History for ready reference, Volume 4, Nicæa to Tunis

by J. N. Larned

PANTIKAPÆUM.
See BOSPHORUS, THE CITY AND KINGDOM.
PAOLI, and the Corsican struggle.
See CORSICA: A. D. 1729-1769.
PAOLI, Surprise of Wayne at.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1777 (JANUARY-DECEMBER).
----------PAPACY: Start--------
PAPACY:
St. Peter and the Church at Rome.
"The generally received account among Roman Catholics, and one
which can claim a long traditional acceptance, is that Peter
came to Rome in the second year of Claudius (that is, A. D.
42), and that he held the see twenty-five years, a length of
episcopate never reached again until by Pio Nono, who exceeded
it. … Now if it is possible to prove a negative at all, we may
conclude, with at least high probability, that Peter was not
at Rome during any of the time on which the writings of the
canonical Scriptures throw much light, and almost certainly
that during that time he was not its bishop. We have an
Epistle of Paul to the Romans full of salutations to his
friends there, but no mention of their bishop. Nor is anything
said of work done by Peter in founding that Church. On the
contrary, it is implied that no Apostle had as yet visited it;
for such is the inference from the passage already cited, in
which Paul expresses his wish to see the Roman Christians in
order that he might impart some spiritual gift to the end that
they might be established. We have letters of Paul from Rome
in which no message is sent from Peter; and in the very last
of these letters Paul complains of being left alone, and that
only Luke was with him. Was Peter one of the deserters? The
Scripture accounts of Peter place him in Judæa, in Antioch,
possibly in Corinth, but finally in Babylon. … Plainly, if
Peter was ever at Rome, it was after the date of Paul's second
Epistle to Timothy. Some Protestant controversialists have
asserted that Peter was never at Rome; but though the proofs
that he was there are not so strong as I should like them to
be if I had any doctrine depending on it, I think the historic
probability is that he was; though, as I say, at a late period
of the history, and not long before his death. … For myself, I
am willing, in the absence of any opposing tradition, to
accept the current account that Peter suffered martyrdom at
Rome. We know with certainty from John xxi. that Peter
suffered martyrdom somewhere. If Rome, which early laid claim
to have witnessed that martyrdom, were not the scene of it,
where then did it take place? Any city would be glad to claim
such a connexion with the name of the Apostle, and none but
Rome made the claim. … From the question, whether Peter ever
visited Rome, we pass now to a very different question,
whether he was its bishop. … We think it scandalous when we
read of bishops a hundred years ago who never went near their
sees. … But if we are to believe Roman theory, the bad example
had been set by St. Peter, who was the first absentee bishop.
If he became bishop of Rome in the second year of Claudius, he
appears never afterwards to have gone near his see until close
upon his death. Nay, he never even wrote a letter to his
Church while he was away; or if he did, they did not think it
worth preserving. Baronius (in Ann. lviii. § 51) owns the
force of the Scripture reasons for believing that Peter was
not in Rome during any time on which the New Testament throws
light. His theory is that, when Claudius commanded all Jews to
leave Rome, Peter was forced to go away. And as for his
subsequent absences, they were forced on him by his duty as
the chief of the Apostles, having care of all the Churches. …
These, no doubt, are excellent reasons for Peter's not
remaining at Rome; but why, then, did he undertake duties
which he must have known he could not fulfil?"
G. Salmon,
The Infallibility of the Church,
pages 347-350.
The Roman Catholic belief as to St. Peter's episcopacy, and
the primacy conferred by it on the Roman See, is stated by Dr.
Dollinger as follows: "The time of … [St. Peter's] arrival in
Rome, and the consequent duration of his episcopacy in that
city, have been the subjects of many various opinions amongst
the learned of ancient and modern times; nor is it possible to
reconcile the apparently conflicting statements of ancient
writers, unless we suppose that the prince of the apostles
resided at two distinct periods in the imperial capital.
According to St. Jerome, Eusebius, and Orosius, his first
arrival in Rome was in the second year of the reign of
Claudius (A. D. 42); but he was obliged, by the decree of the
emperor, banishing all Jews from the city, to return to
Jerusalem. From Jerusalem he undertook a journey through Asia
Minor, and founded, or at least, visited, the Churches of
Pontus, Gallacia, Cappadocia, and Bythinia. To these Churches
he afterwards addressed his epistle from Rome. His second
journey to Rome was in the reign of Nero; and it is of this
journey that Dionysius, of Corinth, and Lactantius, write.
There, with the blessed Paul, he suffered, in the year 67, the
death of a martyr. We may now ascertain that the period of
twenty-five years assigned by Eusebius and St. Jerome, to the
episcopacy of St. Peter in Rome, is not a fiction of their
imaginations; for from the second year of Claudius, in which
the apostle founded the Church of Rome, to the year of his
death, there intervene exactly twenty-five years. That he
remained during the whole of this period in Rome, no one has
pretended. … Our Lord conferred upon his apostle, Peter, the
supreme authority in the Church. After he had required and
obtained from him a public profession of his faith, he
declared him to be the rock, the foundation upon which he
would build his Church; and, at the same time, promised that
he would give to him the keys of the kingdom of heaven. … In
the enumeration of the apostles, frequently repeated by the
Evangelists, we find that Peter is always the first named:—he
is sometimes named alone, when the others are mentioned in
general.
{2418}
After the ascension of our Lord, it is he who directs and
governs: he leads the assembly in which a successor to the
apostle who had prevaricated, is chosen: after the descent of
the Holy Ghost, he speaks first to the people, and announces
to them Jesus Christ: he performs the first miracle, and, in
the name of his brethren, addresses the synedrium: he punishes
the crime of Ananias: he opens the gates of the Church to the
Gentiles, and presides at the first council at Jerusalem. …
The more the Church was extended, and the more its
constitution was formed, the more necessary did the power with
which Peter had been invested become,—the more evident was the
need of a head which united the members in one body, of a
point and centre of unity. … Succession by ordination was the
means, by which from the beginning the power left by Christ in
his Church was continued: thus the power of the apostles
descended to the bishops, their successors, and thus as Peter
died bishop of the Church of Rome, where he sealed his
doctrine with his blood, the primacy which he had received
would be continued in him by whom he was there succeeded. It
was not without a particular interposition of Providence that
this pre-eminence was granted to the city of Rome, and that it
became the depository of ecclesiastical supremacy. This city,
which rose in the midway between the east and the west, by its
position, by its proximity to the sea, by its dignity, as
capital of the Roman empire, being open on all sides to
communication even with the most distant nations, was
evidently more than any other adapted to become the centre of
the universal Church. … There are not wanting, in the first
three centuries, testimonies and facts, some of which directly
attest, and others presuppose, the supremacy of the Roman
Church and of its bishops."
J. J. I. Dollinger,
History of the Church,
period 1, chapter 1, section 4,
and chapter 3, section 4 (volume 1).
PAPACY:
Supremacy of the Roman See: Grounds of the Claim.
The historical ground of the claim to supremacy over the
Christian Church asserted on behalf of the Roman See is stated
by Cardinal Gibbons as follows: "I shall endeavor to show,
from incontestable historical evidence, that the Popes have
always, from the days of the Apostles, continued to exercise
supreme jurisdiction, not only in the Western church, till the
Reformation, but also throughout the Eastern church, till the
great schism of the ninth century.
1. Take the question of appeals. An appeal is never made from
a superior to an inferior court, nor even from one court to
another of co-ordinate jurisdiction. We do not appeal from
Washington to Richmond, but from Richmond to Washington. Now
if we find the See of Rome, from the foundation of
Christianity, entertaining and deciding cases of appeal from
the Oriental churches; if we find that her decision was final
and irrevocable, we must conclude that the supremacy of Rome
over all the churches is an undeniable fact. Let me give you a
few illustrations: To begin with Pope St. Clement, who was the
third successor of St. Peter, and who is laudably mentioned by
St. Paul in one of his Epistles. Some dissension and scandal
having occurred in the church of Corinth, the matter is
brought to the notice of Pope Clement. He at once exercises
his supreme authority by writing letters of remonstrance and
admonition to the Corinthians. And so great was the reverence
entertained for these Epistles, by the faithful of Corinth,
that for a century later it was customary to have them
publicly read in their churches. Why did the Corinthians
appeal to Rome far away in the West, and not to Ephesus so
near home in the East, where the Apostle St. John still lived?
Evidently because the jurisdiction of Ephesus was local, while
that of Rome was universal. About the year 190, the question
regarding the proper day for celebrating Easter was agitated
in the East, and referred to Pope St. Victor I. The Eastern
church generally celebrated Easter on the day on which the
Jews kept the Passover; while in the West it was observed
then, as it is now, on the first Sunday after the full moon of
the vernal equinox. St. Victor directs the Eastern churches,
for the sake of uniformity, to conform to the practice of the
West, and his instructions are universally followed.
