in France of his edition of the works of St. Augustine, but the
influence of the Sorbonne was sufficient to prevent the permit being
given. The reason why Erasmus considered it important to have this work
issued from Paris was that the Paris University was at the time the
centre for theological undertakings, as the University of Bologna was
for instruction in jurisprudence.
Erasmus was able to write in regard to the _Praise of Folly_ that
the pope “had read it through from beginning to end and that kings,
bishops, archbishops, and cardinals were delighted with it.”[220]
The favour given to the book by the pope and by not a few of the
scholarly ecclesiastics did not prevent its prohibition in many of the
universities, including Paris, Louvain, Oxford, and Cambridge.
The prohibition of the _Praise of Folly_ carried with it the
condemnation of the previous writings of the author. This is the
literature, cried the clergy, that comes from a knowledge of Greek.
In 1515, Erasmus took time from his literary work to interest himself
in behalf of his friend, the learned and high-minded Reuchlin, the
greatest Hebrew scholar of the day. Reuchlin had fallen under the
persecution of the Dominicans, led by the ignorant and bigoted
Hoogstraaten, for his opposition to the diabolical proposal to destroy
all existing Hebrew literature, the Scriptures alone excepted. He had
defended himself in a book entitled the _Speculum Oculare_ (the
Eyeglass), and on a mandate being issued by Hoogstraaten to burn this,
Reuchlin had appealed from the Inquisition to the pope. The Bishop of
Speyer, to whom Leo committed the case, gave judgment in favour of
Reuchlin and imposed on his enemies perpetual silence, a sentence
which proved difficult of execution. Reuchlin was condemned by the
universities of Mayence, Erfurt, Louvain, and Paris, although there
were at the time professorships of Hebrew both in Louvain and in Paris.
The matter was in some fashion again brought before the pope, to whom
an earnest and eloquent appeal was made by Erasmus on behalf of his
friend. The support of the Emperor Maximilian was also secured for
the aged scholar who had done so much to bring honour to the cause
of learning in Germany and in Europe. The pope finally confirmed the
previous decision in favour of Reuchlin, a decision which rescued from
the status of heresy, in which it had been placed by the Dominicans and
the learned faculties of the universities, the language of the Hebrew
Scriptures and the literature of the chosen people of God. Reuchlin’s
books were rescued from the ban and their learned author was saved from
the risk of the stake.[221]
The _Colloquies_ of Erasmus were published in 1518, and were reprinted
in a long series of editions authorised and unauthorised. One printer
in Paris, learning that the university was about to condemn the work,
brought into circulation no less than twenty thousand copies.[222] This
constitutes a curious example of the influence that could be exerted by
an official condemnation in bringing about for the work an immediate
and extended demand for a book. The writings of Erasmus were condemned
_in toto_, in 1550, in the Spanish Index of that date.
In 1539, the interest of Francis in scholarship, and the influence
of Budaeus caused him to invite Erasmus to Paris to take part in the
organisation of a royal college. The Emperor (Charles V) put an end
to the negotiation by forbidding Erasmus (under the penalty of the
stoppage of his pension) to leave the territory of the empire. It is
interesting to think of the most Catholic Emperor on the one hand,
and the “eldest son of the Church” on the other, contending for the
services of the scholar whose writings had been condemned in Rome as
heretical and were prohibited in Spain, and who could not at this time
obtain from the Paris University a printing-privilege.
Among the cultivated Spaniards assembled at the court of Charles V,
Erasmus became for the time the fashion. His writings secured the
approval even of some of the highest dignitaries of the Spanish Church.
The Inquisitor-General, Manrique, declared Erasmus to be another
Jerome and Augustine. The Archbishop of Toledo wrote, when Erasmus was
under criticism, assuring him of the protection and good-will of the
emperor. The _Colloquies_ were used as a schoolbook and the _Praise
of Folly_ was in the hands of all Humanists. In March, 1527, Valdes
wrote to Erasmus that his books were everywhere in Spain and that no
merchandise was more salable.[223] In 1527 was published a Castilian
version of the _Manual of the Christian Soldier_, and in the same
year, under the leadership of Dr. Edward Lee, English ambassador in
Spain, a session of the supreme council of the Inquisition was called
to make thorough examination of the alleged heresies in the writings
of Erasmus. A list of twenty-one such heresies was framed by the
examiners. The charges were finally referred to an assembly of twenty
theologians and nine friars who gave to the investigation months of
debate, but who arrived at no conclusion. Charles V was persuaded to
write an imperial missive in favour of Erasmus, and Clement VII issued,
in 1527, a brief imposing silence on all who should attack the writings
in so far as these concerned Luther. Manrique issued, on behalf of the
Spanish Inquisition, an absolute prohibition of any writings against
Erasmus. The influence of the antagonists of Erasmus finally, however,
prevailed. In 1535, a year before the death of the author, Charles V
made it a capital offence to use the _Colloquies_ in schools, and in
1538 he issued a prohibition covering the _Praise of Folly_ and most
of the other works, excepting, however, the _Christian Soldier_. In
the Spanish expurgatory Index of 1584, Erasmus occupies no less than
fifty-five quarto pages. By 1640, the list of the errors of Erasmus
calls for no less than fifty-nine folio pages in double columns. By
this time he had come to be classed with the incorrigible heretics, and
the words “_auctoris damnati_” are ordered to be inserted after his
name on all title-pages. This was the final judgment of the Spanish
Inquisition on Erasmus. A different view of the nature and value of the
work done by Erasmus is taken by Catholic scholars of the twentieth
century, although I do not venture to say that this view is general,
even among the scholars of the Church. Father Shahan, of the Catholic
University of America, for instance, says (in 1899) (speaking to be
sure informally):
“Erasmus rendered noteworthy service to the Church, to religion,
and to scholarship. He was the counsellor of moderation, the
upholder of scholarly standards, the pitiless critic and the
courageous antagonist of fraud and of folly.”
=2. Luther.=--It is with the work of Luther that there begins to be a
large production and a wide distribution of books in German. Up to this
time the undertakings of the German printers had been restricted almost
exclusively to books in Latin. The immediate distribution, however, of
the writings of Luther and his associates, not only among the trade
folk and working people of the towns, but through the rural districts,
constitutes an evidence that the general intelligence and the education
of the mass of the people had reached a much higher development than
the Protestant historians of the time have been willing to admit. It is
to be remembered that the readers whom Luther was reaching belonged to
the generation which had depended for its education exclusively upon
the monastery schools, or upon schools which were entirely under the
direction of the priests. The work of the reformers was essentially a
work of argument, and it could have been carried on successfully only
with people who were intelligent enough to understand arguments whether
presented orally or in print. That the community was as intelligent
and as receptive as proved to be the case, shows how exaggerated and
ill-considered are the conclusions presented by Protestant historians
represented by D’Aubigné, Robertson, and others in regard to the
absolute ignorance in which the Catholic teachers had left their
followers. Kapp reports that of Luther’s treatise on German theology
no less than seventy editions were printed between the years 1518 and
1854. Of the _Address to the German Nobility_, four thousand copies
were sold in five days. Of the first edition of the New Testament,
printed in Wittenberg in 1522, five thousand copies were sold within
three months. There seems to have been no question that the emphasis
given by the imperial and ecclesiastical censorship to the importance
of Luther’s writings constituted an important factor in bringing these
to the attention of the public, and in securing for them the largest
possible circulation.
Luther realised that, with hardly an exception, the scholarly divines
of the university were antagonistic to him and to his work. He writes
February 8, 1516: _Nec cessant universitates bonos libros cremare et
damnare, rursum malos dictare, imo somniare_.[224]
In 1519, the doctors of Louvain published an edict ordering the
burning of all copies that could be secured of the writings of Luther.
A similar order was issued in 1520 by the divines of Cologne. Both
orders were printed in Wittenberg, in 1520, by Melchior Lottherus.
In 1521, the theological faculty of Paris issued an edict entitled
_Determinationes Theologicae Facultatis Parisien. super Doctrina
Lutheriana_. The edict, which was printed in Wittenberg in the
same year, condemns a number of propositions from the treatise _De
Captivitate Babylonica_. The theological facility of Cologne issued,
in 1532, a censure against the _Epitome of Abuses by a Reformed
Monk_.[225]
In 1520, Cardinal Wolsey (in consequence of the Bull of Leo X
against Luther, issued July 17th of that year) directed the English
bishops to require that all the books and writings of one Martin
Luther (_cujusdam M. L._) should be delivered up by all persons
possessing them, under pain of the greater excommunication.[226]
In 1522, Luther brought into print his famous German version of the
New Testament; he printed of this a first impression of five thousand
copies and three months later a second impression of the same number.
