers, above all of St. Augustine, the laxity of
confessors in imparting absolution and allowing their penitents to
receive Holy Communion, and the absolute necessity of returning to the
strict discipline of the early Church. In 1617 the two friends
separated, Jansen returning to Louvain, where he was appointed to a
chair of scriptural exegesis, and du Verger to Paris, where he took up
his residence though he held at the same time the commendatory abbacy
of St. Cyran. As professor of Scripture Jansen showed himself both
industrious and orthodox, so that in 1636 on the nomination of Philip
IV. of Spain he was appointed Bishop of Ypres. From that time till
1639, when he passed away, he administered the affairs of his diocese
with commendable prudence and zeal.
During the greater portion of his life he had devoted all his spare
moments to the study of the works of St. Augustine, especially those
directed against the Pelagians, and he had prepared a treatise on
Grace, in which treatise he claimed to have reproduced exactly the
teaching of St. Augustine. This work was finished but not published
when he took seriously ill, and the manuscript was handed over by him
to some friends for publication. Before his death, however, he
declared in presence of witnesses that "if the Holy See wishes any
change I am an obedient son and I submit to that Church in which I
have lived to my dying hour."[1] Notwithstanding various efforts that
were made to prevent publication Jansen's book /Augustinus/ was given
to the world in 1640.
Like Baius Jansen refused to recognise that in the condition of
innocence, in which man was constituted before the Fall, he was
endowed with numerous gifts and graces, that were pure gifts of God in
no way due to human nature. Hence he maintained that by the sin of our
First Parents human nature was essentially corrupted, and man fell
helplessly under the control of concupiscence, so that, do what he
would, he must of necessity sin. There was therefore in man an
irresistible inclination impelling him towards evil, to counteract
which Grace was given as a force impelling him towards good, with the
result that he was drawn necessarily towards good or evil according to
the relative strength of these two conflicting delectations. It
followed from this that merely sufficient grace was never given. If
the Grace was stronger than the tendency towards evil it was
efficacious; if it was weaker it was not sufficient. Yet, whether he
acted under the impulse of Grace or of concupiscence, man acted
freely, because, according to Jansen, absence of all external pressure
was all that was required to make an act free and worthy of praise or
blame.
The book /Augustinus/ created a profound sensation among theologians.
It was hailed as a marvel of learning and ability by those who were
still attached secretly to the school of Baius as well as by the
enemies of the Jesuits. A new edition appeared in Paris only to be
condemned by the Holy Office (1641) and by Urban VIII. in the Bull,
/In Eminenti/ (1642). Various difficulties were raised against the
acceptance of the papal decision in Louvain and in the Netherlands,
and it was only after a long delay and by threats of extreme measures
that the Archbishop of Mechlin and those who followed him were obliged
to submit (1653).
The real struggle regarding /Augustinus/ was to be waged, however, in
Paris and France. There, the Abbot of St. Cyran had been busily at
work preparing the way for Jansen's doctrine, by attacking the modern
laxity of the Church, and advocating the necessity of a complete
return to the rigorous discipline of the early centuries. He had made
the acquaintance of the family of the celebrated lawyer, Antoine
Arnauld, six of whose family had entered the convent of Port Royal, of
which one of them, Angelique,[2] was then superioress, while his
youngest son, Antoine, a pupil of St. Cyran, was destined to be the
leader of the French Jansenists. St. Cyran insisted on such rigorous
conditions for the worthy reception of the Eucharist, that people
feared to receive Holy Communion lest they should be guilty of
sacrilege, and for a similar reason many priests abstained from the
celebration of Mass. He attacked the Jesuits for their laxity of
doctrine and practice in regard to the Sacrament of Penance. He
himself insisted on the absolute necessity of perfect contrition and
complete satisfaction as an essential condition for absolution. These
views were accepted by the nuns at Port Royal and by many clergy in
Paris. On account of certain writings likely to lead to religious
trouble St. Cyran was arrested by order of Cardinal Richelieu (1638)
and died in 1643. His place was taken by his brilliant pupil, Antoine
Arnauld, who had been ordained priest in 1641, and who like his master
was the determined opponent of the Jesuits. In 1643 he published a
book entitled /De la frequente Communion/, in which he put forward
such strict theories about the conditions required for the worthy
reception of the Eucharist that many people were frightened into
abstaining even from fulfilling their Easter Communion. Despite the
efforts of St. Vincent de Paul and others the book was read freely and
produced widespread and alarming results.