Dionysius, Bishop of Rome, about the middle of the third
century, having heard that the Patriarch of Alexandria erred
on some points of faith, demands an explanation of the
suspected Prelate, who, in obedience to his superior, promptly
vindicates his own orthodoxy. St. Athanasius, the great
Patriarch of Alexandria, appeals in the fourth century, to
Pope Julius I., from an unjust decision rendered against him
by the Oriental bishops; and the Pope reverses the sentence of
the Eastern council. St. Basil, Archbishop of Cæsarea, in the
same century, has recourse, in his afflictions, to the
protection of Pope Damasus. St. John Chrysostom, Patriarch of
Constantinople, appeals in the beginning of the fifth century,
to Pope Innocent I., for a redress of grievances inflicted on
him by several Eastern Prelates, and by the Empress Eudoxia of
Constantinople. St. Cyril appeals to Pope Celestine against
Nestorius; Nestorius also appeals to the same Pontiff, who
takes the side of Cyril. Theodoret, the illustrious historian
and Bishop of Cyrrhus, is condemned by the pseudo-council of
Ephesus in 449, and appeals to Pope Leo. … John, Abbot of
Constantinople, appeals from the decision of the Patriarch of
that city to Pope St. Gregory I., who reverses the sentence of
the Patriarch. In 859, Photius addressed a letter to Pope
Nicholas I., asking the Pontiff to confirm his election to the
Patriarchate of Constantinople. In consequence of the Pope's
conscientious refusal, Photius broke off from the communion of
the Catholic Church, and became the author of the Greek
schism. Here are a few examples taken at random from Church
History. We see Prelates most eminent for their sanctity and
learning, occupying the highest position in the Eastern
church, and consequently far removed from the local influences
of Rome, appealing in every period of the early church, from
the decisions of their own Bishops and their Councils to the
supreme arbitration of the Holy See. If this does not
constitute superior jurisdiction, I have yet to learn what
superior authority means.
2. Christians of every denomination admit the orthodoxy of the
Fathers of the first five centuries of the Church. No one has
ever called in question the faith of such men as Basil,
Chrysostom, Cyprian, Augustine, Jerome, Ambrose, and Leo. …
Now the Fathers of the Church, with one voice, pay homage to
the Bishops of Rome as their superiors. …
{2419}
3. Ecumenical Councils afford another eloquent vindication of
Papal supremacy. An Ecumenical or General Council is an
assemblage of Prelates representing the whole Catholic Church.
… Up to the present time, nineteen Ecumenical Councils have
been convened, including the Council of the Vatican. … The
first General Council was held in Nicæa, in 325; the second,
in Constantinople, in 381; the third, in Ephesus, in 431; the
fourth, in Chalcedon, in 451; the fifth, in Constantinople, in
553; the sixth, in the same city, in 680; the seventh, in
Nicæa, in 787; and the eighth, in Constantinople, in 809. The
Bishops of Rome convoked these assemblages, or at least
consented to their convocation; they presided by their legates
over all of them, except the first and second councils of
Constantinople, and they confirmed all these eight by their
authority. Before becoming a law, the acts of the Councils
required the Pope's signature.
4. I shall refer to one more historical point in support of
the Pope's jurisdiction over the whole Church. It is a most
remarkable fact that every nation hitherto converted from
Paganism to Christianity, since the days of the Apostles, has
received the light of faith from missionaries who were either
especially commissioned by the See of Rome, or sent by Bishops
in open communion with that See. This historical fact admits
of no exception. Let me particularize: Ireland's Apostle is
St. Patrick. Who commissioned him? Pope St. Celestine, in the
fifth century. St. Palladius is the Apostle of Scotland. Who
sent him? The same Pontiff, Celestine. The Anglo-Saxons
received the faith from St. Augustine, a Benedictine monk, as
all historians Catholic and non-Catholic testify: Who
empowered Augustine to preach? Pope Gregory I., at the end of
the sixth century. St. Remigius established the faith in
France, at the close of the fifth century. He was in active
communion with the See of Peter. Flanders received the Gospel
in the seventh century from St. Eligius, who acknowledged the
supremacy of the reigning Pope. Germany and Bavaria venerate
as their Apostle St. Boniface, who is popularly known in his
native England by his baptismal name of Winfrid. He was
commissioned by Pope Gregory II., in the beginning of the
eighth century, and was consecrated Bishop by the same
Pontiff. In the ninth century, two saintly brothers, Cyril and
Methodius, evangelized Russia, Sclavonia, and Moravia, and
other parts of Northern Europe. They recognized the supreme
authority of Pope Nicholas I., and of his successors, Adrian
II. and John VIII. In the eleventh century, Norway was
converted by missionaries introduced from England by the
Norwegian King St. Olave. The conversion of Sweden was
consummated in the same century by the British Apostles Saints
Ulfrid and Eskill. Both of these nations immediately after
their conversion commenced to pay Rome-scot, or a small annual
tribute to the Holy See,—a clear evidence that they were in
communion with the Chair of Peter. All the other nations of
Europe, having been converted before the Reformation, received
likewise the light of faith from Roman Catholic missionaries,
because Europe then recognized only one Christian Chief."
James, Cardinal Gibbons,
The Faith of our Fathers,
chapter 10.
ALSO IN:
Francis P. Kenrick, Archbishop of Baltimore,
The Primacy of the Apostolic See vindicated.
PAPACY:
Supremacy of the Roman See:
Grounds of the Denial.
"The first document by which the partisans of the Papal
sovereignty justify themselves, is the letter written by St.
Clement in the name of the Church at Rome to the Church at
Corinth. They assert, that it was written by virtue of a
superior authority attached to his title of Bishop of Rome.
Now, it is unquestionable, 1st. That St. Clement was not
Bishop of Rome when he wrote to the Corinthians. 2d. That in
this matter he did not act of his own authority, but in the
name of the Church at Rome, and from motives of charity. The
letter signed by St. Clement was written A. D. 69, immediately
after the persecution by Nero, which took place between the
years 64 and 68, as all learned men agree. … It may be seen
from the letter itself that it was written after a
persecution; if it be pretended that this persecution was that
of Domitian, then the letter must be dated in the last years
of the first century, since it was chiefly in the years 95 and
96 that the persecution of Domitian took place. Now, it is
easy to see from the letter itself, that it was written before
that time, for it speaks of the Jewish sacrifices as still
existing in the temple of Jerusalem. The temple was destroyed
with the city of Jerusalem, by Titus A. D. 70. Hence, the
letter must have been written before that year. Besides, the
letter was written after some persecution, in which had
suffered, at Rome, some very illustrious martyrs. There was
nothing of the kind in the persecution of Domitian. The
persecution of Nero lasted from the year 64 to the year 68.
Hence it follows, that the letter to the Corinthians could
only have been written in the year 69, that is to say,
twenty-four years before Clement was Bishop of Rome. In
presence of this simple calculation what becomes of the stress
laid by the partisans of Papal sovereignty, upon the
importance of this document as emanating from Pope St.
Clement? Even if it could be shown that the letter of St.
Clement was written during his episcopate, this would prove
nothing, because this letter was not written by him by virtue
of a superior and personal authority possessed by him, but
from mere charity, and in the name of the Church at Rome. Let
us hear Eusebius upon this subject: 'Of this Clement there is
one epistle extant, acknowledged as genuine, … which he wrote
in the name of the Church at Rome to that of Corinth, at the
time when there was a dissension in the latter.' … He could
not say more explicitly, that Clement did not in this matter
act of his own authority, by virtue of any power he
individually possessed. Nothing in the letter itself gives a
suspicion of such authority. It thus commences: 'The Church of
God which is at Rome, to the Church of God which is at
Corinth.' … There is every reason to believe that St. Clement
draughted this letter to the Corinthians. From the first
centuries it has been considered as his work. It was not as
Bishop of Rome, but as a disciple of the Apostles, that he
wrote it. … In the second century the question concerning
Easter was agitated with much warmth. Many Oriental Churches
wished to follow the Judaical traditions, preserved by several
Apostles in the celebration of that feast, and to hold it upon
the fourteenth day of the March moon; other Eastern Churches,
in agreement with the Western Churches according to an equally
Apostolic tradition, celebrated the festival of Easter the Sunday
following the fourteenth day of the March moon.