The Bull of Leo X excommunicating Luther, issued in 1520, condemned his
works individually and collectively. The existing copies are ordered
to be burned and all persons are prohibited, under severe penalties,
from printing, selling, distributing, or possessing any of Luther’s
writings. The immediate effect of this Bull was to bring about a
largely increased sale throughout Germany for everything that Luther
had written, and to cause also a considerable demand for these writings
in other countries. Köstlin estimates that by 1521 more than one
hundred impressions had been printed of the German versions of Luther’s
sermons and tracts. In 1564, the restrictions upon the publishers
in regard to the printing of the Lutheran version of the Bible were
removed and, at the instance of the Duke of Weimer, this version became
common property (_literärisches Gemeingut_) for all Germany and was
formally declared free of privilege.
The circulation of the Lutheran tracts was taken charge of not only by
the book-pedlars and colporteurs but by a large number of travelling
preachers, _Prädikanten_. These “preachers” were in part old-time
priests, but in many cases laymen of varying degrees of education or
of ignorance. During the troublous times of the war of the peasants,
the progress of the Reformation was checked and the circulation of the
Lutheran publications in the districts affected by the uprising was for
the time brought to a close.
The downfall of imperial Rome which (irrespective of the internal
causes) was brought about by persistent Teutonic onslaughts, terminated
the period of the world’s history which is, for convenience, called
classic or ancient. In like manner, the overthrow of the world-wide
domination of ecclesiastical Rome was brought about by the Teuton
Luther, an attack which, supported by the Teutonic forces of North
Europe, developed into a revolution against Italian rule, and
terminated the epoch of mediaevalism. For long periods to come, the
questions raised by Luther and his fellow-Protestants were to bring
anxieties and conflicts upon popes, emperors, princes, and people.
These questions were also to provide issues and themes for innumerable
writers, and to secure an apparently inexhaustible supply of material
for the printing-presses and the booksellers. It is not surprising that
at an early period in the development of printing, ecclesiastics who
were fighting for the continued domination of the Church recognised
the press as a most seriously antagonistic influence, and that, during
a term of two centuries, they continued to attempt to put into force
machinery for the supervision and restriction of its undertakings. A
scholarly American Catholic (speaking in 1905) makes reference to “the
distinctive service rendered by Luther in making clear to the Church
the necessity for reform, for recurrences to the earlier Christian
ideals, to the standards of Gregory the Great and of Benedict.”
CHAPTER XVI
THE JANSENIST CONTROVERSY AND THE BULL
UNIGENITUS
1. The Jansenist Controversy 1641–1649.
2. Quesnel and the Bull _Unigenitus_ 1671–1755.
3. Controversial Writings on Theological Morality 1667–1730.
=1. The Jansenist Controversy, 1641–1649.=--In 1641, was condemned
by the Inquisition the _Augustinus_ of Cornelius Jansen, Bishop
of Yprés, which had been published in the same year, three years after
the death of its author. The treatise was, it seems, classed among the
writings having to do with the prohibited subject _de auxiliis_.
The _Augustinus seu doctrina S. Augustini de humanae naturae sanitate,
aegritudine et medicina, adversus Pelagianas et Massilienses_, was
published in 1640, in three volumes folio. The first is devoted to a
historical exposition of the Pelagian and Massilian (semi-Pelagian)
heresies; the second sets forth the Augustinian doctrine as to the
state of innocence and the fallen state; while the third treats, in ten
books, of the grace of Christ. The sting of the work is to be found in
the epilogue, which draws a parallel in various particulars between
the errors of the Massilians and those _recentiorum quorumdam_, the
reference being to the Jesuits. In 1641, the book was prohibited by the
Inquisition, but no opinion was pronounced as to its doctrine, and the
answering treatises of the Jesuits were also condemned.
In March, 1642, a Bull of Urban VIII confirms this decree of the
Inquisition in spite of the continued pressure on the part of the
divines of Louvain to secure a modification of the original judgment.
In 1643, Urban VIII published the Bull _In eminenti_, renewing and
confirming the constitutions of Pius V and Gregory XIII and the
decree of Paul V, and forbidding the reading of the _Augustinus_. The
publication of this Bull resulted in the production by Arnauld, in 1644
and in 1645, of _Apologies for Jansen_, and was also the text for the
famous _Provincial Letters_ of Pascal, which appeared in 1656.
In 1651, eighty-five French bishops made representations in Rome
calling for the specific condemnation of five propositions contained
in the treatise of Jansen. A statement was made a little later by
certain other bishops pointing out that the propositions in question
were open to a different interpretation from that named in the original
complaint. The matter was referred to a special congregation of four
cardinals, by whom it was again referred to a commission of thirteen
theologians selected by the Inquisition. This second commission gave
permission to the two parties to submit, in writing or in person,
further arguments in regard to the matter at issue. In May, 1653,
Innocent X condemned, in a Bull, the five propositions.
The text of the five propositions is as follows:
1. There are some commandments of God which just men, although willing
and anxious to obey them, are unable with the strength they have to
fulfil, and the grace by which they might fulfil them is also wanting.
2. In the state of fallen nature, inward grace is never resisted.
3. In the fallen state, merit and demerit do not depend on a liberty
which excludes necessity, but on a liberty which excludes constraint.
4. The semi-Pelagians admitted the necessity of an inward prevenient
grace for the performance of each particular act, and also for the
first act of faith, and yet were heretical inasmuch as they maintained
that this grace was of such a nature that the will of man was able
either to resist or to obey it.
5. It is semi-Pelagian to say that Christ died or shed his blood for
all men without exception.
In the Bull of May, 1653, _Cum occasione impressionis libri_, Innocent
X pronounced the first four propositions to be heretical, while the
fifth was declared to be false, with the addition that if it was
intended to convey the meaning that Christ died only for the elect, it
was impious and blasphemous as well as heretical.
The Jansenists expressed themselves as willing to accept the authority
of the Pope in condemning the five propositions in their heretical
sense, but contended that these propositions had not been identified
with the teachings of Jansen. In September, 1654, the Pope declared
that the propositions were found in the _Augustinus_ of Jansen, and
that their condemnation as doctrines of Jansen was imperative. Arnauld
and his associates in Port Royal contended that, while the Holy See had
authority to decide with respect to doctrine, and every good Catholic
owed submission to such papal decisions, yet the See might be mistaken
on a question of fact, such for instance as to whether a given book
contained certain statements. The fullest account of the condemnation
of the Jansenist doctrines is given by De Placette.[227]
In a decree of the Inquisition, issued in April, 1654, and cited in
a brief of Innocent of the same year, all writings are specifically
condemned which present and defend the doctrine contained in the
_Augustinus_ of Jansen.
In 1657, this general prohibition was renewed and it stands in the
later Indexes under the term _libri_, and, since Benedict XIV, in the
_Decreta Gen._, ii, 5. During the rule of Alexander VII (1655–1667)
the question again arose whether on the ground of the Bull of 1653
it was necessary to conclude that Jansen really had taught the five
propositions in the sense in which they had been condemned. Arnauld,
writing in 1655, took the ground that the Bull in no way decided this
matter of the actual interpretation of the propositions, but decided
simply that certain doctrine said to be contained in these propositions
was itself to be condemned. It was Arnauld’s contention, therefore,
that for devout believers a respectful silence (_silence respectueux_)
concerning the issue ought to be observed. One result of Arnauld’s
statement was his expulsion from the Sorbonne, which was followed by
the publication of the famous _Letters_ of Pascal. In October, 1656,
Alexander VII issued a Bull declaring that the five propositions had
been correctly cited from the book of Jansen, and that the sense in
which they had been condemned was the sense that the author had in
his mind at the time of their writing. In this Bull, the Pope appears
to make the claim, in regard to matters of dogma, of being able to
determine the motives and the absolute purpose by which an author has
been actuated in putting a statement into words.