The condemnation pronounced by Urban VIII. (1642) against
/Augustinus/, though accepted by the king, the Archbishop of Paris,
and the Sorbonne, found many staunch opponents. It was contended that
the condemnation was the work of the Jesuits rather than of the Pope,
that it was based on the groundless supposition that the system of
Jansen was identical with that of Baius, and that as no individual
proposition in /Augustinus/ had been condemned people were perfectly
free to discuss the views it contained. To put an end to all
possibility of misunderstanding Cornet, syndic of Paris University,
selected from /Augustinus/ five propositions, which he believed
contained the whole essence of Jansen's system, and submitted them to
the Sorbonne for examination (1649). Owing to the intervention of the
Parliament of Paris in favour of the Jansenists the propositions were
referred to the Assembly of the Clergy (1650), but the vast body of
the bishops considered that it was a question on which a decision
should be sought from Rome. Accordingly eighty-five of the bishops
addressed a petition to Innocent X. (1651) requesting him to pronounce
a definitive sentence on the orthodoxy or unorthodoxy of the five
propositions, while a minority of their body objected to such an
appeal as an infringement of the liberties of the Gallican Church. A
commission, some of the members of which were recognised supporters of
the Jansenists, was appointed by the Pope to examine the question, and
after prolonged discussions extending over two years Innocent X.
issued the Bull, /Cum occasione/ (1653), by which the five
propositions were condemned. The Bull was received so favourably by
the king, the bishops, and the Sorbonne that it was hoped the end of
the controversy was in sight.
The Jansenists, however, soon discovered a new method of evading the
condemnation and of rendering the papal letters null and void. They
admitted that the five propositions were justly censured, but they
denied that these propositions were to be found in /Augustinus/, or,
if they were in /Augustinus/, they contended they were there in a
sense quite different from that which had been condemned by the Pope.
To justify this position they introduced the celebrated distinction
between law and fact; that is to say, while admitting the authority of
the Church to issue definite and binding decisions on doctrinal
matters, they denied that she was infallible in regard to questions of
fact, as for example, whether a certain proposition was contained in a
certain book or what might be the meaning which the author intended to
convey. On matters of fact such as these the Church might err, and the
most that could be demanded of the faithful in case of such decisions
was respectful silence. At the same time by means of sermons,
pamphlets, and letters, by advice given to priests, and by the
influence of several religious houses, notably Port Royal, the sect
was gaining ground rapidly in Paris, and feeling began to run high
against the Jesuits. The antipathy to the Jesuits was increased and
became much more general after the appearance of the /Lettres
Provinciales/ (1656-57) written by Pascal (1623-62). The writer was an
exceedingly able controversialist, and in many respects a deeply
religious man. From the point of view of literature the /Provincial
Letters/ were in a sense a masterpiece, but they were grossly unfair
to those whom they attacked.[3]
The Sorbonne offered a strong opposition to the Jansenists, as did
also the bishops (1656). In the same year Alexander VII. issued the
Bull, /Ad Sanctam Petri Sedem/, by which he condemned the distinction
drawn between law and fact, and declared that the five propositions
were to be found in /Augustinus/ and were condemned in the sense in
which they were understood by the Jansenists. The Assembly of the
Clergy having accepted this Bull drew up a formulary of faith based on
the teaching it contained. The greater part of the Jansenists either
refused entirely to subscribe to this formulary, or else subscribed
only with certain reservations and restrictions. The nuns at Port
Royal were most obstinate in their refusal. As they persisted in their
attitude notwithstanding the prayers and entreaties of the Archbishop
of Paris he was obliged reluctantly to exclude them from the
sacraments. One of the principal objections urged against the
acceptance of the formulary being that the Assembly of the Clergy had
no authority to prescribe any such profession of faith, Alexander VII.
at the request of many of the bishops issued a new constitution,
/Regiminus Apostolici/ (1664), in which he insisted that all priests
secular and regular and all members of religious communities should
subscribe to the anti-Jansenist formulary that he forwarded.
Most of the Jansenists refused to yield obedience even to the commands
of the Pope. They were strengthened in their refusal by the fact that
four of the French bishops set them a bad example by approving
publicly in their pastorals the Jansenist distinction between law and
fact. The Council of State promptly suppressed these pastorals (1665),
and at the request of Louis XIV. Alexander VII. appointed a commission
for the trial of the disobedient bishops. In the meantime, before the
commission could proceed with the trial, Alexander VII. died, and was
succeeded by Clement IX. (1667). Several of the French bishops
addressed a joint letter to the new Pope, in which by a rather unfair
use of extracts from the works of theologians they sought to excuse
the attitude of their brother bishops, and at the same time they
hinted to the king that the controversy was taking a course likely to
be fraught with great danger to the liberties of the Gallican Church.
Louis XIV., who had been hitherto most determined in his efforts
against the Jansenists, began to grow lukewarm, and the whole
situation in France was fast becoming decidedly critical. Some of the
French bishops offered their services as mediators. Through their
intervention it was agreed that without expressly retracting their
pastorals the bishops should consent to sign the formulary drawn up by
the Pope, and induce the clergy to do likewise. The bishops signed the
formulary, and held synods in which they secured the signatures of
their clergy, but at the same time in their conversations and in their
addresses they made it perfectly clear that they had done so only with
the Jansenist restrictions and reservations. The announcement of their
submission pure and simple was forwarded to the Pope without any
reference to any conditions or qualifications, and the Pope informed
the king that he was about to issue letters of reconciliation to the
four bishops. Before the letters were forwarded, however, rumours
began to reach Rome that all was not well, and a new investigation was
ordered. Finally, in view of the very critical state of affairs it was
decided that the Pope might proceed safely on the documents received
from the nuncio and the mediators without reference to the information
acquired from other sources. In January 1669 the letters of
reconciliation were issued. The Jansenists hailed the /Clementine
Peace/ as a great triumph for their party, and boasted publicly that
Clement IX. had receded from the position taken up by his predecessor,
by accepting the Jansenist distinction between law and fact. That
their boasting was without foundation is sufficiently clear from a
mere cursory examination of the papal letters. The Pope makes it
perfectly evident that the letters were issued on the assumption that
the bishops had subscribed without any reservation or restriction. He
states expressly that he was firmly resolved to uphold the
constitutions of his predecessors, and that he would never admit any
restriction or reservation.