{2420}
The question in itself considered was of no great importance;
and yet it was generally thought that all the Churches should
celebrate at one and the same time the great Christian
festival, and that some should not be rejoicing over the
resurrection of the Saviour, while others were contemplating
the mysteries of his death. How was the question settled? Did
the Bishop of Rome interpose his authority and overrule the
discussion, as would have been the case had he enjoyed a
supreme authority? Let us take the evidence of History. The
question having been agitated, 'there were synods and
convocations of the Bishops on this question,' says Eusebius,
'and all unanimously drew up an ecclesiastical decree, which
they communicated to all the Churches in all places. … There
is an epistle extant even now of those who were assembled at
the time; among whom presided Theophilus, Bishop of the Church
in Cesarea and Narcissus, Bishop of Jerusalem. There is
another epistle' (of the Roman Synod) 'extant on the same
question, bearing the name of Victor. An epistle also of the
Bishops in Pontus, among whom Palmas, as the most ancient,
presided; also of the Churches of Gaul over whom Irenæus
presided. Moreover, one from those in Osrhoene, and the cities
there. And a particular epistle from Bacchyllus, Bishop of the
Corinthians; and epistles of many others who, advancing one
and the same doctrine, also passed the same vote.' It is
evident that Eusebius speaks of the letter of the Roman synod
in the same terms as of the others; he does not attribute it
to Bishop Victor, but to the assembly of the Roman Clergy; and
lastly, he only mentions it in the second place after that of
the Bishops of Palestine. Here is a point irrefragably
established; it is that in the matter of Easter, the Church of
Rome discussed and judged the question in the same capacity as
the other churches, and that the Bishop of Rome only signed
the letter in the name of the synod which represented that
Church."
Abbé Guettée,
The Papacy,
pages 53-58.
"At the time of the Council of Nicæa it was clear that the
metropolitans of Rome, Alexandria, and Antioch, held a
superior rank among their brethren, and had a kind of
ill-defined jurisdiction over the provinces of several
metropolitans. The fathers of Nicæa recognized the fact that
the privileges of these sees were regulated by customs already
regarded as primitive, and these customs they confirmed. … The
empire was afterwards divided for the purposes of civil
government into four Prefectures. … The organization of the
Church followed in its main lines that of the empire. It also
had its dioceses and provinces, coinciding for the most part
with the similarly named political divisions. Not only did the
same circumstances which marked out a city for political
preeminence also indicate it as a fit centre of ecclesiastical
rule, but it was a recognized principle with the Church that
the ecclesiastical should follow the civil division. At the
head of a diocese was a patriarch, at the head of a province
was a metropolitan; the territory of a simple bishop was a
parish. … The see of Constantinople … became the oriental
counterpart of that of Rome. … But the patriarchal system of
government, like every other, suffered from the shocks of
time. The patriarch of Antioch had, in the first instance, the
most extensive territory, for he claimed authority not only
over the civil diocese of the East, but over the Churches in
Persia, Media, Parthia, and India, which lay beyond the limits
of the empire. But this large organization was but loosely
knit, and constantly tended to dissolution. … After the
conquests of Caliph Omar the great see of Antioch sank into
insignificance. The region subject to the Alexandrian
patriarch was much smaller than that of Antioch, but it was
better compacted. Here too however the Monophysite tumult so
shook its organization that it was no longer able to resist
the claims of the patriarch of Constantinople. It also fell
under the dominion of the Saracens—a fate which had already
befallen Jerusalem. In the whole East there remained only the
patriarch of Constantinople in a condition to exercise actual
authority. … According to Rufinus's version of the sixth canon
of the Council of Nicæa, the Bishop of Rome had entrusted to
him the care of the suburbicarian churches [probably including
Lower Italy and most of Central Italy, with Sicily, Sardinia
and Corsica]. … But many causes tended to extend the authority
of the Roman patriarch beyond these modest limits. The
patriarch of Constantinople depended largely for his authority
on the will of the emperor, and his spiritual realm was
agitated by the constant intrigues of opposing parties. His
brother of Rome enjoyed generally more freedom in matters
spiritual, and the diocese over which he presided, keeping
aloof for the most part from controversies on points of dogma,
was therefore comparatively calm and united. Even the
Orientals were impressed by the majesty of old Rome, and gave
great honour to its bishop. In the West, the highest respect
was paid to those sees which claimed an Apostle as founder,
and among these the Church of St. Peter and St. Paul naturally
took the highest place. It was, in fact, the one apostolic see
of Western Europe, and as such received a unique regard. …
Doubtful questions about apostolic doctrine and custom were
addressed certainly to other distinguished bishops, as
Athanasius and Basil, but they came more readily and more
constantly to Rome, as already the last appeal in many civil
matters. We must not suppose however that the Churches of the
East were ready to accept the sway of Rome, however they might
respect the great city of the West. … The authority of the
Roman see increased from causes which are sufficiently obvious
to historical enquirers. But the greatest of the Roman bishops
were far too wise to tolerate the supposition that their power
depended on earthly sanctions. They contended steadfastly that
they were the heads of the Church on earth, because they were
the successors of him to whom the Lord had given the keys of
the kingdom of heaven, St. Peter. And they also contended that
Rome was, in the most emphatic sense, the mother-church of the
whole West. Innocent I. claims that no Church had ever been
founded in Italy, Gaul, Spain, Africa, Sicily, or the
Mediterranean islands, except by men who had received their
commission from St. Peter or his successors. At the same time,
they admitted that the privileges of the see were not wholly
derived immediately from its founder, but were conferred by
past generations out of respect for St. Peter's see.
{2421}
But the bishop who most clearly and emphatically asserted the
claims of the Roman see to preeminence over the whole Church
on earth was no doubt Leo I., a great man who filled a most
critical position with extraordinary firmness and ability.
Almost every argument by which in later times the authority of
the see of St. Peter was supported is to be found in the
letters of Leo. … The Empire of the West never seriously
interfered with the proceedings of the Roman bishop; and when
it fell, the Church became the heir of the empire. In the
general crash, the Latin Christians found themselves compelled
to drop their smaller differences, and rally round the
strongest representative of the old order. The Teutons, who
shook to pieces the imperial system, brought into greater
prominence the essential unity of all that was Catholic and
Latin in the empire, and so strengthened the position of the
see of Rome. … It must not however be supposed that the views
of the Roman bishops as to the authority of Rome were
universally accepted even in the West. Many Churches had grown
up independently of Rome and were abundantly conscious of the
greatness of their own past. … And in the African Church the
reluctance to submit to Roman dictation which had showed
itself in Cyprian's time was maintained for many generations.
… In Gaul too there was a vigorous resistance to the
jurisdiction of the see of St. Peter."
S. Cheetham,
History of the Christian Church
during the First Six Centuries,
pages 181-195.
"A colossal city makes a colossal bishop, and this principle
reached its maximum embodiment in Rome. The greatest City of
the World made the greatest Bishop of the World. Even when the
Empire was heathen the City lifted the Bishop so high that he
drew to himself the unwelcome attention of the secular power,
and in succession, in consequence, as in no other see, the
early Bishops of Rome were martyrs. When the Empire became
Christian, Rome's place was recognized as first, and the
principle on which that primacy rested was clearly and
accurately defined when the Second General Council, acting on
this principle, assigned to the new seat of empire,
Constantinople, the second place; it was the principle,
namely, of honor, based upon material greatness. … The
principle of the primacy, as distinguished from the supremacy
growing out of Petrine claims was the heart and soul of
Gallicanism in contrast to Ultramontanism, and was crushed out
even in the Roman communion not twenty years ago."
Rt. Rev. G. F. Seymour,
The Church of Rome in her relation to Christian Unity
("History and Teachings of the Early Church," lecture 5).
ALSO IN:
H. Hallam,
The Middle Ages,
chapter 7, part 1.
PAPACY:
Origin of the Papal title.
"'Papa,' that strange and universal mixture of familiar
endearment and of reverential awe, extended in a general sense
to all Greek Presbyters and all Latin Bishops, was the special
address which, long before the names of patriarch or
archbishop, was given to the head of the Alexandrian church. …
He was the Pope. The Pope of Rome was a phrase which had not
yet [at the time of the meeting of the Council of Nicæa, A. D.
325] emerged in history. But Pope of Alexandria was a
well-known dignity. … This peculiar Alexandrian application of
a name, in itself expressing simple affection, is thus
explained:—Down to Heraclas (A. D. 230), the Bishop of
Alexandria, being the sole Egyptian Bishop, was called 'Abba'
(father), and his clergy 'elders.' From his time more bishops
were created, who then received the name of 'Abba,' and
consequently the name of 'Papa' ('ab-aba,' pater
patrum=grandfather) was appropriated to the primate. The Roman
account (inconsistent with facts) is that the name was first
given to Cyril, as representing the Bishop of Rome in the
Council of Ephesus. (Suicer, in voce). The name was fixed to
the Bishop of Rome in the 7th century."
A. P. Stanley,
Lectures on the History of the Eastern Church,
lecture 3.