From this time on, the main question turns upon the range or extent of
the authority of the Church and particularly of the infallibility (in
this matter of interpretation) of the pope. In a Bull of 1656, issued
by Alexander VII as a result of an understanding with Louis XIV, it is
ordered that all bishops, priests, monks, and nuns shall subscribe to a
formula of which the following is the substance:
“I accept in full the authority of the Bull of Innocent X of May
31, 1653, and the Bull of Alexander VII of October, 1656, and
I reject and condemn without reservation the five propositions
referred to in these Bulls cited from the _Augustinus_ of
Jansen, in the sense which the author intended should be given
to said propositions, in which sense said propositions have been
condemned by the Holy See. I solemnly swear to abide by this
statement, so help me God and the holy Apostles.”
Four French bishops gave out in June, 1665, statements in which they
declared that this formula was to be subscribed to with reservation
in regard to the actual facts of doctrine contained in the series
of papal bulls. These diocesan letters were themselves, in January,
1667, prohibited by the Congregation of the Index. The negotiations
of the pope with the French Government in regard to further action
against the four bishops was interrupted by the death in May, 1667, of
Alexander VII. Under Alexander’s successor, Clement IX, an agreement
was arrived at, the so-called “Peace of Clement,” by which the four
bishops gave their signatures to the formula and addressed a memorial
to the pope, stating that they were now prepared to condemn the five
propositions without reservation of any kind in the sense in which
these propositions had already been condemned by the Holy See. During
the next ten years, the subscription to the formula was very generally
made throughout France, with the same specific statement as that given
by the four bishops to the pope. In this manner was finally brought to
a close the Jansenist issue. In connection with this controversy, were
placed upon the Index the titles of some hundred books, monographs,
and pamphlets, chiefly by French authors. The list includes no less
than twenty writings of Arnauld. The Spanish Index of 1707 contains
the condemnation of the original work of Jansen, and of the five
propositions, together with a general prohibition of all writings
supporting these propositions. These hundred titles constituted but
a very small fragment of the enormous mass of literature that was
brought into print in France, in Holland, and in North Germany as a
result of the controversy. One work, especially characteristic of the
spirit of the time, may deserve more specific mention; the calendar for
1654, issued by certain Jesuits under the title of _La Déroute et
la confusion des Jansénistes_, contains a frontispiece on copper;
giving on the one side a view of the pope surrounded by cardinals
and prelates and a flash of lightning striking in front of the group
at a hydra with five heads (the five propositions); on the other
side of the plate is seated on a throne Louis XIV, to whom Justice
tenders the sword. Below is a representation of Jansen with the wings
of a bat, flying into the arms of Calvin and other heresiarchs who
stand surrounded by monstrosities representing error, ignorance, and
dissipation. This group has, like the hydra, been struck by the flash
of lightning emanating from the pope. The calendar was placed upon
the Index, which did not prevent it from securing a wide circulation.
Reusch speaks of a distribution during the first year of fourteen
thousand copies.
_Writings of the Jansenists. 1571–1711._ In 1571, Pius V condemned
in a separate prohibition a French version of the _Officium pavum
B. M. V._ that had been prepared by one of the theologians of
Port-Royal. In 1661, Alexander VII issued a brief condemning in very
sharp terms a French version of the Book of the Mass, prohibiting also
in general terms all editions in the vernacular of the Book of the
Mass. In 1695, was prohibited a volume by Le Tourneaux, _L’Année
Chrétienne_, because its text included a French version of the
prayers of the Mass. A later prohibition of translations of the prayers
of the Mass which had been accepted by the Jansenists, although evoking
protests from the French bishops, was recalled. Benedict XIV recalled
also the prohibition of Alexander VII which had been issued in 1661,
with the general wording _Missale Romanum e Latino idiomate ad
Gallicam vulgarem linguam conversum et typis evulgatum_. In 1668,
a brief of Clement IX prohibits a translation of the New Testament
which had been prepared by one of the divines of Port-Royal and
which was known as the New Testament of Mons. This prohibition was,
however, expressly limited to the edition in question, probably on
the ground of certain of the notes contained in it. Clement does not
undertake any general prohibition of editions in the vernacular of
the Bible. In 1674, was prohibited a treatise issued under the title
of _Monita Salutaria D. M. V._ This contains an argument against
certain abuses that had arisen in the worship of Mary. It was sharply
assailed by the Jesuits and was defended by most of the opponents
of Jesuitism. There also found their way into the Index a series of
later publications written to maintain the views of the _Monita_,
including a treatise by Bailliet. A volume by Bailliet, presenting
a study of the Saints, was prohibited on the express ground that
it was hypocritical in character. Bailliet had undertaken in his
biographies of the Saints to distinguish between the miracles and
stories which were to be accepted, and others of which in his judgment
the records were untrustworthy. Benedict XIV presents the conclusion
that Bailliet had gone too far with his criticisms. He says[228]:
_Homo vel certissimarum rerum veritatum, ut intemporenti ingenio
est, sollicitans_. The Bishop Gapi, in 1711, prohibits the entire
work on the ground that a number of dogmas and disciplinary articles
were considered in it in a Jansenist or even a Protestant sense. The
prohibitions had the effect, as was usually the case, of increasing the
repute and the circulation of the work, which was repeatedly reprinted.
A treatise by Antoine Arnauld on frequent communion, published in 1643,
was promptly denounced by the Inquisition although it had secured the
approval of the French bishops. In 1645, the Abbé Bourgois succeeded
in securing a cancellation of the judgment of the Inquisition. A
century later, a Jesuit reply to Arnauld’s treatise, written by Pichon,
came into the Index. In 1647, the Inquisition prohibited a volume by
Martin de Bircos written in support of the doctrines presented by
Arnauld. Martin speaks of the Apostles Peter and Paul as the “two
leaders” of the early Church, which constituted the chief ground for
the condemnation of the book, the authorities maintaining that the
subordination of Paul to Peter was the only sound doctrine. Since the
time of Benedict XIV, a general prohibition stands in the _Decreta
Gen._ under the term _libri_, of all writings maintaining any
opinion adverse to the supremacy of Peter.
_Controversies Connected with the Jansenist Contests._ During the
17th century, were prohibited a number of writings appearing outside
of France and the Netherlands, which, while not classed directly as
Jansenist, were concerned with the doctrine of Grace. In 1673, a
treatise by the Augustine Noris (who was made a cardinal in 1695,
and who died in 1704) on Pelagianism and the doctrine of Grace, was
repeatedly condemned by the Jesuits and the Franciscans as containing
Jansenist heresies. The volume was brought to Rome for investigation
three times, and each time was declared to be sound in its orthodoxy. A
number of other works which were denounced before the Roman authorities
by the Jesuit leaders, on the ground of containing Jansenist heresies,
the Congregation refused to condemn. The authors were in large part
Dominicans and Augustinians who had brought into print the traditionary
doctrine of Grace as taught in their own schools. Cardinal Bona
complained that during these years every one who was not a Molinist
was denounced by the Jesuits as a Jansenist. The Spanish Dominican,
Gonzalez de Rosende, and the French Oratorian Jeunin, are the only
theologians of note who come into the Roman Index during this period.
The Congregation condemned, in 1722, a censure of the faculty of Douay
in which the Dominicans, Contenso and Massoulié, had been accused of
being Jansenists. The edition of the work of St. Augustine, edited
by the Benedictines of St. Maur, was accused of being tainted with
Jansenism, but the work succeeded in securing the approval of the
Roman authorities. In 1704, a brief of Clement XI condemned a volume
by Launoy, printed after the author’s death, in which the Augustinian
doctrine of Grace was sharply opposed. A brief of Clement IX, in 1668,
condemned the edition of the New Testament printed in Mons, the editors
of which were charged with Jansenism.
_La Bibliothèque Janséniste._ In 1722, the Jesuit Dominique de
Colonia, published under the title _Bibliothèque Janséniste_
a schedule of writings which the Jesuits classed as Jansenist in
doctrine. The list includes the titles of a number of works which had
not been prohibited in the Roman Indexes. In the Spanish Index of 1747,
is included as an appendix this schedule of De Colonia reprinted from
the second edition of his work. In both lists is included the title of
a treatise by Cardinal Noris which, while more than once denounced in
Rome, had, after repeated examinations, secured from the authorities
a final approval. Application was made in 1748 by Benedict XIV to the
inquisitor-general of Spain to cancel the condemnation of the treatise
by Noris. This request received at the outset no consideration, but in
connection with a later personal appeal from the Pope to the King of
Spain, the condemnation was rescinded in 1758.
The _Bibliothèque Janséniste_ was, in 1749, prohibited by the
Congregation of the Index. In 1750, were prohibited the _Pasquille_
written by the Jesuit, Ricchini, secretary of the Congregation.