----------
[1] Calleawert, /Cornelius Jansenius d'Ypres, ses derniers moments, sa
soumission/, 1893.
[2] Montlaur, /Angelique Arnauld/, 1902.
[3] Giraud, /Pascal, l'homme, l'ouevre, l'influence/, 1905.
(d) The Immaculate Conception.
Passaglia, /De Immaculat. Concept. B.V.M./, 3 vols., 1855.
Strozzi, /Controversia dell' Immacolata Concezione/, 1700.
Roskovany, /De Beata Virgine in suo conceptu immaculata/, 1873-92.
Le Bachelet, /L'Immac. Conc./, 1903. Bishop, /The Origins of the
Feast of the Conception of B.V.M./, 1904. Ullathorne, /The
Immaculate Conception of the Mother of God/, 1904.
From the days of Dons Scotus the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception
was received very generally by the universities and theologians. The
Dominicans, feeling themselves called upon to support the views of St.
Thomas, who argued against the Immaculate Conception as understood in
his own time, opposed the common teaching. The question was brought
before the schismatical assembly at Basle (1439), where it was defined
that the Immaculate Conception of the Blessed Virgin was in harmony
with reason and Scripture, and should be approved and accepted by all
Christians. This teaching was confirmed by several provincial synods
in France and Germany, as well as by many of the universities. Paris
and Cologne, for example, obliged all their members to swear to defend
the doctrine. Sixtus IV. bestowed indulgences on those who would
observe the Feast of the Immaculate Conception (1476), but although
favouring the doctrine he forbade the defenders or opponents to charge
each other with heresy (1483). When in the discussions on Original Sin
at the Council of Trent the subject was raised, no formal decision was
given because the Fathers were determined to direct all their
attention to the doctrines that had been rejected by the Reformers. At
the same time the opinion of the Fathers was expressed clearly enough,
since they declared that in their decrees regarding the universality
of Original Sin they did not mean to include the Immaculate Virgin
Mary (V. Sess. 1546). Pius V. condemned a proposition of Baius, in
which it was laid down that Christ alone escaped the guilt of Original
Sin, and that the Blessed Virgin suffered death on account of the
guilt she contracted by her descent from Adam (1567). A Spanish
Franciscan, Francis of Santiago, having claimed that he had a vision
in support of the doctrine, a sharp controversy broke out in Spain, to
end which Philip III. besought the Pope to give a definitive decision.
Paul V. contented himself, however, with renewing the decrees of his
predecessors Sixtus IV. and Pius V. forbidding charges of heresy to be
bandied about by the disputants (1616), but in the following year he
forbade any public defence of the theses directed against the doctrine
of the Immaculate Conception. Gregory XV. though unwilling to yield to
the request of the Spanish Court for a formal definition, prohibited
either public or private opposition to the doctrine unless in case of
those who had received special authorisation from the Holy See.
Finally in 1661 Alexander VII. in the constitution, /Sollicitudo
omnium Ecclesiarum/, explained the true meaning of the doctrine, and
forbade any further opposition to what he declared to be the common
and pious belief of the Church.
(e) Tyrannicide.
Hergenrother, /Katholische Kirche u. Christl. Staat/, 1872.
Parkinson, /Catholic Writers on Tyrannicide/ (/Month/, March-
April, 1873). Duhr. /Jesuiten-Fabeln/, 3 auf., pp. 659 sqq.
Whether Tyrannicide is lawful or unlawful was a question on which
different views were held by theologians. The murder of the Duke of
Orleans by orders of the Duke of Burgundy (1407) helped to stir up the
controversy. Amongst the dependants of the Duke of Burgundy was a
priest, John Parvus (Petit or Le Petit), who accompanied the Duke to
Paris, and in a public assembly defended the Duke of Burgundy on the
ground that it was lawful to murder a tyrant (1408). Nine propositions
selected from this speech were condemned by the Bishop of Paris, by
the Inquisition, and by the university (1414). The Duke of Burgundy
appealed to Pope John XXIII., while the representatives of France at
the Council of Constance were instructed to seek the opinion of the
assembly. The discussion of the subject was complicated by political
issues. As the Council of Constance was anxious to avoid all quarrels
with the King of France, the Duke of Burgundy, or the Emperor, it
contented itself with issuing a very general condemnation of
Tyrannicide. Before the council closed, however, the question was
raised once more in connexion with a book published by the Dominican,
John of Falkenberg, who was a strong partisan of the Teutonic Knights
in their struggle against the King of Poland, and who maintained that
it was lawful to kill the King of Poland. He undertook the defence of
Petit's work, and wrote strongly against the representatives of the
University of Paris. The Poles demanded his condemnation, but though
he was arrested and detained in prison his book was not condemned by
the council. A Dominican chapter held in 1417 repudiated Falkenberg's
teaching.