ALSO IN:
J. Bingham,
Antiquities of the Christian Church,
book 2, chapter 2, section 7.
J. Alzog,
Manual of Universal Christian History,
section 130.
See CHRISTIANITY: A. D. 312-337.
PAPACY: A. D. 42-461.
The early Bishops of Rome, to Leo the Great.
The following is the succession of the popes, according to
Roman Catholic authorities, during the first four hundred and
twenty years:
"Peter, to the year of Christ 67;
Linus,
Anencletus,
Clement; (to 77?)
Evaristus,
Alexander,
Xystus,
Telesphorus,
Hyginus, to 142;
Pius, to 157;
Anicetus, to 168;
Soter, to 177;
Eleutherius, to 193;
Victor, to 202;
Zephyrinus, to 219;
Callistus, to 223;
Urban, to 230;
Pontianus, to 235;
Anterus, to 236;
Fabian, to 250;
Cornelius, from 251 to 252;
Lucius, to 253;
Stephan, to 257;
Xystus II, to 258;
Dionysius, from 259 to 269;
Felix, to 274;
Eutychianus, to 283;
Caius, to 296;
Marcellinus, to 304;
Marcellus, after a vacancy of four years, from 308 to 310;
Eusebius, from the 20th of May to the 26th of September, 310;
Melchiades, from 311 to 314;
Silvester, from 314 to 335. …
Mark was chosen on the 18th of January 336,
and died on the 7th of October of the same year.
Julius I, from 337 to 352, the steadfast defender of St.
Athanasius. …
The less steadfast Liberius, from 352 to 366, purchased, in
358 his return from exile by an ill-placed condescension to
the demands of the Arians. He, however, soon redeemed .the
honour which he had forfeited by this step, by his
condemnation of the council of Rimini, for which act he was
again driven from his Church. During his banishment, the Roman
clergy were compelled to elect the deacon Felix in his place,
or probably only as administrator of the Roman Church. When
Liberius returned to Rome, Felix fled from the city, and died
in the country, in 365.
Damasus, from 366 to 384, by birth a Spaniard, had, at the
very commencement of his pontificate, to assert his rights
against a rival named Ursicinus, who obtained consecration
from some bishops a few days after the election of Damasus.
The faction of Ursicinus was the cause of much bloodshed. …
Siricius, from 385 to 389, was, although Ursicinus again
endeavoured to intrude himself, unanimously chosen by the
clergy and people. …
Anastasius, from 398 to 402; a pontiff, highly extolled by his
successor, and by St. Jerome, of whom the latter says, that he
was taken early from this earth, because Rome was not longer
worthy of him, and that he might not survive the desolation of
the city by Alaric. He was succeeded by Innocent I, from 402
to 417. … During the possession of Rome by Alaric [see ROME:
A. D. 408-410], Innocent went to Ravenna, to supplicate the
emperor, in the name of the Romans, to conclude a peace with
the Goths. The pontificate of his successor, the Greek
Zosimus, was only of twenty one months.
{2422}
The election of Boniface, from 418 to 422, was disturbed by
the violence of the archdeacon Eulalius, who had attached a
small party to his interests. … He was followed by Celestine
I, from 422 to 432, the combatant of Nestorianism and of
Semipelagianism. To Sixtus III, from 432 to 440, the
metropolitans, Helladius of Tarsus, and Eutherius of Tyana,
appealed, when they were threatened with deposition at the
peace between St. Cyril and John of Antioch. Leo the Great,
from 440 to 461, is the first pope of whom we possess a
collection of writings: they consist of 96 discourses on
festivals, and 141 epistles. By his high and well-merited
authority, he saved Rome, in 452, from the devastation of the
Huns; and induced Attila, named 'the scourge of God,' to
desist from his invasion of Italy [see HUNS: A. D. 452].
Again, when, in 457 [455], the Vandal king Geiserich entered
Rome [see ROME: A. D. 455], the Romans were indebted to the
eloquent persuasions of their holy bishop for the
preservation, at least, of their lives."
J. J. I. Döllinger,
History of the Church,
volume 2, pages 213-215.
"For many centuries the bishops of Rome had been comparatively
obscure persons: indeed, Leo was the first really great man
who occupied the see, but he occupied it under circumstances
which tended without exception to put power in his hand. …
Circumstances were thrusting greatness upon the see of St.
Peter: the glory of the Empire was passing into her hands, the
distracted Churches of Spain and Africa, harassed and torn in
pieces by barbarian hordes and wearied with heresies, were in
no position to assert independence in any matter, and were
only too glad to look to any centre whence a measure of
organization and of strength seemed to radiate; and the popes
had not been slow in rising to welcome and promote the
greatness with which the current and tendency of the age was
investing them. Their rule seems to have been, more than
anything else, to make the largest claim, and enforce as much
of it as they could, but the theory of papal power was still
indeterminate, vague, unfixed. She was Patriarch of the West
—what rights did that give her? … Was her claim … a claim of
jurisdiction merely, or did she hold herself forth as a
doctrinal authority in a sense in which other bishops were
not? In this respect, again, the claim into which Leo entered
was indefinite and unformulated. … The Imperial instincts of
old Rome are dominant in him, all that sense of discipline,
order, government—all the hatred of uniformity, individuality,
eccentricity. These are the elements which make up Leo's mind.
He is above all things a governor and an administrator. He has
got a law of ecclesiastical discipline, a supreme canon of
dogmatic truth, and these are his instruments to subdue the
troubled world. … The rule which governed Leo's conduct as
pope was a very simple one, it was to take every opportunity
which offered itself for asserting and enforcing the authority
of his see: he was not troubled with historical or scriptural
doubts or scruples which might cast a shadow of indecision,
'the pale cast of thought,' on his resolutions and actions. To
him the papal authority had come down as the great inheritance
of his position; it was identified in his mind with the order,
the authority, the discipline, the orthodoxy which he loved so
dearly; it suited exactly his Imperial ambition, in a word,
his 'Roman' disposition and character, and he took it as his
single great weapon against heresy and social confusion."
C. Gore,
Leo the Great,
chapters 6 and 7.
PAPACY: A. D. 461-604.
The succession of Popes from Leo the Great
to Gregory the Great.
The successor of Leo the Great, "the Sardinian Hilarius, from
461 to 468, had been one of his legates at the council of
Ephesus in 449. … The zeal of Simplicius, from 468 to 483, was
called into action chiefly by the confusion occasioned in the
east by the Monophysites. The same may be said of Felix II (or
III) from 483 to 492, in whose election the prefect Basilius
concurred, as plenipotentiary of king Odoacer. Gelasius I,
from 492 to 496, and Anastasius II, laboured, but in vain, in
endeavouring to heal the schism, formed by Acacius, at
Constantinople. This schism occasioned a division in Rome at
the election of a new pontiff. The senator Festus had promised
the emperor that he would enforce the reception of the
Henoticon at Rome; and by means of corruption established
against the deacon Symmachus, who had in his favour the
majority of voices, a powerful party, which chose Laurence as
antipope. Again was a double election the cause of bloody
strife in the streets of Rome, until the Arian king,
Theodoric, at Ravenna, declared for Symmachus, who gave to his
rival the bishopric of Luceria. … More tranquil was the
pontificate of the succeeding pope, Hormisdas, from 514 to
523, and made illustrious by the restoration of peace, in 519,
in the eastern Church.
John I died at Ravenna, in 519, in prison, into which he was
cast by the suspicious Theodoric, after his return from
Constantinople.
Felix III (or IV) from 526 to 530, was chosen by the Romans,
at the command of the king. At short intervals, followed
Boniface II, from 530 to 532; and John II, from 533 to 535.
Agapite I went, at the desire of the Gothic king, Theodatus,
to obtain peace from the emperor, to Constantinople, where he
died in 536.
Sylverius died, in 540, during his second exile, on the island
of Palmaria. … Vigilius, who was ordained in 537, and who
became lawful pope in 540, was compelled to remain in the
east, from 546 to 554, sometimes a prisoner in Constantinople,
and sometimes in exile. He died at Syracuse, on his return to
Rome, in 555. Pelagius I, from 555 to 560, found difficulty in
obtaining an acknowledgement of his election, as, by his
condemnation of the three articles, he was considered in the
west as a traitor to the council of Chalcedon, and because
there existed a suspicion that he was accessory to the death
of Vigilius.
John III, from 560 to 573, beheld the commencement of the
Lombard dominion in Italy.
Benedict I, from 574 to 578, and Pelagius II, from 578 to 590,
ruled the Church during the melancholy times of the Lombard
devastations. One of the most splendid appearances in the
series of the Roman pontiffs was that of Gregory the Great,
from 590 to 604."