In 1752, Patouillet published a largely extended edition of the
Bibliothèque under the title _Dictionnaire des Livres Jansénistes_. In
this edition, the name of Noris was omitted, but there were included a
number of works which, after examination had been approved in Rome,
such as for instance the treatises by the Augustinians, Bellelli and
Berti. This _Dictionnaire_ was prohibited in 1754.
_Pascal and Arnauld concerning the Morality of the Jesuits._ The famous
_Letters_ of Pascal, which were issued in 1656 without the name of
the author, were promptly prohibited by the Inquisition in 1657. The
title of the book has been continued in later Indexes in the class
of anonymous writings. Certain defences of their doctrines against
the assaults of Pascal published by the Jesuits, were themselves
prohibited. The most noteworthy of this group of Jesuit replies were
the treatises by Pirot and Daniel. A Latin edition of the Pascal
_Letters_, published a year or two later under the name of Wendrockius,
was not prohibited, while a reply to the same, published under the
name of Stubockius, was placed on the Index. The essay by Arnauld,
printed in 1643 under the title of _Théologie Morale du Jesuit_,
can be considered as a precursor of the Pascal _Letters_. In 1669
and 1683, were printed the first two volumes of a work entitled _Le
Morale pratique des Jesuits_, which was written by the Abbé de Pont
Château. During the years 1689–1695, five additional volumes were
issued under the same title, which were the work of Arnauld. The first
two were prohibited but the last five escaped condemnation. In 1700,
was prohibited the _Teatro Jesuitico_, a monograph written against
the Jesuits by Le Tellier, which had been published forty-six years
earlier. One matter which receives in these volumes of Arnauld a large
measure of attention, the contest between the Jesuits and Bishop
Palafox, was the subject during both the 17th and 18th centuries of a
large amount of controversial writing, and plays an important part
in the Spanish Index. A decree in the Roman Index of 1656 orders
eliminated from one volume of the Lyons edition of the Bellarmin six
pages which give the Jesuitical view of the decision presented in the
brief of Innocent X concerning this matter of Palafox. Palafox, who was
a Dominican, had been a bishop in Mexico, but in 1653, became Bishop
of Osma where he died in 1659. It was in Osma that he came into issue
with the Spanish Jesuits and, in 1649, he presented to Innocent X a
formidable brief or complaint against Jesuit theory and practice. In
1648, the Pope gave a decision in favour of the Bishop.
_Contests in the Netherlands, 1690–1712._ The contest in the
Netherlands between the Jansenist and the Jesuit parties in the
Church became active after Precipiano, heretofore Bishop of Bruges,
had, in 1690, become Archbishop of Mechlin. In 1690, he attempted
in union with the other bishops, to put into shape a formula or
declaration which went far in advance of that issued by Alexander
VII. Innocent XII, in a brief issued in February, 1695, ordered that
subscriptions should be required only for the formula of Alexander
VII and that demand should be made, on the part of those giving this
subscription, for the condemnation of the famous propositions taken
from the book of Jansen in their obvious or essential meaning (_in
sensu obvio_) without reference to the sense that may have been
intended by the author (_in sensu ab auctore intento_). At the
same time, the Pope ordered that no further references should be made
in regard to the interpretation of the formula or the matter of the
five propositions, and the bishops were prohibited from making such
question or requirement of interpretation a ground for the exclusion
from office or from functions of any ecclesiastics, or that on the same
ground any ecclesiastic should be classed as a Jansenist. This decision
may be considered as a confirmation of the “Peace of Clement IX.” At
this time were prohibited a number of writings containing denunciations
of Belgian Jansenists, and a number of other controversial writings,
including a treatise by the Jesuit, Jacques de la Fontaine, who was
the confessor of Archbishop Precipiano. Precipiano on his part, in a
decree of January, 1695, undertook to prohibit Jansenist writings,
and he secured in this year orders from the King of Spain (Charles
II) under which all those suspected of Jansenist doctrines were to be
ruled out of office whether ecclesiastical or civil. As a result of
fresh complaints presented in Rome, Innocent XII issues in July, 1696,
a second brief confirming the earlier one and declaring specifically
that no modifications should be made in the terms of the Bull or of
the formula of Alexander VII. In the years succeeding, there continued
to be placed in the Index, apparently for the purpose of checking
the controversy, a number of writings against the Jansenists. The
list of writers includes Palazol and Desirant. In 1703, Precipiano
took fresh action against the Jansenists--Gerberon and Quesnel who,
since the death of Arnauld (in August, 1694) were held as the leaders
among the French Jansenists in Belgium, were arrested under the
authority of the Roman Inquisition and of the Spanish Government, were
tried and were declared to have fallen under excommunication. There
came into the Index lists, in connection with this later outbreak,
controversial writings by Opstraet, Henricus a. S., Ignatio, and Fr.
Martin. In January, 1695, Bishop Precipiano published, in the form
of a diocesan decree, a small Index of his own which was devoted
entirely to Jansenist writings. The sixty titles in the lists include
various treatises of Arnauld, Huygens, Quesnel, Gilles de Witte, and
a number of anonymous controversial monographs. In Rome, no attention
was paid to this Index, and a remonstrance printed by Quesnel was
not even prohibited. Precipiano prohibits the reading, copying, or
distribution of a letter addressed to him in February, 1694, by
Hennevel, which letter concerned itself with the matter of the formula.
The Inquisition condemned this letter on the ground of the disobedience
of the instructions of the pope for silence in regard to the subject
and also because of certain ill-advised expressions, and Hennevel was
a few months later compelled to retract his utterance. A letter of
Precipiano, addressed to the court at Madrid, and written in 1695, says:
“It is impossible to rout out Jansenists from the Netherlands
unless the King accomplishes this through his own authority.
From Rome under the present Pope nothing is to be hoped. He
himself will do nothing and he leaves the responsibility to
the Congregations which were demanded by Cardinal Casanoti and
Bernini who are protectors of the Jansenist heresies.”[229]
Arnauld, who may be classed as among the most important of the
defenders of Jansenism, died in 1694. Very few of his writings had
escaped the prohibition of the Index but the Memoirs of him written by
Quesnel, _Histoire de la vie et des ouvrages de Monsieur Arnauld_,
printed in 1695, escaped condemnation. As late as 1704, however, was
prohibited the treatise by Arnauld entitled _Instructions sur la
Grâce selon l’écriture et les pères, avec l’exposition de la foire de
l’Eglise Romaine touchant la Grâce et la predestination_.
_The Church of Utrecht._ The issues between the two great divisions
of Church opinion which were classed, speaking briefly, as Jansenist
and Jesuit, were active also in Holland, although in that country
the Catholic Church had a comparatively small group of followers and
the direct Jesuit influence was itself inconsiderable. In Holland as
in England, the question arose as to whether Catholics residing in
Protestant lands were properly subject to local bishops or to Apostolic
vicars. In England, during a series of centuries, Apostolic vicars
had exercised the control over the faithful and the larger number
of the English Catholics did not come into relations with any local
bishops. In Holland, however, the hierarchy of the Church had never
been entirely destroyed. There remained, for instance, in active
existence chapters by which were elected archbishops of Utrecht who
exercised control over the Catholics in the five suffragan bishoprics
for which, since the Reformation, no suffragan had been appointed. It
was contended on the one hand that these archbishops retained the full
authority of the office, even in the cases in which the office was
held not by the Archbishop of Utrecht but by an official taking his
title from a foreign bishopric or archbishopric; on the other hand,
the view was maintained that since the Reformation, Holland possessed
the character of a mission land and that the archbishop possessed the
functions only of an Apostolic vicar. These issues brought about a
formal breach between those holding the two sets of opinions, when,
in 1702, Clement XI deposed the Archbishop, Peter Codde, and named
as Apostolic-vicar Theodor Cock. The latter was not permitted by
the Government of Holland to make his residence in the country and
the supervision of the “Dutch Mission” was therefore transferred to
the nuncius in Cologne. The chapters in Holland protested against
this measure and, after 1724, they elected in unbroken succession
archbishops of Utrecht who, between 1742 and 1758, made appointments of
bishops for the dioceses of Haarlem and Deventer. The breach was still
further widened because the Chapters of Utrecht and Haarlem and the
ecclesiastics belonging to these dioceses appealed for a decision of
a general council of the Church, not only in regard to the particular
papal measures above specified, but also on the ground of the Bull
_Unigenitus_. In 1707, were prohibited in a brief of Clement XI a long
series of works by Dutch writers having to do with the deposition of
Archbishop Codde and, later in the year, came also into the Index a
number of further treatises written in defence of the claim of the
Church of Utrecht. The most important works of this group were those
of the Louvain jurist, van Espen, whose _Jus ecclesiasticum_ was
prohibited in 1704 and whose name came into the Index in 1734 connected
with his entire series of writings.