For a long time the subject was not discussed by Catholic theologians
though Tyrannicide was defended by the leading Reformers, including
Luther and Melanchthon, but during the religious wars in France and in
Scotland it was advocated in theory by some of the French Calvinists
such as Languet and Boucher as well as by the Scotch leader, John
Knox, and put into practice by their followers against the Duke of
Guise and Cardinal Beaton.[1] The Jesuits in France were accused of
sympathising with this doctrine during the reign of Henry IV., but
there was not sufficient evidence to support such a charge. Some of
their theologians may have defended the legality of rebellion in
certain circumstances, but this was a doctrine in no way peculiar to
the Jesuits. The only serious argument brought forward by the
opponents of the Jesuits was drawn from a work published by a Spanish
Jesuit, Mariana (1536-1624). It was written for the instruction of
some of the princes of Spain, and was dedicated to Philip III. In many
respects it was an exceedingly praiseworthy work, but the author's
reference to the murder of Henry III. of France and his defence of
Tyrannicide, hedged round though it was by many restrictions and
reservations, gave great offence in France, and provided the enemies
of the Society with a splendid weapon for a general attack upon the
entire body. As a matter of fact Mariana's book did not represent the
views of the Jesuits. In 1610 the general, Aquaviva, forbade any of
his subjects to defend the teaching on Tyrannicide it contained.
----------
[1] Lecky, /The History of the Rise and Influence of Rationalism in
Europe/, 1913, p. 164.
(f) The Copernican System. Galileo Galilei.
Muller, /Nicolaus Copernicus/ (/Stimmen aus M.-Laach/, 1898,
/Supp./ 72). Hipler, /Nicolaus Copernicus u. Martin Luther/, 1868.
Muller, /Galileo Galilei/, 1908. Von Gebler, /Galileo Galilei und
die Romische Curie/ (Eng. Trans., 1879). L'Epinois, /La question
de Galilee/, 1878, /The Month/ (Sept., 1867; March-April, 1868).
Nicolaus Copernicus (Koppernick or Koppernigk, 1473-1543) was born at
Thorn, and was educated principally at Cracow, Bologna, Padua, and
Ferrara. He was a canon of the chapter of Frauenberg, and most
probably a priest. During his stay in Italy he was brought into
contact with the new views put forward by Cardinal Nicholas of Cusa
and others regarding the position of the earth in the system of the
universe. His own studies let him to the conclusion that the sun was
the centre round which the earth and all the heavenly bodies moved in
their course. He communicated his conclusions to some of his special
friends in 1531, but he hesitated to publish them on account of the
ridicule that such a novel opinion was sure to excite. One of his
pupils lectured at Rome on the subject, and explained the theories of
Copernicus to Clement VII. (1533).
Yielding at last to the entreaties of Cardinal Schonberg, Archbishop
of Capua, and Bishop Giese of Culm he entrusted his work for
publication to one of his pupils, Rheticus, professor at Wittenberg,
but the opposition of the Lutheran professors made it impossible to
bring out the book in that city. It was finally published under the
editorship of Osiander at Nurnberg in 1543. In the preface to the work
Osiander made considerable changes out of deference to the views of
Luther and Melanchthon, the most important of which was that he
referred to the system of Copernicus as an hypothesis that might or
might not be true. The work, /De Revolutionibus Orbium Coelestium/ was
dedicated to Pope Paul III. The principal opposition to the novel
views of Copernicus came from the side of the Lutheran theologians,
and it was only years later, when feeling was aroused by the
controversy regarding Galileo, that any suspicion of unorthodoxy was
directed against Copernicus by Catholic writers. Needless to say
Copernicus died as he had lived, a devoted Catholic, fully convinced
that he had done good service for religion as well as for science.
Galileo Galilei (1564-1642) was remarkable from a very early age for
his abilities as a student of mathematics and mechanics. Indeed it was
in these subjects and not in astronomy that he achieved his most
brilliant and most lasting successes. He taught at Pisa and Padua, and
was afterwards employed at the court of the Grand Duke of Tuscany. In
1609 he perfected the telescope by means of which he was enabled to
make observations of the heavenly bodies, and from these observations
and discoveries he was led to the conclusion that the heliocentric
system as advocated by Copernicus was the only one scientifically
tenable. He came to Rome, where he was welcomed by the Pope and the
cardinals, and set up his telescope in the Vatican gardens (1611). At
first Galileo's views excited no great opposition, but owing to the
imprudent propaganda carried on by some of his own friends, notably by
the Carmelite, Foscarini, a violent controversy broke out in which the
scientific side of the theory was almost completely forgotten. Against
Galileo it was contended that his system contradicted the Scripture,
which spoke of the sun standing still in its course at the prayers of
Josue, and that it was, therefore, inadmissible. At the time in Italy
the ecclesiastical authorities were markedly conservative and hostile
to innovations, particularly as there was then a strong party in
Italy, of whom Paul Sarpi may be taken as a typical example, who were
liberal and Lutheran in their tendencies and sympathies. Had the
discussion been confined to learned circles no notice might have been
taken of it, but once an appeal was made to the masses of the people
it was almost inevitable that Galileo should have been denounced to
the Inquisition.