J. J. I. Döllinger,
History of the Church,
volume 2, pages 213-217.
{2423}
"Pope Pelagius died on the 8th of February, 590. The people of
Rome … were at this time in the utmost straits. Italy lay
prostrate and miserable under the Lombard invasion; the
invaders now threatened Rome itself, and its inhabitants
trembled; famine and pestilence within the city produced a
climax of distress; an overflow of the Tiber at the time
aggravated the general alarm and misery; Gregory himself, in
one of his letters, compares Rome at this time to an old and
shattered ship, letting in the waves on all sides, tossed by a
daily storm, its planks rotten and sounding of wreck. In this
state of things all men's thoughts at once turned to Gregory.
The pope was at this period the virtual ruler of Rome, and the
greatest power in Italy; and they must have Gregory as their
pope; for, if anyone could save them, it was he. His abilities
in public affairs had been proved; all Rome knew his character
and attainments; he had now the further reputation of eminent
saintliness. He was evidently the one man for the post; and
accordingly he was unanimously elected by clergy, senate, and
people. But he shrank from the proffered dignity. There was
one way by which he might possibly escape it. No election of a
pope could at this time take effect without the emperor's
confirmation, and an embassy had to be sent to Constantinople
to obtain it. Gregory therefore sent at the same time a letter
to the emperor (Mauricius, who had succeeded Tiberius in 582),
imploring him to withhold his confirmation; but it was
intercepted by the prefect of the city, and another from the
clergy, senate, and people sent in its place, entreating
approval of their choice. … At length the imperial
confirmation of his election arrived. He still refused; fled
from the city in disguise, eluding the guards set to watch the
gates, and hid himself in a forest cave. Pursued and
discovered by means, it is said, of a supernatural light, he
was brought back in triumph, conducted to the church of St.
Peter, and at once ordained on the 3rd of September, 590. …
Having been once placed in the high position he so little
coveted, he rose to it at once, and fulfilled its multifarious
duties with remarkable zeal and ability. His comprehensive
policy, and his grasp of great issues, are not more remarkable
than the minuteness of the details, in secular as well as
religious matters, to which he was able to give his personal
care. And this is the more striking in combination with the
fact that, as many parts of his writings show, he remained all
the time a monk at heart, thoroughly imbued with both the
ascetic principles and the narrow credulity of contemporary
monasticism. His private life, too, was still in a measure
monastic: the monastic simplicity of his episcopal attire is
noticed by his biographer; he lived with his clergy under
strict rule, and in 595 issued a synodal decree substituting
clergy for the boys and secular persons who had formerly
waited on the pope in his chamber."
J. Barmby,
Gregory the Great,
chapter 2.
"Of the immense energy shown by St. Gregory in the exercise of
his Principate, of the immense influence wielded by him both
in the East and in the West, of the acknowledgment of his
Principate by the answers which emperor and patriarch made to
his demands and rebukes, we possess an imperishable record in
the fourteen books of his letters which have been preserved to
us. They are somewhat more than 850 in number. They range over
every subject, and are addressed to every sort of person. If
he rebukes the ambition of a patriarch, and complains of an
emperor's unjust law, he cares also that the tenants on the
vast estates of the Church which his officers superintend at a
distance should not be in any way harshly treated. … The range
of his letters is so great, their detail so minute, that they
illuminate his time and enable us to form a mental picture,
and follow faithfully that pontificate of fourteen years,
incessantly interrupted by cares and anxieties for the
preservation of his city, yet watching the beginnings and
strengthening the polity of the western nations, and
counterworking the advances of the eastern despotism. The
divine order of greatness is, we know, to do and to teach.
Few, indeed, have carried it out on so great a scale as St.
Gregory. The mass of his writing preserved to us exceeds the
mass preserved to us from all his predecessors together, even
including St. Leo, who with him shares the name of Great, and
whose sphere of action the mind compares with his. If he
became to all succeeding times an image of the great
sacerdotal life in his own person, so all ages studied in his
words the pastoral care, joining him with St. Gregory of
Nazianzum and St. Chrysostom. The man who closed his life at
sixty-four, worn out, not with age, but with labour and bodily
pains, stands, beside the learning of St. Jerome, the perfect
episcopal life and statesmanship of St. Ambrose, the
overpowering genius of St. Augustine, as the fourth doctor of
the western Church, while he surpasses them all in that his
doctorship was seated on St. Peter's throne. If he closes the
line of Fathers, he begins the period when the Church, failing
to preserve a rotten empire in political existence, creates
new nations; nay, his own hand has laid for them their
foundation-stones."
T. W. Allies,
The Holy See and the Wandering of the Nations,
from St. Leo I. to St. Gregory I.,
pages 309-335.
See, also,
ROME: A. D. 590-640.
PAPACY: A. D. 604-731.
The succession of Popes.
Sabinian, A. D. 604-606;
Boniface III., 607;
Boniface IV., 608-615;
Deusdedit, 615-618;
Boniface V., 619-625;
Honorius I., 625-638;
Severinus, 640;
John IV., 640-642;
Theodore I., 642-649;
Martin I., 649-655;
Eugenius I., 655-657;
Vitalian, 657-672;
Adeodatus II., 672-676;
Donus I., 676-678;
Agatho, 678-682;
Leo II., 682-683;
Benedict II., 684-685;
John V., 685-686;
Canon, 686-687;
Sergius I.,687-701;
John VI., 701-705;
John VII., 705-707;
Sisinnius, 708;
Constantine, 708-715;
Gregory II., 715-731.
PAPACY: A. D. 728-774.
Rise of the Papal Sovereignty at Rome.
The extinguishment of the authority of the Eastern emperors at
Rome and in Italy began with the revolt provoked by the
attempts of the iconoclastic Leo, the Isaurian, to abolish
image-worship in the Christian churches (see ICONOCLASTIC
CONTROVERSY). The Pope, Gregory II., remonstrated vehemently,
but in vain. At his signal all central Italy rose in revolt.
"The exarch was compelled to shut himself up in Ravenna; for
the cities of Italy, instead of obeying the imperial officers,
elected magistrates of their own, on whom they conferred, in
some cases, the title of duke. Assemblies were held, and the
project of electing an emperor of the West was adopted." But
another danger showed itself at this juncture which alarmed
Rome and Italy more than the iconoclastic persecutions of the
Byzantine emperor. The king of the Lombards took advantage of
the insurrection to extend his own domains. He invaded the
exarchate and got actual possession of Ravenna; whereat Pope
Gregory turned his influence to the Byzantine side, with such
effect that the Lombards were beaten back and Ravenna
recovered.
{2424}
In 731 Gregory II. died and was succeeded by Pope Gregory III.
"The election of Gregory III. to the papal chair was confirmed
by the Emperor Leo in the usual form; nor was that pope
consecrated until the mandate from Constantinople reached
Rome. This was the last time the emperors of the East were
solicited to confirm the election of a pope." Leo continued to
press his severe measures against image-worship, and the pope
boldly convened at Rome a synod of ninety-three bishops which
excommunicated the whole body of the Iconoclasts, emperor and
all. The latter now dispatched a strong expedition to Italy to
suppress the threatening papal power; but it came to naught,
and the Byzantine authority was practically at an end,
already, within the range of papal leadership. "From this
time, A. D. 733, the city of Rome enjoyed political
independence under the guidance and protection of the popes;
but the officers of the Byzantine emperors were allowed to
reside in the city, justice was publicly administered by
Byzantine judges, and the supremacy of the Eastern Empire was
still recognised. So completely, however, had Gregory III.
thrown off his allegiance, that he entered into negotiations
with Charles Martel, in order to induce that powerful prince
to take an active part in the affairs of Italy. The pope was
now a much more powerful personage than the Exarch of Ravenna,
for the cities of central Italy, which had assumed the control
of their local government, intrusted the conduct of their
external political relations to the care of Gregory, who thus
held the balance of power between the Eastern emperor and the
Lombard king. In the year 742, while Constantine V., the son
of Leo, was engaged with a civil war, the Lombards were on the
eve of conquering Ravenna, but Pope Zacharias threw the whole
of the Latin influence into the Byzantine scale, and enabled
the exarch to maintain his position until the year 751, when
Astolph, king of the Lombards, captured Ravenna. The exarch
retired to Naples, and the authority of the Byzantine emperors
in central Italy ended."
G. Finlay,
History of the Byzantine Empire,
book 1, chapter 1, section 2.
The Lombards, having obtained Ravenna and overturned the
throne of the Byzantine exarchs, were now bent on extending
their sovereignty over Rome. But the popes found an ally
beyond the Alps whose interests coincided with their own.
Pepin, the first Carolingian king of the Franks, went twice to
their rescue and broke the Lombard power; his son Charlemagne
finished the work, and by the acts of both these kings the
bishops of Rome were established in a temporal no less than a
spiritual principality.