=2. The Bull Unigenitus.=--Pasquier Quesnel (1634–1719) published in
1671, the first part of his _Commentary on the New Testament_. The
completed work was prohibited in 1708, in a brief of Clement XI. In
1675, Quesnel published an edition of the works of Leo the Great, the
notes to which he utilised for a defence of Gallican liberties. This
work was placed on the Index in 1676. In 1685, finding himself unable
to subscribe to a document in condemnation of Jansenism, Quesnel
retired from Orleans to Brussels. There, as a result in part of his
association with Arnauld, he completed, in 1695, under the title of
_Reflexions Morales sur le Nouveau Testament_, the _Commentary_, the
first part of which had been issued in 1671.
At the instance of Louis XIV, Clement issued in September, 1713, the
Bull _Unigenitus_ in which the condemnation of the Commentary of
Quesnel is confirmed and a hundred and one propositions selected from
the Commentary are specifically condemned. In the case of a number
of these propositions, no specification is given in the Bull for the
ground of their disapproval, and it was contended by the supporters of
Quesnel that it was not possible to point out in these any utterance of
heresy or of unsound doctrine.
The following propositions may be cited as representing the character
of the series:
_79. Utile, et necessarium est omni tempore, omni loco, et omni
personarum generi studere, et cognoscere spiritum, pietatem, et
mysteria Sacrae Scripturae_ (It is useful and necessary at all
times, in every place, and for every sort of person, to study and know
the spirit, the piety, and the mysteries of Holy Scripture).
_80. Lectis Sacrae Scripturae est pro omnibus_ (The reading of Holy
Scripture is for all).
_81. Obscuritas sancta Verbi Dei non est laicis ratio dispensandi se
ipsos ab ejus lectione_ (The sacred obscurity of the Word of God is
no reason for the laity to absolve themselves from the reading of it).
_82. Dies Dominicus a Christianis debet sanctificari lectionibus
pietatis, et super omnia Sanctarum Scripturarum. Damnosum est velle
Christianum ab hac lectione retrahere._ (The Lord’s day should be
kept holy by Christians by pious reading, and above all by the reading
of Holy Scripture. It is hurtful for a Christian to wish to withdraw
from such readings).
_83. Est illusio, sibi persuadere, quod notitia Mysteriorum Religionis
non debeat communicari foeminis, lectione sacrorum librorum. Non ex
foeminarum simplicitate, sed ex superba Virorum scientia, ortus est
Scripturarum abusus, et natae sunt haereses._ (It is a mistake to
believe that knowledge of the mysteries of religion ought not to be
communicated to women by the reading of the holy books. Not from the
simplicity of women, but from the haughty science of men has the abuse
of the Scriptures arisen and have heresies been born.)
_84. Abripere e Christianorum manibus Novum Testamentum, seu eis illud
clausum tenere, auferendo eis modum illud intelligendi, est illis
Christi os obturare_ (To tear the New Testament from the hands of
Christians or to keep it closed to them by depriving them of this mode
of understanding, is to stop for them the mouth of Christ).
_85. Interdicere Christianis lectionem Sacrae Scripturae, praesertim
Evangelii, est interdicere usum luminis filiis lucis, et facere ut
patiantur speciem quondam excommunicationis_ (To forbid Christians
the reading of Holy Scripture, especially of the Gospel, is to forbid
the use of light to the children of light, and to make them suffer a
certain form of excommunication).[230]
The Bull was accepted and published by the Parliament of Paris and by
a majority of the faculty of the Sorbonne, and it was also published
in the dioceses in the greater number of the bishoprics. The Cardinal
Noailles, Archbishop of Paris, in making publication of the Bull, gives
his general approval with certain reservations which were held by the
Holy See to be invidious and as tending to schism. The Cardinal’s brief
was itself condemned by the Inquisition. After the death of Louis XIV
(September, 1715), the theological faculties of the Sorbonne and of the
French universities made open declaration against the Bull, and no less
than thirty bishops declared that they had accepted the Bull only on
condition of certain reservations and explanations. The bishops made
applications to the Regent to secure from the pope an interpretation of
the full purport of the hundred and one propositions and an explanation
of the precise grounds for the condemnation of these. In 1717, four of
the French bishops made appeal to the general council for a decision
in the matter. Later, other bishops, including Cardinal Noailles and a
number of ecclesiastics and laymen, united in this appeal. This group
were given the name of Appellants and their opponents were called
Acceptants or constitutionals. The question as to whether the hundred
and one propositions were or were not heretical or erroneous, fell more
and more into the background and the issue finally took the shape as
to whether a dogmatic Bull was to be accepted as a final decision of
questions of doctrine, and whether such Bull was to be obeyed as an
infallible and final judgment. The pope, however, so far from modifying
in any way the decision presented in the original Bull, re-emphasised
his position in a second Bull issued in 1719. In this, he presents the
conclusion that the condemnation of the propositions was in itself
final and authoritative and demanded from the Church unquestioning
obedience. In 1720, an understanding was arrived at under which
certain of the Appellants recalled their signatures to the original
application while others repeated the first contention. These latter
came to be known as Re-appellants.
In 1722, seven French bishops appealed to Innocent XIII to revoke
the Bull and to summon a general council. Their letter was formally
condemned by the Inquisition. Benedict XIII, in a Bull issued in
1724, declares that the doctrines of St. Augustine and St. Thomas
Aquinas are not affected by the Bull _Unigenitus_. The Pope was
personally inclined to enter into further explanations or definitions
of the purport of the Bull, but a provincial council, held in Rome
in 1725, had taken the ground that the Bull was to be accepted as a
rule of faith, and, in 1727, the Pope confirmed the proceedings of a
provincial council held at Embrunn, at which council Bishop Soanen of
Sénez, one of the most active of the Appellants, had been suspended.
As a result of this action of the council and of the approval given to
the same by the Pope, the open opposition to the Bull on the part of
the French bishops was for the time brought to a close, and in 1730,
the faculty of the Sorbonne also gave in its submission. In 1734, the
Dominican, Serry, published anonymously, under the title _Theologia
Supplex_, an analysis of the purport of the Bull, with reference
more particularly to the condemnation of certain of the one hundred and
one propositions in which it had not proved practicable to indicate any
heretical teaching. This treatise was promptly prohibited, as had been
done with Serry’s previous volume on papal infallibility.
A letter of the Duchess of Orleans (Elizabeth Charlotte of the
Palatinate) written during the last years of Louis XIV, contains the
following reference to the Bull:
“_On avait fait au Roi une telle peur de l’enfer, qu’il
croyait que tout ceux qui n’avaient pas été instruits par les
Jesuites étaient damnés, et qu’il cragnait d’être damné aussi
s’il les fréquentait. Quand on voulait perdre quel qu’un,
on n’avait qu’à dire: il est Huguenot ou Janséniste; alors
l’affaire était faite._ The Maréchal d’Harcourt says that a
Jansenist is nothing else than a man that one desires to hang as
quickly as possible.”[231]
After 1731, the Parliament of Paris took action antagonistic to the
position of the so-called Curialist bishops (the bishops who had
given their adhesion to the full contentions of the Holy See) more
particularly with reference to the policy pursued by these bishops
in refusing to the Appellants the privilege of the sacraments and of
burial in consecrated ground. The bishops had question among themselves
in regard to the recognition of the authority of the Parliament to take
action in a matter so purely ecclesiastical, and they made application
to Rome for instructions. In a brief issued in October, 1756, Benedict
XIV decided that the sacraments should be denied only to the more
strenuous and noteworthy of the opponents of the Bull. This decision
caused no little dissatisfaction to the more bitter of the antagonists
of the Appellants, particularly because the Pope had referred to the
Bull not as expressing a final and immutable conclusion of the Church,
but simply as a papal utterance which was entitled to respectful
acceptance.