In the circumstances a decision favourable to Galileo could hardly
have been expected. The old Ptolemaic system was so closely bound up
with the philosophic and scientific teaching of the age that its
abandonment meant little less than a complete revolution in the world
of learning. As yet the vast body of those who were specially versed
in the subject treated the new theory with derision, while the
arguments put forward by Galileo in its defence were so weak and
inconclusive that most of them have been long since abandoned. The
hostile attitude, too, of the Lutheran divines could hardly fail to
exercise some influence on the Roman consultors. In 1615 Galileo
appeared before the Inquisition to defend his views, but without any
result. The heliocentric system was condemned as being opposed to
Scripture and therefore heretical, and Galileo was obliged to promise
never again to put it forward (1616). The work of Copernicus and those
of some other writers who advocated the Copernican system were
condemned /donec corrigantur/. The decision of the congregation was
wrong, but in the circumstances not unintelligible. Nor can it be
contended for a moment that from this mistake any solid argument can
be drawn against the infallibility of the Pope. Paul V. was
undoubtedly present at the session in which the condemnation was
agreed upon and approved of the verdict, but still the decision
remained only the decision of the congregation and not the binding
/ex-cathedra/ pronouncement of the Head of the Church. Indeed, it
appears from a letter of Cardinal Bellarmine that the congregation
regarded its teaching as only provisional, and that if it were proved
beyond doubt that the sun was stationary it would be necessary to
admit that the passages of Scripture urged against this view had been
misunderstood.
Galileo left Rome with no intention of observing the promise he had
made. After the election of Urban VIII. who, as Cardinal Barberini,
had been his faithful friend and supporter, Galileo returned to Rome
(1624) in the hope of procuring a revision of the verdict; but though
he was received with all honour, and accorded an annual pension from
the papal treasury his request was refused. He returned to Florence,
where he published eight years later a new book on the subject,
couched in the form of a dialogue between supporters of the rival
systems, the Ptolemaic and the Copernican, in which Simplicissimus,
the defender of the old view, was not only routed but covered with
ridicule. Such a flagrant violation of his promise could not pass
unnoticed. He was summoned to appear once more before the Inquisition,
and arrived in Rome in February 1633. At first he denied that he had
written in favour of his views since 1616, then he pleaded guilty,
confessed that he was in error, and appealed to the court to deal
gently with an old and infirm man. He was found guilty, and was
condemned to recite the seven penitential psalms once a week for three
years, and to be imprisoned at the pleasure of the Inquisition. It is
not true to say that Galileo was shut up in the dungeons of the
Inquisition. He was detained only for a few days, and even during that
time he was lodged in the comfortable apartments of one of the higher
officials. Neither is it correct to state that he was tortured or
subjected to any bodily punishment. He was released almost immediately
on parole, and lived for a time at Rome in the palace of the Grand
Duke of Tuscany. Later on he retired to his villa at Arcetri, and
finally he was allowed to return to Florence. In 1642, fortified by
the last sacraments and comforted by the papal benediction, he passed
away. His body was laid to rest within the walls of the Church of
Santa Croce at Florence. Most of his misfortunes were due to his own
rashness and the imprudence of his friends and supporters. His
condemnation is the sole scientific blunder that can be laid to the
charge of the Roman Congregation. That his condemnation was not due to
any hatred of science or to any desire of the Roman ecclesiastics to
oppose the progress of knowledge is evident enough from the favours
and honours lavished upon his predecessors in the same field of
research, Cardinal Nicholas of Cusa, Peurbach, Muller (Regiomontanus),
and Copernicus.
(g) Progress of Theological Studies.
Hurter, /Nomenclator Literarius Theologiae Catholicae/, 3 auf.,
1903. Werner, /Geschichte der apologetischen und polemischen
Literatur der Christlichen Theologie/, 1865. Turmel, /Histoire de
la theologie positive/, etc., 1906. Slater, /A Short History of
Moral Theology/, 1909. Gigot, /General Introduction to the Sacred
Scriptures/, 1900. De Smedt, /Introductio Generalis ad Historiam
Ecclesiasticam/, 1876. Benigni, /Historiae Ecclesiasticae
Repertorium/, 1902. Collins, /The Study of Ecclesiastical
History/, 1903.
In the latter half of the fifteenth and the first quarter of the
sixteenth centuries theological studies had reached a very low ebb.