See LOMBARDS: A. D. 754-774.
E. Gibbon,
Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,
chapter 49.
ALSO IN:
P. Godwin,
History of France: Ancient Gaul,
book 4, chapter 15.
See, also, FRANKS: A. D. 768-814.
PAPACY: A. D. 731-816.
The succession of Popes.
Gregory III., A. D. 731-741;
Zacharias, 741-752;
Stephen I. (or II.), 752;
Stephen II. (or III.), 752-757;
Paul I., 757-767;
Stephen III. (or IV.), 768-772;
Hadrian I., 772-795;
Leo III., 795-816.
PAPACY: A. D. 755-774.
Origin of the Papal States.
The Donations of Pepin and Charlemagne.
As the result of Pepin's second expedition to Italy (A. D.
755), "the Lombard king sued for quarter, promised to fulfil
the terms of the treaty made in the preceding year, and to
give up all the places mentioned in it. Pepin made them all
over to the Holy See, by a solemn deed, which was placed in
the archives of the Roman Church. … Pepin took such steps as
should insure the execution of the Lombard's oath. Ravenna,
Rimini, Resaro, Fano, Cesena, Sinigaglia, Jesi, Forlimpopoli,
Forli, Castrocaro, Montefeltro, Acerragio, Montelucari,
supposed to be the present Nocera, Serravalle, San Marigni,
Bobio, Urbino, Caglio, Luccoli, Eugubio, Comacchio and Narni
were evacuated by the Lombard troops; and the keys of the 22
cities were laid, with King Pepin's deed of gift, upon the
Confession of St. Peter. The independence of the Holy See was
established."
J; E. Darras,
General History of the Catholic Church,
period 3, chapter 10.
"An embassy from the Byzantine emperor asserted, during the
negotiation of the treaty, the claims of that sovereign to a
restoration of the exarchate; but their petitions and demands
failed of effect on 'the steadfast heart of Pippin' [or
Pepin], who declared that he had fought alone in behalf of St.
Peter, on whose Church he would bestow all the fruits of
victory. Fulrad, his abbot, was commissioned to receive the
keys of the twenty-two towns his arms had won, and to deposit
them as a donation on the grave of the apostle at Rome. Thus
the Pope was made the temporal head of that large district …
which, with some few changes, has been held by his
successors."
P. Godwin,
History of France: Ancient Gaul,
book 4, chapter 15.
"When on Pipin's death the restless Lombards again took up
arms and menaced the possessions of the Church, Pipin's son
Charles or Charlemagne swept down like a whirlwind from the
Alps at the call of Pope Hadrian [774], seized king Desiderius
in his capital, assumed himself the Lombard crown, and made
northern Italy thenceforward an integral part of the Frankish
empire. … Whether out of policy or from that sentiment of
reverence to which his ambitious mind did not refuse to bow,
he was moderate in claims of jurisdiction, he yielded to the
pontiff the place of honour in processions, and renewed,
although in the guise of a lord and conqueror, the gift of the
Exarchate and Pentapolis, which Pipin had made to the Roman
Church twenty years before."
J. Bryce,
The Holy Roman Empire,
chapter 4.
"It is reported, also, … that, jealous of the honor of
endowing the Holy See in his own name, he [Charlemagne]
amplified the gifts of Pippin by annexing to them the island
of Corsica, with the provinces of Parma, Mantua, Venice, and
Istria, and the duchies of Spoleto and Beneventum. … This
rests wholly upon the assertion of Anastasius; but Karl could
not give away what he did not possess, and we know that

Corsica, Venice and Beneventum were not held by the Franks
till several years later. … Of the nature and extent of these
gifts nothing is determined: that they did not carry the right
of eminent domain is clear from the subsequent exercise of
acts of sovereignty within them by the Frankish monarchs; and
the probability is, according to the habits of the times, that
the properties were granted only under some form of feudal
vassalage."
P. Godwin,
History of France: Ancient Gaul,
book 4, chapter 16.
E. Gibbon,
Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,
chapter 49.
{2425}
"Indefinite in their terms, these grants were never meant by
the donors to convey full dominion over the districts—that
belonged to the head of the Empire—but only as in the case of
other church estates, a perpetual usufruct or 'dominium
utile.' They were, in fact, mere endowments. Nor had the gifts
been ever actually reduced into possession."
J. Bryce,
The Holy Roman Empire,
chapter 10.
PAPACY: A. D. 774 (?).
Forgery of the "Donation of Constantine."
"Before the end of the 8th century some apostolical scribe,
perhaps the notorious Isidore, composed the decretals and the
donation of Constantine, the two magic pillars of the
spiritual and temporal monarchy of the popes.
See PAPACY: A. D. 829-847.
This memorable donation was introduced to the world by an
epistle of Adrian I., who exhorts Charlemagne to imitate the
liberality and revive the name of the great Constantine.
According to the legend, the first of the Christian emperors
was healed of the leprosy, and purified in the waters of
baptism, by St. Silvester, the Roman bishop; and never was
physician more gloriously recompensed. His royal proselyte
withdrew from the seat and patrimony of St. Peter, declared
his resolution of founding a new capital in the East; and
resigned to the popes the free and perpetual sovereignty of
Rome, Italy, and the provinces of the West. This fiction was
productive of the most beneficial effects. The Greek princes
were convicted of the guilt of usurpation: and the revolt of
Gregory was the claim of his lawful inheritance. The popes
were delivered from their debt of gratitude; and the nominal
gifts of the Carlovingians were no more than the just and
irrevocable restitution of a scanty portion of the
ecclesiastical State."
E. Gibbon,
Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,
chapter 49.
"But this is not all, although this is what historians, in
admiration of its splendid audacity, have chiefly dwelt upon.
The edict proceeds to grant to the Roman pontiff and his
clergy a series of dignities and privileges, all of them
enjoyed by the emperor and his senate, all of them shewing the
same desire to make the pontifical a copy of the imperial
office. The Pope is to inhabit the Lateran palace, to wear the
diadem, the collar, the purple cloak, to carry the sceptre,
and to be attended by a body of chamberlains. … The practice
of kissing the Pope's foot was adopted in imitation of the old
imperial court. It was afterwards revived by the German
Emperors."
J. Bryce,
The Holy Roman Empire,
chapter 7, and foot-note.
ALSO IN:
M. Gosselin,
The Power of the Pope in the Middle Ages,
volume 1, page 817.
E. F. Henderson,
Select Historical Documents of the Middle Ages,
book 8, number 8.
PAPACY: A. D. 800.
The giving of the Roman imperial crown to Charlemagne.
See GERMANY: A. D. 687-800; and 800.
PAPACY: A. D. 816-1073.
The succession of Popes.
Stephen IV. (or V.), A. D. 816-817;
Paschal I., 817-:824;
Eugene II., 824-827;
Valentine, 827;
Gregory IV., 827-844;
Sergius II., 844-847;
Leo IV., 847-855;
Benedict III.; 855-858:
Nicholas I., 858-867;
Hadrian II., 867-872;
John VIII., 872-882;
Marinus: 882-884;
Hadrian III., 884-885;
Stephen V. (or VI.), 885-891;
Formosus, 891-896;
Boniface VI., 896;
Stephen VI. (or VII.), 896-897;
Romanus, 897-898;
Theodore II., 898;
John IX., 898-900;
Benedict IV., 900-908;
Leo V., 908;
Sergius III., 904-911;
Anastasius III., 911-918;
Lando, 913-914;
John X., 914-928;
Leo VI., 928-929;
Stephen VII. (or VIII.), 929-981;
John XI., 981-986;
Leo VII., 936-989;
Stephen VIII. (or IX.). 989-942:
Marinus II.,942-946;
Agapetus II., 946-956;
John XII., 956-964;
Leo VIII., antipope, 963-965;
Benedict V., 964-965;
John XIII., 965-972;
Benedict VI., 972-974;
Donus II., 974-975;
Benedict VII., 975-984;
John XIV., 984-985;
John XV., 985-996;
Gregory V., 996-999;
John XVI., antipope, 997-998;
Sylvester II., 999-1003;
John XVII., 1003;
John XVIII., 1003-1009;
Sergius IV., 1009-1012:
Benedict VIII., 1012-1024;
John XIX., 1024-1033;
Benedict IX., 1033-1044;
Sylvester III., antipope, 1044;
Gregory VI., 1044-1046;
Clement II., 1046-1047;
Benedict IX., 1047-1048;
Damasus II., 1048;
Leo IX., 1049-1054;
Victor II., 1055-1057;
Stephen IX. (or X.), 1057-1058:
Benedict X., antipope, 1058-1059;
Nicholas II., 1058-1061;
Alexander II., 1061-1073.