The Indexes of Innocent XIII and Clement XII contain the titles of
about one hundred works which had come into print as a result of
the controversies concerning the Bull. The list includes twenty-two
official publications (decrees, pastoral letters, appeals to Rome,
etc.) of the French bishops, and four edicts of the Parliament of
Paris. These official documents were for the greater part condemned
under the authority of the Inquisition, but in a few instances, the
condemnation was arrived at by a papal brief. In the case of Colbert,
Bishop of Montpellier, and of Caylus, Bishop of Auxerre, the entire
works were prohibited, on the ground, apparently, of certain utterances
in sympathy with the Appellants. The hundred prohibited works comprised
but a small proportion of the mass of literature in regard to the
controversy that came into print. For the purpose of meeting the
risk of the omission of controversial writings of importance, the
Inquisition had, as early as February, 1717, prohibited all writings in
which the Bull might be in any manner opposed or criticised, directly
or indirectly. This prohibition, as worded, appears to cover not only
works at that time in existence, but all others of the character
specified which might later be printed or written.
This general prohibition was incorporated by Benedict XIV in the
_Decreta Generalia_, ii., 61, with the addition of the following
classes: all books written in support of the conclusions presented in
the writings of Quesnel; all appeals from the authority of the Bull
to a general council; all resolutions and decisions coming from the
theological faculties or individual theologians or academies, in which
were presented any criticisms of the papal authority or of the policy
indicated in the Bull; all acts, decrees, letters, declarations and
statements of any kind in which, under the pretence of the explanation
of doctrines or of the analysis of the relations between the authority
of the pope and that of civil government, or under any pretence
whatsoever, the validity and conclusive authority of the Bull were in
any way brought into question. This prohibition, as worded, was made to
apply not only to writings at that time in existence but to any future
writings of the character specified.
In the Spanish Index of 1747, the Bull _Unigenitus_ is printed in full,
and all the writings of Quesnel are prohibited. The Spanish Index
contains, however, but a small portion of the long series of works
produced by the controversy which had been condemned in Rome. The
Spanish compilers added the titles of some few works which had escaped
the attention of the Roman Inquisition.
The Bull bearing the title _Unigenitus Dei Filius_ was signed by the
Pope (Innocent XII) on the 8th of September, 1713. It begins with the
statement that a work had been brought into print in Paris in 1699,
which it had been found necessary to condemn.
This work is entered in the Index under the title _Abrégé et
Testament_ (no reference is made by name to Quesnel). “On a first
examination, the earnest reader may easily be attracted by the
appearance of piety and of scholarship, but the volumes present in
fact, intermingled with accepted Catholic doctrines, a series of lies
and of pernicious errors.” The insidious teachings in these volumes
had misled not a few of the faithful and had even secured the approval
of certain of the French bishops. “It had therefore seemed to the
Holy See to be essential to make clear to the Church the serious and
pernicious nature of the doctrines that the writer of these volumes was
attempting to maintain; and to this end would be presented, with the
necessary interpretations, a series of propositions selected from the
text.” The Pope felt assured “that a thorough exposition of the errors
contained in these propositions should prove of service to the faithful
throughout the world and ought to be of particular service in bringing
to a close the unprofitable contests that had arisen in France. Such
an authoritative exposition had in fact been applied for by the French
bishops and by King Louis.” This statement is followed by the citation
(given in both French and Latin) of one hundred and one propositions,
with references in the margin to the pages of the original text from
which they had been cited. These propositions are there described
as “false, deceitful, injurious for pious ears, as tending to
undermine the beliefs of the faithful, the creed of the Church, and
the foundations of the civil power, as godless, blasphemous, and
schismatic. They have for their purpose the strengthening of the
influence of damnable heresies, and especially of those which have
emanated from the Jansenists.”
The specific condemnation of these particular propositions is not to
be understood as an approval by implication of the remaining text
of the book. The whole work is pernicious and the reading of it is
prohibited. The text itself of the New Testament that has been printed
in connection with the commentary has been corrupted in the most
abominable fashion. The reading, printing, or distribution of the book
brings upon the delinquent the penalty of the _excommunicatio latae
sententiae_ and the same penalty is made to apply, without further
specification, to all works in existence or hereafter produced which
may undertake the defence of the Quesnel volumes.
The Jesuit Daubenton, writing from Rome to Fénelon, says:
“No work has ever received a more thorough, comprehensive,
and conscientious examination. During a term of three years, a
group of the most able theologians in Rome, representatives of
the several schools of doctrine and of ecclesiastical thought,
gave their labour to this examination. The examiners included
Le Drou from the Augustinians, the master of the palace and the
secretary of the Index Congregation from the Thomists, Palermo
Santelia from the Scotists, Alfaro, for the Jesuits, the Bishop
of Lipari, a Benedictine, for the school of Anselm, Castelli for
the mission orders, etc.”
Writing to Fénelon after the publication of the Bull, Daubenton says:
“Everybody appears to have taken action to prevent this Bull
from being given out. A number of the cardinals have represented
that there was risk of serious dissension in the Church.
The Pope remained firm in his decision to meet the wishes
of the King. The Bull is finally accepted by the cardinals
only after a bitter contest. The Dominican cardinal, Ferrari,
felt at one time assured that he would be able to prevent the
publication.”[232]
Gieseler points out[233] that the one hundred and one propositions
include a number for which conclusive authority can be found in the
Scriptures themselves, while others are taken directly from the
writings of St. Augustine and of others of the Fathers. The Bull fails
to make clear, he says, the sense in which these are erroneous or
the grounds on which they are to be condemned. Fénelon, who was much
pleased at the publication of the Bull, writes that “the fear of a
possibly unjust excommunication ought not to be permitted to deter us
from doing our direct duty; but if the excommunication constitutes an
injustice only in the conception of the person concerned and the duty
is but putative or imaginary, or there is at least good ground for
doubt in regard to it, then is the proposition false, and all the more
dangerous because it bears the appearance of truth.”
The Jesuit Yves André (†1764) writes[234]:
“I perceive here propositions which are bad in purpose and
in conclusion, grouped together with others which represent
manifest truths. These two classes are condemned together with
a long string of invectives and no explanation is vouchsafed to
us as to the varying grounds for the condemnation of statements
which differ materially from each other.”
The Bull was referred by Louis XIV to a commission of bishops which
decided that it should be published accompanied by a pastoral letter
presenting explanations of the essential matters in question.
In March, 1714, the Sorbonne, after some stirring discussions,
accepted the Bull by a bare majority. In 1714, at the special instance
of the pope, the Congregation condemned the _Lettre Pastorale et
Mandement_ of Cardinal Noailles, Archbishop of Paris, as heretical
and tending to schism. Louis XIV had previously, in indignation at the
“Jansenist views” of the Cardinal, indicated by his opposition to the
Bull, forbidden him approach to the court.
In 1714, the King suggested to the pope the desirability of calling
a national council of the French Church, for the general object of
bringing to a close the remnants of the Jansenist dissensions, and
with the special purpose of bringing discipline to bear on Cardinal
Noailles. The pope gave favourable consideration to the plan, but the
death of the King, in September, 1715, prevented its being carried
out. The Duke of Orleans, who became Regent, was less sharply opposed
to the Jansenist group. He prohibited, in 1716, the printing of
certain censures that had been ordered by the Assembly of the Clergy
for treatises by du Fouillon on the Bull _Unigenitus_, and on
the Evidence of the True Faith. The Sorbonne, in modification of
its previous conclusions, made in December, 1715, a renewed protest
against the Bull, which protest was supported by the other theological
faculties of the kingdom. Thirty bishops declared to the Regent that
they had given their acceptance of the Bull only on condition that it
should be published with explanations and specifications.
Clement XI demanded the immediate submission, under penalty of
deposition, of Noailles and the protesting bishops. He declared that
the bishops named by the Regent would be confirmed only after they had
given in their assent to the publication and execution of the Bull;
and he suspended, in November, 1716, by a brief, the privileges that
had been conveyed by the Holy See to the Sorbonne. These briefs were,
however, refused confirmation and publication by the Regent and the
Parliament. During 1717, the Inquisition condemned, at the instance
of the pope, a series of statements and letters from the French
ecclesiastics, and of acts of the Parliament, and also certain decrees
of the Sorbonne. In October, 1717, the Regent commanded that there
should thereafter be absolute silence concerning these ecclesiastical
issues, and the Parliament condemned and prohibited certain writings,
including an appeal from Noailles and the decree of the Inquisition.
Under Innocent XIII, who, in 1721, succeeded Clement XI, the contest
and the controversies continued, and the lists of the Index were
swelled with the titles of the controversial monographs, letters, etc.
