[19] Salimbene Chron. pp. 97-109, 124, 318-20.—Chron. Glassberger ann. 1286.—Vie de Douceline (Meyer, Recueil d’anciens Textes, pp. 142-46).
Salimbene, in enumerating the special intimates of John of Parma, characterizes several of them as “great Joachites.”
[20] Protocoll. Commiss. Anagniæ (Denifle, Archiv für Litteratur-und Kirchengeschichte, 1885, pp. 111-12).
[21] Hist. Tribulat. (ubi sup. pp. 178-9).—Salimbene, pp. 102, 233.
According to the exegesis of the Joachites, Frederic II. was to attain the age of seventy. When he died, in 1250, Salimbene refused to believe it, and remained incredulous until Innocent IV., in his triumphal progress from Lyons, came to Ferrara, nearly ten months afterwards, and exchanged congratulations upon it. Salimbene was present, and Frà Gherardino of Parma turned to him and said, “You know it now; leave your Joachim and apply yourself to wisdom” (Ib. pp. 107, 227).
[22] Renan, Nouvelles Études, p. 296.
Joachim had already used the term Everlasting Gospel to designate the spiritual interpretation of the Evangelists, which was henceforth to rule the world. His disciple naturally considered Joachim’s commentaries to be this spiritual interpretation, and that they constituted the Everlasting Gospel to which he furnished a Gloss and Introduction. The Franciscans were necessarily the contemplative Order intrusted with its dissemination. (See Denifle, Archiv für Litteratur-etc., 1885, pp. 54-59, 61.) According to Denifle (pp. 67-70) the publication of Gherardo consisted only of the Introduction and the Concordia. The Apocalypse and the Decachordon were to follow, but the venturesome enterprise was cut short.
[23] Protocol. Commiss. Anaguiæ (H. Denifle Archiv für Litt.-etc., 1885, pp. 99-102, 109, 126, 135-6).
It appears to me that Father Denifle’s laborious research has sufficiently proved that the errors commonly ascribed to the Everlasting Gospel (D’Argentré I. i. 162-5; Eymeric. Direct. Inq. P. II. Q. 9; Hermann. Korneri Chron. ap. Eccard. Corp. Hist. Med. Ævi. II. 849-51) are the strongly partisan accusations sent to Rome by William of St. Amour (ubi sup. pp. 76-86) which have led to exaggerated misconceptions of its rebellious tendencies. Father Denifle, however, proceeds to state that the result of the commission of Anagni (July, 1255) was merely the condemnation of the views of Gherardo, and that the works of Joachim (except his tract against Peter Lombard) have never been condemned by the Church. Yet when the exaggerations of William of St. Amour are thrown aside, there is in reality little in principle to distinguish Joachim from Gherardo; and if the former was not condemned it was not the fault of the Commission of Anagni, which classed both together and energetically endeavored to prove Joachim a heretic, even to showing that he never abandoned his heresy on the Trinity (ubi sup. pp. 137-41).
Yet if there was little difference in the letter, there was a marked divergence in spirit between Joachim and his commentator—the former being constructive and the latter destructive as regards the existing Church. See Tocco, Archivio Storico Italiano, 1886.