PAPACY: A. D. 829-847.
The False Decretals.
"There existed in each of the national churches, a collection
of ecclesiastical laws, or canons, which were made use of as
circumstances required. One of these collections was in use in
Spain as early as the sixth century, and was subsequently
attributed to Isidore, Bishop of Seville. Towards the middle
of the ninth century, a new recension of these canons appeared
in France, based upon the so–called Isidorian collection, but
into which many spurious fragments, borrowed from private
collections and bearing upon their face incontestable evidence
of the ignorance of their authors, had been introduced. This
recension contained also a number of forged documents. There
were, altogether, above a hundred spurious decrees of popes,
from Clement to Damasus (A. D. 384), not to mention some of
other popes, and many false canons of councils. It also
contained the forged Deed of Donation ascribed to Constantine
[see above: A. D. 774?]. However, these decretals, which, as
they stand, are now proved, both by intrinsic and extrinsic
arguments, to be impudent forgeries, are nevertheless, in
matter of fact, the real utterances of popes, though not of
those to whom they are ascribed, and hence the forgery is, on
the whole, one of chronological location, and does not affect
their essential character."
J. Alzog,
Manual of Universal Church History,
volume 2, page 195.
"Various opinions exist as to the time at which this
collection was made, and the precise date of its publication.
Mabillon supposes the compilation to have been made about A.
D. 785; and in this opinion he is followed by others. But the
collection did not appear until after the death of
Charlemagne. Some think that these Decretals cannot be of an
earlier date than 829, and Blondel supposed that he discovered
in them traces of the acts of a council at Paris held in that
year. All that can be determined is that most probably the
Decretals were first published in France, perhaps at Mayence,
about the middle of the ninth century; but it is impossible to
discover their real author. The spuriousness of these
Decretals was first exposed by the Magdeburg Centuriators,
with a degree of historical and critical acumen beyond the age
in which they lived. The Jesuit Turrianus endeavoured, but in
vain, to defend the spurious documents against this attack. …
Of these Epistles none (except two, which appear on other
grounds to be spurious) were ever heard of before the ninth
century. They contain a vast number of anachronisms and
historical inaccuracies.
{2426}
Passages are quoted from more recent writings, including the
Vulgate, according to the version of Jerome; and, although the
several Epistles profess to have been written by different
pontiffs, the style is manifestly uniform, and often very
barbarous, such as could not have proceeded from Roman writers
of the first century. … The success of this forgery would
appear incredible, did we not take into account the weak and
confused government of the successors of Charlemagne, in whose
time it was promulgated; the want of critical acumen and
resources in that age; the skill with which the pontiffs made
use of the Decretals only by degrees; and the great authority
and power possessed by the Roman pontiffs in these times. The
name of Isidore also served to recommend these documents, many
persons being ready to believe that they were in fact only a
completion of the genuine collection of Isidore, which was
highly esteemed. … The unknown compiler was subsequently
called Pseudo-Isidorus."
J. E. Riddle,
History of the Papacy,
volume 1, pages 405-407.
ALSO IN:
A. Neander,
General History of the Christian Religion and Church,
volume 6 (Bohn's edition), pages 2-8.
H. H. Milman,
History of Latin Christianity,
book 5, chapter 4.
M. Gosselin,
The Power of the Pope,
volume 1, page 317.
J. N. Murphy,
The Chair of Peter,
chapter 9.
H. C. Lea,
Studies in Christian History,
pp. 43-76.
P. Schaff,
History of the Christian Church,
volume 4, chapter 4, section 60.
PAPACY: A. D. 887-1046.
Demoralization of the Church.
Degradation of the Holy See.
Reforms of the Emperor, Henry III.
"No exaggeration is possible of the demoralized state into
which the Christian world, and especially the Church of Rome,
had fallen in the years that followed the extinction of the
Carlovingian line (A. D. 887). The tenth century is even known
among Protestants 'par excellence' as the sæculum obscurum,
and Baronius expresses its portentous corruption in the vivid
remark that Christ was as if asleep in the vessel of the
Church. 'The infamies prevalent among the clergy of the time,'
says Mr. Bowden [Life of Hildebrand], 'as denounced by Damiani
and others, are to be alluded to, not detailed.' … When
Hildebrand was appointed to the monastery of St. Paul at Rome,
he found the offices of devotion systematically neglected, the
house of prayer defiled by the sheep and cattle who found
their way in and out through its broken doors, and the monks,
contrary to all monastic rule, attended in their refectory by
women. The excuse for these irregularities was the destitution
to which the holy house was reduced by the predatory bands of
Campagna; but when the monastic bodies were rich, as was the
case in Germany, matters were worse instead of better. … At
the close of the ninth century, Stephen VI. dragged the body
of an obnoxious predecessor from the grave, and, after
subjecting it to a mock trial, cut off its head and three
fingers, and threw it into the Tiber. He himself was
subsequently deposed, and strangled in prison. In the years
that followed, the power of electing to the popedom fell into
the hands of the intriguing and licentious Theodora, and her
equally unprincipled daughters, Theodora and Marozia.
See ROME: A. D. 903-964].
These women, members of a patrician family, by their arts and
beauty, obtained an unbounded influence over the aristocratic
tyrants of the city. One of the Theodoras advanced a lover,
and Marozia a son, to the popedom. The grandson of the latter,
Octavian, succeeding to her power, as well as to the civil
government of the city, elevated himself, on the death of the
then Pope, to the apostolic chair, at the age of eighteen,
under the title of John XII. (A. D. 956). His career was in
keeping with such a commencement. 'The Lateran Palace,' says
Mr. Bowden, 'was disgraced by becoming a receptacle for
courtezans: and decent females were terrified from pilgrimages
to the threshold of the Apostles by the reports which were
spread abroad of the lawless impurity and violence of their
representative and successor.' … At length he was carried off
by a rapid illness, or by the consequences of a blow received
in the prosecution of his intrigues. Boniface VII. (A. D.
974), in the space of a few weeks after his elevation,
plundered the treasury and basilica of St. Peter of all he
could conveniently carry off, and fled to Constantinople. John
XVIII. (A. D. 1003) expressed his readiness, for a sum of
money from the Emperor Basil, to recognize the right of the
Greek Patriarch to the title of ecumenical or universal
bishop, and the consequent degradation of his own see; and was
only prevented by the general indignation excited by the
report of his intention. Benedict IX. (A. D. 1033) was
consecrated Pope, according to some authorities, at the age of
ten or twelve years, and became notorious for adulteries and
murders. At length he resolved on marrying his first cousin;
and, when her father would not assent except on the condition
of his resigning the popedom, he sold it for a large sum, and
consecrated the purchaser as his successor. Such are a few of
the most prominent features of the ecclesiastical history of
these dreadful times, when, in the words of St. Bruno, 'the
world lay in wickedness, holiness had disappeared, justice had
perished, and truth had been buried; Simon Magus lording it
over the Church, whose bishops and priests were given to
luxury and fornication.' Had we lived in such deplorable times
as have been above described … we should have felt for
certain, that if it was possible to retrieve the Church, it
must be by some external power; she was helpless and
resourceless; and the civil power must interfere, or there was
no hope. So thought the young and zealous emperor, Henry III.
(A. D. 1039), who, though unhappily far from a perfect
character, yet deeply felt the shame to which the Immaculate
Bride was exposed, and determined with his own right hand to
work her deliverance. … This well-meaning prince did begin
that reformation which ended in the purification and
monarchical estate of the Church. He held a Council of his
Bishops in 1047; in it he passed a decree that 'Whosoever
should make any office or station in the Church a subject of
purchase or sale, should suffer deprivation and be visited
with excommunication;' at the same time, with regard to his
own future conduct, he solemnly pledged himself as
follows:—'As God has freely of His mere mercy bestowed upon me
the crown of the empire, so will I give freely and without
price all things that pertain unto His religion.' This was his
first act; but he was aware that the work of reform, to be
thoroughly executed, must proceed from Rome, as the centre of
the ecclesiastical commonwealth, and he determined, upon those
imperial precedents and feudal principles which Charlemagne had
introduced, himself to appoint a Pope, who should be the
instrument of his general reformation.