In the Netherlands, the opposition to the Bull _Unigenitus_ was
even stronger than in France, representing in fact a substantial
unanimity on the part of the clergy. Under the direction of De Bossu,
the successor of Precipiano as Archbishop of Mechlin, the Church of
Utrecht took the lead in the contest. A series of the writings of the
Netherland divines, which were important only in connection with the
pending question, were placed on the Index promptly after publication.
In Italy, the Bishop of Orvieto was, in 1719, denounced as an opponent
of the Bull, and was imprisoned. After he had formally recanted his
declaration, he was confined for the remainder of his life in a
monastery. In 1724, Innocent XIII was succeeded by Benedict XIII, a
Dominican and a Thomist. The new Pope took steps to allay, through
a more liberal interpretation of the Bull, the antagonisms that had
arisen. A Roman provincial council, called in 1725, arrived, however,
at the conclusion that the Bull must be respected by all the faithful.
In 1728, Noailles, at that time seventy-seven years old, apparently
wearied of the long struggle, recalled his previous protests and
accepted the Bull. He received from the Pope a jubilee Bull and letter
of congratulation. He died the year following. In 1730, the Government
secured the acceptance of the Bull on the part of the Sorbonne by means
of the deprivation, for forty-eight of its antagonists, of the right
to vote. This appears to have brought the matter to a close as far as
France was concerned.
In 1727, died François Paris, a deacon of Paris, who was credited
with having worked a series of miracles. Paris had been known in Rome
as an active opponent of the Bull _Unigenitus_. The Inquisition
took prompt action therefore in condemning, in 1731, the _Memoirs
of Paris_, and various records of his miracles. He was described
as a stubborn Jansenist, a schismatic, and a heretic, and his “false
miracles” as calculated to injure the faith of believers, and to render
them disobedient to the See.
Under Clement XII, were prohibited later a long series of writings
on the miracles. Under Benedict XIV, were placed upon the Index,
among other works on the same subject, a record of the life of Jean
Soanen and his _Testament Spirituel_; a narrative of the miracles
produced in the person of Marianne Pollet; the posthumous works of the
Bishop of Babylon, on the ground of the consideration given in these
to certain miracles that had been worked against the Archbishop of
Sens. In 1755, a convention of the French clergy gave consideration
to the question of the treatment to be given to the opponents of the
Bull, more particularly with reference to the administration of the
sacraments. The majority opinion was in favour of mild measures. The
conclusions were submitted to Rome, and the decision given by Benedict
XIV confirmed the policy of the mildest possible treatment of the
minority party.
In connection with the controversies concerning the Bull _Unigenitus_,
there arose in France further issues in regard to the relations
between the several orders of the clergy. Writers like Nicholas le
Gros (1675–1751) took the ground that the bishops had authority to
give binding decisions in regard to such matters as the acceptance of
a Bull, etc., only in connection with conclusions arrived at by the
whole body of the clergy. Another writer took the ground that between
bishops and priests there was no essential difference. A number of
these writings were formally censured by the Sorbonne and by diocesan
conventions, but no one of them found its way into the Index.
=3. Controversial Writings between 1665 and 1730 in Regard to
Theological Morality.=--In September of 1665 and May of 1666,
under edicts of Alexander VII, a long series (forty-five in all) of
propositions of the Casuists were condemned without specification of
the books in which these propositions had appeared. Similar edicts were
published later under Innocent XI and Alexander VIII. Matthaeus de
Moya, writing first under the name of Giumenus, undertook the defence
of the Jesuit Casuists against the doctrines of Spanish theologians,
chiefly Dominicans. This _Apologia_ of de Moya was, in 1665,
sharply censured by the Sorbonne and was prohibited in 1666 by the
Index Congregation, in 1675 by the Inquisition, and in 1680 by a
special brief of Innocent XI. In Spain, the work of De Moya, so far
from being prohibited, was held in general favour. In 1670 and 1672,
under Clement X, were prohibited writings by Fabri and Baron. Fabri was
one of the most noteworthy of the Dominican critics of the Jesuits,
and Baron was one of the most learned of the Jesuit Casuists of his
day. Neither of these volumes appears in the Spanish Index. One of the
more important of the works on theological morality by a Jesuit, was
printed in 1694 by Thyrsus Gonzalez, General of the Order, under the
title of _Probabilissimus_. This treatise is described as taking
strong ground against a number of the Jesuit contentions and theories.
Gonzalez had apparently undertaken to correct certain moral principles
maintained by his Order, principles which were in his judgment
erroneous. In 1705, a treatise of the Jesuit Balthazar Francolinus,
under the title of _Rigorismus_, was printed in Rome with the
approval of Clement XI; a number of replies to this were prohibited.
END OF VOLUME I
FOOTNOTES:
[1] _Büchernachdruck_, 14.
[2] _Remains of Bishop Barlow_, London, 1693, 70–71.
[3] Mendham, 4.
[4] _De Jure_, etc., 328. Cited by Mendham, 283.
[5] _Ibid._, 320.
[6] _De Justa Hæreticorum Punitione._ Venice, 1549. p. 228.
[7] _Concil. di Trento_, v, 128.
[8] Mendham, 342.
[9] _Annales Typographici_, vii, 258.
[10] L. Graetz, _Gesch. der Juden_, viii, 112, 462.
[11] Milton’s _Areopagitica_, Lond., 1819., 17 _et seq._
[12] Acts xix, 19.
[13] Zeller, _Philosophie der Griechen_, i, 4, cited by Kapp, 523,
524.
[14] _Const. Apost._, lib. i, cviii, cited by Lea, 15.
[15] Thos. J. Shahan, in the _Catholic University Bulletin_,
January, 1905.
[16] _Cod. Theod._, i, 16, tit. 5.
[17] _Prosper. Chron._ Paris, 1711, 749.
[18] _Conc. Gesch._, ii, 217.
[19] Mansi, viii, 1153.
[20] Ibid., xi, 582.
[21] Baillet, i, 26.
[22] Hefele, iv, 712.
[23] Hefele, v, 833.
[24] Cited by an anonymous writer in the Dublin _University
Review_, Jan., 1906.
[25] Döllinger, 334.
[26] _Arg._, i a, 270.
[27] _Arg._, i a, 355.
[28] Wilkins, iii, 314.
[29] Harduin, ix, 1449.
[30] Schulte, _Gesch._, ii, 372.
[31] Graetz, _Gesch. der Jüden_, vii, 112, 462.
[32] Döllinger, _Beitr._, ii, 393.
[33] Wolf, _Biblioth. Hebr._ ii, 883.
[34] Eymeric, _App._ 119.
[35] Graetz, ix, 381.
[36] Graetz, ix, 39L.
[37] Reusch, i, 52.
[38] Hartzheim, _Podihomnus Hist. Univ. Col._, 8.
[39] Grasse, _Lit. Gesch._, iii, 317.
[40] Mendham, 13.
[41] Gudenus, _Cod. Diplom._, iv, 469.
[42] Hilgers, 327.
[43] Mansi, _Conc._, vi, 681.
[44] Gudenus, iv, 589.
[45] Labbe, xiv, 257.
[46] Strype, i, 1, 254.
[47] Wilkins, _Concil. Mag. Brit._, iii, 706.
[48] Blunt, i, 80.
[49] Wilkins, iii, 74.
[50] Wilkins, _Concil. Mag. Brit._, iii, 403.
[51] Dixon, _Hist. Ch. of England_, i, 34.
[52] _Ibid._, i, 39.
[53] _Ibid._, i, 40.
[54] Blunt, i, 92.
[55] Wilkins, _Concil._, Fox, iii, 403.
[56] Dixon, ii, 422.
[57] Wilkins, iv, 37.
[58] Labbe, xiv, 736.
[59] Wilkins, iv, 250.
[60] Wilkins, iv, 340.
[61] _Kerkh. Archief._, i, 10.
[62] Reusch, i, 99.
[63] Reusch, i, 100.
[64] _Ibid._ i, 100.
[65] Jourdain, _Index chronol._, Chart No. 1594.
[66] Jourdain, No. 1753.
[67] Reusch, i, 147.
[68] Fréville, _La police des livres du 16ème siècle_. Paris, 1853.
[69] _Arg._, ii, a, 164, 167.
[70] Maittaire, ii, 220.
[71] _Arg._, ii, 301.
[72] _Letters from the Nuncio of Pius IV at Paris_, i, p. 111.