The great philosophico-theological movement of the thirteenth century
had spent its force, and it seemed highly probable that in the
struggle with Humanism theology would be obliged to abandon its
position of pre-eminence in favour of the classics. Yet as events
showed the results of Humanism were far from being so harmful to
theology as seemed likely at first. Zeal for the pagan authors of
antiquity helped to stir up zeal for the writings of the Fathers, new
editions of which were published in various centres; while at the same
time the value of the spirit of historical and literary criticism, so
highly prized by the devotees of Humanism, was recognised by
theologians, and availed of largely in defending the authority of the
documents that they cited. In the controversies with the Reformers,
who rejected entirely the authority and the methods of the
Scholastics, Catholic authors and controversialists were obliged to
fix their attention upon the Scriptures and on the historical side of
theology as evidenced in the doctrines and usages of the early
centuries. The revival, too, at this period of the older religious
orders, particularly the Benedictines and the Dominicans, and the
establishment of new bodies such as the Jesuits and the Oratorians
were in the highest degree providential. It gave to the Church the
services of trained and devoted scholars, who were free to devote all
their energies to the defence of Catholic interests. In the remarkable
theological movement of the sixteenth century Spain and Italy held the
leading place. The University of Salamanca contended with the
/Collegium Romanum/ for the supremacy once yielded freely to the
theological faculty of Paris. The founder of the new school of
theology, which had its seat in Salamanca but which exercised a very
considerable influence on the Jesuit teachers in Rome, Ingolstadt, and
Prague, was the Dominican, Francis of Vittoria (1480-1546). Realising
the necessities of the age better than most of his contemporaries he
put to an end the useless discussions and degenerate style of his
immediate predecessors, re-introduced the /Summa/ of St. Thomas,
insisted on supplementing it by a close study of the Scriptures and
the writings of the Fathers, and inaugurated a new style of
theological Latinity freed both from the barbarisms of the later
Scholastics and the pedantry of the classical enthusiasts.
Amongst the Catholic theologians of Germany who defended the Church
against the attacks of the Reformers may be mentioned /John Eck/
(1486-1543) connected for the greater part of his life with the
University of Ingolstadt, who in his publications proved himself the
leading champion on the Catholic side against Luther; /John Faber/
(1478-1541) the friend of Erasmus and the staunch though moderate
opponent of Luther and Zwingli, whose work, /Malleus Haereticorum/
(1524), secured for him the title of "the hammer of heretics"; /John
Cochlaeus/ (1479-1552) who published more than two hundred treatises
against the Reformers, nearly all of which suffered from the haste and
temper in which they were prepared; /John Gropper/ (1503-59) whose
early training as a lawyer led him at first to favour proposed
compromises hardly compatible with Catholic doctrine, but who laboured
earnestly to save Cologne for the Catholic Church; /John Nas/ (1534-
90) the Franciscan Bishop of Brixen, and the /Blessed Peter Canisius,
S.J./ (1521-97) who did more than any other man to save the entire
German nation from falling under the sway of Lutheranism, thereby
meriting the title of the second apostle of Germany.
/Tommaso de Vio/ (1469-1534), surnamed /Cajetan/[1] from his place of
birth, /Gaeta/, joined the Dominicans at an early age, taught at Padua
and Pavia, and was elected general of his order (1508). Seven years
later he was created cardinal and was entrusted with a mission to
Germany (1518), in the course of which he sought vainly to procure the
submission of Luther. During the closing years of his life he acted as
one of the principal advisers of Clement VII. By his example and his
advice he did much to revive theological studies amongst the
Dominicans and to recall them to the study of St. Thomas. As a
theologian and an exegetist he showed himself to be a man of great
ability and judgment sometimes slightly erratic and novel in his
theories, while from the point of view of style he was vastly superior
to most of his predecessors. His principal works are the Commentary on
St. Thomas (1507-22) and his explanations of nearly all the books of
the Old and New Testament. /Ambrosius Catharinus/[2] (1487-1553) was
born at Siena, graduated a doctor of canon and civil law at the age of
sixteen, pleaded as a lawyer in the consistorial court of Leo X.,
joined the Dominicans at an advanced age, took a prominent part in the
discussions at the earlier sessions of the Council of Trent, was
appointed bishop in 1546, and died in 1553 when, as it is said, he was
on the point of receiving the cardinal's hat. Catharinus was a keen
controversialist, but as a theologian he was brilliant rather than
solid. His strong leaning towards novelties brought him into conflict
with Cajetan and in fact with the whole Dominican Order, the most
cherished opinions of which he loved to attack. /Dominic Soto/ (1494-
1560) was a student of Alcala and Paris, joined the Dominicans in
1524, taught theology at Salamanca from 1532 till 1545, when he went
to the Council of Trent, where his services were invaluable especially
on the question of Grace and Justification, acted for a time as
confessor to Charles V., and returned finally to his chair at
Salamanca. He was the last of the great commentators on the
/Sentences/ of Peter Lombard. His principal works were /De Natura et
Gratia/, written for the information of the Fathers of Trent and /De
Justitia et Jure/ (1556). Another of the distinguished Spanish
Dominicans of this period was /Melchior Cano/ (1509-60), who had as
his professor at Salamanca Francis of Vittoria. He taught at Alcala
and Salamanca, accompanied Soto to the Council of Trent, was appointed
bishop but resigned almost immediately, and served for some time as
provincial of the Dominicans. His greatest work was the /De Locis
Theologicis/ (1563), in which as a kind of introduction to theology he
endeavoured to establish scientifically the foundations of theological
science. He discusses the ten /loci/ or sources which he enumerates,
namely, Scripture, Tradition, the Catholic Church, the Councils, the
Fathers, the Roman Church, the Scholastics, Reason, the authority of
philosophers, and the authority of historians. His style is simple,
concise, and elegant.