[73] Llorente, i, 463.
[74] _Ibid._, i, 467.
[75] Ranke, _Deutsch. Gesch._, i, 341.
[76] Friedrich, 143.
[77] Le Plat, ii, 162.
[78] Hoffmann, _Gesch. der Bücher-censors_, 67.
[79] Hoffmann, 77.
[80] Lea, 26.
[81] Köstlin, _Luther_, i, 228.
[82] Blunt, _Ref. of the Ch. of Eng._, i, 81.
[83] Bull I, 264.
[84] _Ibid._, 507.
[85] _Promta. Biblioth: s. v. Libri Prohibiti_, n. 27
[86] Gretser, _De Jure Prohibendi_, Opera xiii, 97.
[87] Avanzini (13).
[88] Bull II, 496.
[89] Schulte, _Lehrbuch_, 70.
[90] _Constitutio S. D. N. Pii IX._
[91] Peignot, xxv.
[92] Mendham, 260.
[93] _Ibid._, 261.
[94] _Inquisition in the Middle Ages_, i, 305.
[95] _ibid._, i, 309.
[96] Lea, i, 311.
[97] Lea, i, 319.
[98] Lea, i, 322.
[99] Lea, i, 36.
[100] Reusch, i, 172.
[101] Reusch, i, 172.
[102] Mendham, 15.
[103] Reusch, i, 178.
[104] Cited by Soames, in the _History of the Reformation of the
Church of England_, iv, 573.
[105] Catalanus, _De Magistro Sacri Palatii_, etc., Rome, 1751;
Reusch, i, 432.
[106] _Ibid._, i, 433.
[107] _Script. Ord. Praed._, i, p. xxi.
[108] Hilgers, 32.
[109] _Erotem_, ii, sect. 465–471.
[110] Mendham, 12.
[111] _Annales Typog._, viii, 258.
[112] _Briefe_, Part I, Berlin, 1825, viii, 15–16.
[113] Reusch, 148.
[114] Michiels, Charles, _Collection concernant les Expurgations et
Censures des Livres_. Anvers, 1781.
[115] Mendham, 39.
[116] Llorente, i, 464.
[117] Reusch, i, 219.
[118] Reusch, i, 225.
[119] Schelhorn, _Amoenitates historiae ecclesiasticae et
literariae_. Frankfort and Leipsic, 1737.
[120] Cited by Mendham, 48.
[121] For further reference to the expurgated editions of the
_Decameron_, see Chapter XXV, on the book-trade of Italy.
[122] In the Index of Trent, the permit of the bishop was required only
for works on sacred subjects, _de rebus sacris_.
[123] Cited by Mendham, 53.
[124] _Historia Sui Temporis_, xi, 262.
[125] Cited by Reusch, i, 297.
[126] Huttinger, 9, 408.
[127] _Mémoires de la R. Acad. de Hist._, vii, 154.
[128] _Zeitsch. für Phil._, 26, 289.
[129] The translation is that of Townley, ii, 429–485.
[130] _Archiv. für Oester. Gesch._, 1, 268.
[131] _Archiv. für Deutsch. Buchh._, v, 147.
[132] _Beiträge_, ii, 63.
[133] _Arch. Stor. App._, viii, 199.
[134] Macchiavelli, ii, 412.
[135] _Renascence Portraits_, 135.
[136] M. xxviii.
[137] Dejob, 94.
[138] Dejob, 105.
[139] _Storia della Letteratura Italiana secolo 16_, chap. ii.
[140] Dejob, 312.
[141] Cited by Dejob, p. 77.
[142] Dejob, p. 78.
[143] Dejob, 59.
[144] Ibid. 60.
[145] This schedule is based upon Reusch.
[146] Bromato, ii, 186.
[147] Llorente, iii, 187.
[148] Carena, _Tr. de Off. S. Inq._
[149] Theiner, i, 667.
[150] _Arch. des Deutsch. Buchh._, ii, 6.
[151] _Ibid._, i, 176.
[152] Sugenheim, _Baierns Kirchen und Volkszustande_, 8^o, Munich,
1842.
[153] Reusch, i, 473.
[154] _Staats Archiv Münchens._
[155] Schroetschke, _Codex Nundinarius_, xix.
[156] Mendham, 114, 116.
[157] Cardona, Joh. Bapt., _De Expungendis, etc._, Rome, 1576.
[158] Reusch, i, 439.
[159] Mendham, 75.
[160] Reusch, i, 408.
[161] Reusch, i., 426.
[162] Mendham, 217.
[163] _Coll. de Documents inédits_, 41, 278.
[164] Mendham, 132.
[165] Llorente, i, 479.
[166] Mendham, 95.
[167] Llorente, i, 282.
[168] Cited by Reusch, ii, 234.
[169] Mendham, 114.
[170] Mendham, 105.
[171] Leti, Part II, Book IV, 385, cited by Mendham, 109.
[172] Mendham, 164.
[173] Mendham, 170.
[174] Reusch, ii, 26.
[175] _Discorso dell’ Origini dell’ Inquisitione_, 173, Venice,
1639.
[176] Mendham, 131.
[177] Reusch ii, 553.
[178] James, Thos., _A treatise on the corruption of Scripture,
Councils and Fathers by the Prelates, Pastors and Pillars of the Church
of Rome for the maintenance of Popery and Irreligion_. London, 1612.
[179] Mendham, 84.
[180] _Ep._, 95, Opus 2, 239.
[181] _Vindiciae Gregorianae_, Geneva, 1625.
[182] Reusch, ii, 559.
[183] Reusch, ii, 84.
[184] _Weitere Entwickelung der Thomistisch-Molinistischen
Controverse_, 34.
[185] _Catalani de Secretario S. Cong. Indicis_, l, i, ix.
[186] Mendham, 143.
[187] Mendham, 146.
[188] 1827, i, 118 _et seq._
[189] Cited by Mendham, 135.
[190] Cited by Mendham, 161.
[191] Mendham, 239.
[192] _Hist. eccles. de España_, v, 263.
[193] Mendham, 151.
[194] White, i, 138.
[195] Mendham, 176.
[196] Mendham, 176.
[197] Cited by White, i, 160, from the original trial documents.
[198] Cited by White, i, 142, from _L’Epinois_.
[199] _Ibid._, i, 144.
[200] Cited by White, i, 157.
[201] _Histoire universelle_, xv, 483.
[202] II, 396.
[203] White, i, 156. Canton, xv, 483.
[204] White, 157.
[205] Mendham, 203.
[206] Reusch, ii, 34.
[207] W. H. Hutton, in the _Quarterly Review_, January, 1905.
[208] Schlottman, _Erasmus redivivus_, i, 156, 171.
[209] Erasmus, _Epist._, 193.
[210] Maurenbücher, _Gesch. der Kath._, Ref. i, 211.
[211] _Epp._, 1280.
[212] Vischer, _Erasimana_, 34.
[213] _Epp._, 782, 796, 798.
[214] Friedrich, _Die Briefe Aleanders_, 102, 111, 115.
[215] Jourdain, N, 1638, 1639.
[216] Buchholtz, 9, 685.
[217] Buchholtz, 9, 685, Sickel, 424.
[218] Mendham, 47.
[219] _Ibid._, 50.
[220] Drummond, i, 319.
[221] Drummond, i, 261; Erasmus, _Ep._, xxi.
[222] Eras., _Op._, iii, 1168.
[223] Lea, 36.
[224] Luther, _Briefe_.
[225] Gerdes, _Miscellanea_, Groning, i, 418.
[226] Strype, _Memorials of the Reformation: Records of Henry
VIII_, ix.
[227] _Incurable Skepticism of the Church of Rome_, trans. by
Timson, Lond., 1868, chap. v.
[228] _De Festis_, 2, 16, 8.
[229] Gachard, _Histoire de la Belgique_, i, 99.
[230] Mendham, 192.
[231] d’Aguesseau, _Mémoires_, 13, 123.
[232] _Corr. de Fénelon_, iv, 325–370.
[233] _Kirchengesch._, iv, 49.
[234] _Epp._, 163.
Transcriber’s Notes:
1. Obvious printers’, punctuation and spelling errors have been
corrected silently.
2. Some hyphenated and non-hyphenated versions of the same words have
been retained as in the original.
3. Superscripts are represented using the caret character, e.g. D^r. or
X^{xx}.
4. Italics are shown as _xxx_.
5. Bold print is shown as =xxx=.