/Robert Bellarmine/[3] (1542-1621) was born in Tuscany, joined the
Society of Jesus (1560), studied at the /Collegium Romanum/ and at
Louvain, where he taught for some time, was recalled to Rome to assume
charge of the new chair of controversy in the /Collegium Romanum/,
took a prominent part in the preparation of the Clementine edition of
the Vulgate, in the /Congregatio de Auxiliis/, and in the trial of
Galileo, engaged in controversy with James I. of England in regard to
the Catholic Oath, was created cardinal (1599), and appointed
Archbishop of Capua (1602). Cardinal Bellarmine was a deeply religious
man, severe only with himself, an indefatigable student always anxious
to be just to his opponents, and specially gifted as a lecturer and
writer. His greatest work was undoubtedly the /Disputationes de
controversis Christianae fidei articulis/, in which he displayed a
most minute and accurate knowledge of the religious tenets of all the
sects of the Reformers. The book created such an enormous sensation in
Europe at the time that special lecturers were employed at some of the
Protestant universities to undertake its refutation. His commentary on
the Psalms, and the Catechism prepared by him at the request of
Clement VIII. also deserve special notice. The last complete edition
of his writings was published at Paris in 1870. /Francis Suarez/[4]
(1548-1617) was born at Granada, joined the Society of Jesus in
Salamanca (1564) and taught at Valladolid, Rome, Alcala, Salamanca,
and Coimbra. Like Bellarmine Suarez was a man of great personal piety,
well versed in the writings of the Fathers and in the literature of
the Reformers. His works are clear and well arranged but somewhat too
diffuse. The last edition (Vives) of his works was published at Paris
(1856-61). /John de Lugo/ (1583-1660) was born at Madrid, went to
Salamanca to study law, and there joined the Jesuits. He lectured
first at Valladolid, and later on at Rome where he attracted crowds of
students, and he was created cardinal in 1643. In his works he has
covered practically the entire field of dogmatic and moral theology.
The best known are perhaps /De Justitia et Jure/ and his treatises on
the Incarnation, the Sacraments, the Eucharist, and the Sacrifice of
the Mass. The last edition of his published works was issued at Paris
(1868-9). /Dionysius Petavius/[5] (Petau, 1583-1652) was born at
Orleans, studied arts and theology at Paris, entered the Society of
Jesus (1605), and taught theology at Paris for twenty-two years. He
was one of the best known and most respected scholars of his age.
Quite apart from his merits as a theologian, his works on chronology,
notably the /De doctrina temporum/ and the /Tabulae Chronologicae/
would have been sufficient to place him in the first rank of the
scholars of his period. In theology he is chiefly remarkable for the
introduction and application of the historical method in his
discussion of dogma, and hence he is referred to rightly as the
"Father of the History of Dogma." His principal theological work is
the /Dogmata Theologica/ (1644-50).
The splendid example of a scientific treatment of moral theology set
by St. Thomas produced very little effect during the fourteenth and
fifteenth centuries, for the simple reason that the /Sentences/, and
not the /Summa/, was the text-book used generally in the schools.
Following along the lines marked out by Raymond of Penafort in his
/Summa de poenitentia et matrimonio/ (1235) a large number of /Summae/
or manuals for the use of confessors were published during the
fourteenth and fifteenth centuries, the last of them being that of
Silvester Prierias, one of the earliest opponents of Luther. One of
the few writers of this period who undertook to give a scientific
explanation of moral principles is St. Antoninus (1389-1459), the
Dominican Archbishop of Florence, in his /Summa Theologica Moralis/.
The rejection of the /Sentences/ in favour of the /Summa/, and the
reform decrees of the Council of Trent gave a new impetus to the study
of moral theology during the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. Most
of the great writers of this period, Gregory of Valencia (1550-1603),
Vasquez (1549-1604), Lessius (1554-1623), Banez (1528-1604), Medina
(1527-81), Sanchez (1550-1610), Saurez, and De Logo devoted special
attention to the underlying principles of moral theology, and in some
cases to their practical application. The /De Poenitentia/ and the
/Responsa Moralia/ of De Lugo served as models of what might be called
mixed treatment, partly scientific and partly casuistical. The
/Theologia Moralis/ of the Jesuit writer, Paul Laymann (1574-1635),
the /Instructio Sacerdotum/ of Cardinal Toledo and the /Medulla
Theologiae Moralis/ of Hermann Busenbaum (1600-68), which went through
forty editions in his own lifetime, may be cited as examples of this
method.
The controversy regarding Probabilism did not assume a serious aspect
till the rise and condemnation of Jansenism. During this period the
enemies of the Jesuits pointed to the approval given to Probabilism by
the Fathers of the Society as a proof of the laxity of view introduced
by Jesuit theologians. Whatever may be said of the system, one thing
is certain, namely, that the Jesuit theologians were not the first to
put it forward. It was followed in practice long before the
institution of the Society of Jesus, was enunciated clearly enough as
a theory by the Spanish Dominican Bartholomew Medina (1527-81) and was
adopted, at least in their solutions of particular cases, by most of
the great writers during the latter half of the sixteenth and the
first half of the seventeenth centuries.
Amongst the most notable writers on ascetical theology of this period
were St. Ignatius of Loyola, the author of the /Spiritual Exercises/,
St. Teresa (1515-82) the zealous reformer of the Carmelites, St. John
of God (1495-1550) the founder of the Brothers of St. John of God, the
Dominican Louis of Granada (1504-88), St. Francis de Sales (1567-
1622), the two Jesuit writers Alphonsus Rodriguez (1526-1616) and
Louis de Ponte (1554-1624), and Jean Jacques Olier (1608-57) the
founder of the Sulpicians.
Many causes combined to bring about a great revival in Scriptural
studies. The Humanist movement ensured that commentators would bring
to their task a ready knowledge of Greek and a critical appreciation
of the age and value of manuscripts. The study of Hebrew was taken up
enthusiastically by scholars like Reuchlin, and was rendered
comparatively easy by the grammars and dictionaries published by
Reuchlin, Santez, Pagnino, Pelikan, and Cardinal Bellarmine. The
contention of the early Reformers that the Bible was the sole source
of divine revelation, though never accepted by Catholic scholars,
necessitated a close study of the words and literal meaning of the
sacred text. In opposition to the private interpretation of the
Reformers Catholics contended that the teaching authority of the
Church and the interpretation of the Fathers were the only sure
guides. The distinction between deutero-canonical and proto-canonical
books was ended for Catholics by the decision of the Council of Trent
attributing to both equal authority. The question of the extent of
inspiration was left by the Council of Trent practically in the
position in which it stood when the Council of Florence defined that
God was the author of the sacred books. Many writers were inclined to
hold the view that the divine assistance extended to the style and the
words, while others rejected verbal inspiration. A few Catholic
scholars, for example Lessius and Hamel, seemed to maintain that a
book composed by human industry and without the assistance of the Holy
Ghost might be regarded as inspired if afterwards the Holy Ghost
testified that it contained no error. Since the Vatican Council such a
view is no longer tenable.
The activity in the field of Scriptural studies is witnessed to by the
edition of the Greek and Latin text of the New Testament prepared by
Erasmus, by the Complutensian Polyglot published under the direction
of Cardinal Ximenes (1514-17) to be followed by similar publications
at Antwerp (1569-72) and at Paris (1628-45), by the edition of the
Septuagint at the command of Sixtus V. and the edition of the Vulgate
under Clement VIII. Amongst the great Catholic commentators of the age
may be mentioned Cardinal Cajetan (+1534), the Dominican Santez
Pagnino (+1541), Cornelius Jansen (1576), the Jesuit, John Maldonatus
(+1583), whose commentary on the four Gospels is still unrivalled,
William Estius (+1613), professor at Douay, whose views on Grace were
not unaffected by the controversies then raging at Louvain, and
Cornelius a Lapide, S.J. (+1673), professor at Louvain and Rome, who
published an excellent commentary on the entire Scriptures.
Ecclesiastical History profited largely from the Humanist movement
which brought to light many new documents, and tended to awaken a
spirit of scholarly criticism. The contention put forward by the
Reformers, that primitive Christianity had been completely corrupted
by semi-Pagan novelties during the Middle Ages, made it imperative on
Catholic scholars to direct their attention to the practices and
teaching of the early centuries. New editions of the writings of the
Fathers were prepared by the Dominicans, Jesuits, and by the
Benedictines of St. Maur. The attempt made by the Magdeburg
Centuriators to justify Lutheranism at the bar of history called forth
the /Annales Ecclesiastici/ of Cardinal Baronius (1538-1607). These
Annals dealt with the history of the Church from the beginning till
the year 1198. The work was continued by the Oratorians Raynaldus and
Laderchi, by de Sponde, Bzovius and Augustine Theiner. The History of
the Popes was written by the Augustinian Panvinio (+1568) and by the
Dominican, Ciacconius (+1599). Hagiographical studies were pursued by
Surius (+1578) and by the Jesuit Heribert Rosweyde (1569-1629). It was
the latter who first conceived the plan of publishing the Lives of the
Saints in one series. He died without having done much except to
collect an immense mass of materials. The scheme was, however, taken
up by other members of the society, notably, John Van Bolland
(Bollandus, 1596-1665), Godfrey Henschen (1601-81) and Daniel von
Papenbroeck (Papebroch, 1628-1714). These were the first of the
Bollandists, and the first volume of the /Acta Sanctorum/ appeared in
1643.
----------
[1] Quetif-Echard, /Scriptores Ordinis Praedicatorum/, ii. 14.
[2] Id., ii. 144-51.
[3] Couderc, /Robert Bellarmin/, 2 vols., 1893.
[4] Werner, /Franz Suarez und die Scholastik der letzten
jahrhunderte/, 1861.
[5] Chatellain, /Viz du Pere D. Petavius/, 1884.