{2427}
The reigning Pope at this time was Gregory VI., and he
introduces us to so curious a history that we shall devote
some sentences to it. Gregory was the identical personage who
had bought the papal office of the profligate Benedict IX. for
a large sum, and was consecrated by him, and yet he was far
from a bad sort of man after all. … He had been known in the
world as John Gratianus; and at the time of his promotion was
arch-priest of Rome. 'He was considered,' says Mr. Bowden, 'in
those bad times more than ordinarily religious; he had lived
free from the gross vices by which the clergy were too
generally disgraced.' … He could not be quite said to have
come into actual possession of his purchase; for Benedict, his
predecessor, who sold it to him, being disappointed in his
intended bride, returned to Rome after an absence of three
months, and resumed his pontifical station, while the party of
his intended father-in-law had had sufficient influence to
create a Pope of their own, John, Bishop of Sabina, who paid a
high price for his elevation, and took the title of Sylvester
III. And thus there were three self-styled Popes at once in
the Holy City, Benedict performing his sacred functions at the
Lateran, Gregory at St. Peter's, and Sylvester at Santa Maria
Maggiore. Gregory, however, after a time, seemed to
preponderate over his antagonists; he maintained a body of
troops, and with these he suppressed the suburban robbers who
molested the pilgrims. Expelling them from the sacred limits
of St. Peter's, he carried his arms further, till he had
cleared the neighbouring towns and roads of these marauders. …
This was the point of time at which the Imperial Reformer made
his visitation of the Church and See of the Apostles. He came
into Italy in the autumn of 1046, and held a Council at Sutri,
a town about thirty miles to the north of Rome. Gregory was
allowed to preside; and, when under his auspices the
abdication of Benedict had been recorded, and Sylvester had
been stripped of his sacerdotal rank and shut up in a
monastery for life, Gregory's own turn came" and he was
persuaded to pronounce a sentence of condemnation upon himself
and to vacate the pontifical chair. "The new Pope whom the
Emperor gave to the Church instead of Gregory VI., Clement
II., a man of excellent character, died within the year.
Damasus II. also, who was his second nomination, died in three
or four weeks after his formal assumption of his pontifical
duties. Bruno, Bishop of Toul, was his third choice. … And now
we are arrived at the moment when the State reformer struck
his foot against the hidden rock. … He had chosen a Pope, but
'quis custodiat ipsos custodes'? What was to keep fast that
Pope in that very view of the relation of the State to the
Church, that plausible Erastianism, as it has since been
called, which he adopted himself? What is to secure the Pope
from the influences of some Hildebrand at his elbow, who, a
young man himself, shall rehearse, in the person of his
superior, that part which he is one day to play in his own, as
Gregory VII.? Such was the very fact; Hildebrand was with Leo,
and thus commences the ecclesiastical career of that wonderful
man."
J. H. Newman,
Essays Critical and Historical,
volume 2, pages 255-265.
See, also, ROME: A. D. 962-1057;
and GERMANY: A. D. 973-1122.
PAPACY: A. D. 1053.
Naples and Sicily granted as fiefs of the Church
to the sons of Tancred—the Normans.
See ITALY (SOUTHERN): A. D. 1000-1090.
PAPACY: A. D. 1054.
The Filioque Controversy.
Separation of the Orthodox (Greek) Church.
See FILIOQUE CONTROVERSY;
also, CHRISTIANITY: A. D. 330-1054.
PAPACY: A. D. 1056-1122.
Hildebrand and Henry IV.
The imperious pontifical reign of Gregory VII.
Empire and Papacy in conflict.
The War of Investitures.
"Son of a Tuscan carpenter, but, as his name shows, of German
origin, Hildebrand had been from childhood a monk in the
monastery of Sta Maria, on Mount Aventine, at Rome, where his
uncle was abbot, and where he became the pupil of a learned
Benedictine archbishop, the famous Laurentius of Amalfi, and
formed a tender friendship with St. Odilon of Cluny [or
Clugny]. Having early attached himself to the virtuous Pope
Gregory VI., it was with indignation that he saw him
confounded with two unworthy competitors, and deposed together
with them by the arbitrary influence of the emperor at Sutri.
He followed the exiled pontiff to France, and, after his
death, went to enrol himself among the monks of Cluny, where
he had previously resided, and where, according to several
writers, he held the office of prior. During a part of his
youth, however, he must have lived at the German Court, where
he made a great impression on the Emperor Henry III., and on
the best bishops of the country, by the eloquence of his
preaching. … It was at Cluny that Hildebrand met, in 1049, the
new Pope, Bruno, Bishop of Toul. … Bruno himself had been a
monk: his cousin, the Emperor Henry III., had, by his own
authority, caused him to be elected at Worms, December 1048,
and proclaimed under the name of Leo IX. Hildebrand, seeing
him already clothed with the pontifical purple, reproached him
for having accepted the government of the Church, and advised
him to guard ecclesiastical liberty by being canonically
elected at Rome. Bruno yielded to this salutary remonstrance;
laying aside the purple and the pontifical ornaments, he
caused Hildebrand to accompany him to Rome, where his election
was solemnly renewed by the Roman clergy and people. This was
the first blow given to the usurped authority of the emperor.
From that moment Hildebrand was withdrawn from Cluny by the
Pope, in spite of the strong resistance of the Abbot St. Hugh.
Created Cardinal Subdeacon of the Roman Church, and Abbot of
San Paolo fuori le Mura, he went on steadily towards the end
he had in view. Guided by his advice, Leo IX., after having
renewed his courage at Monte Cassino, prepared several decrees
of formal condemnation against the sale of benefices and
against the marriage of priests; and these decrees were
fulminated in a series of councils on both sides the Alps, at
Rome, Verceil, Mayence, and Reims. The enemy, till then calm
in the midst of his usurped rule, felt himself sharply
wounded. Nevertheless, the simoniacal bishops, accomplices or
authors of all the evils the Pope wished to cure, pretended as
well as they could not to understand the nature and drift of
the pontiff's act. They hoped time would be their friend; but
they were soon undeceived.
{2428}
Among the many assemblies convoked and presided over by Pope
Leo IX., the Council of Reims, held in 1094, was the most
important. … Henry I., King of France, opposed the holding of
this Council with all his might. … The Pope stood his ground:
he was only able to gather round him twenty bishops; but, on
the other hand, there came fifty Benedictine abbots. Thanks to
their support, energetic canons were promulgated against the
two great scandals of the time, and several guilty prelates
were deposed. They went still further: a decree pronounced by
this Council vindicated, for the first time in many years, the
freedom of ecclesiastical elections, by declaring that no
promotion to the episcopate should be valid without the choice
of the clergy and people. This was the first signal of the
struggle for the enfranchisement of the Church, and the first
token of the preponderating influence of Hildebrand. From that
time all was changed. A new spirit breathed on the Church —a
new life thrilled the heart of the papacy. … Vanquished and
made prisoner by the Normans—not yet, as under St. Gregory
VII., transformed into devoted champions of the Church —Leo
IX. vanquished them, in turn, by force of courage and
holiness, and wrested from them their first oath of fidelity
to the Holy See while granting to them a first investiture of
their conquests. Death claimed the pontiff when he had reigned
five years. … At the moment when the struggle between the
papacy and the Western empire became open and terrible, the
East, by a mysterious decree of Providence, finally separated
itself from Catholic unity. … The schism was completed by
Michael Cerularius, whom the Emperor Constantine Monomachius
had placed, in 1043, on the patriarchal throne. The separation
took place under the vain pretext of Greek and Latin
observances on the subject of unleavened bread, of strangled
meats, and of the singing of the Alleluia. … Leo IX. being
dead, the Romans wished to elect Hildebrand, and only
renounced their project at his most earnest entreaties. He
then hastened to cross the Alps, and directed his steps to
Germany [1054], provided with full authority from the Roman
clergy and people to choose, under the eyes of the Emperor
Henry III., whoever, among the prelates of the empire, that
prince should judge most worthy of the tiara. … Hildebrand
selected Gebhard, Bishop of Eichstadt; and in spite of the
emperor, who desired to keep near him a bishop who enjoyed his
entire confidence—in spite even of Gebhard himself—he carried
him off to Rome, where, according to the ancient custom, the
clergy proceeded to his election under the name of Victor II.
The new Pope, at the risk of his life, adhered to the counsels
of Hildebrand, and continued the war made by his predecessor
on simoniacal bishops and married priests. … At this crisis
[October, 1056] the Emperor Henry III. died in the flower of
his age, leaving the throne of Germany to his only son, a
child of six years old, but already elected and crowned—the
regent being his mother, the Empress Agnes. … Victor II. had
scarcely followed the emperor to the tomb [July, 1057] when
the Roman clergy hastened, for the first time, to elect a Pope
without any imperial intervention. In the absence of
Hildebrand, the unanimous choice of the electors fixed on the
former chancellor and legate at Constantinople of Leo IX., on
Frederic, monk and abbot of Monte Cassino," raised to the
throne by the name of Stephen, sometimes numbered as the
ninth, but generally as the tenth Pope of that name.
Count de Montalambert,
The Monks of the West,
book 19, chapter 2 (volume 6).
Stephen X. died in the year following his election, and again
the papal chair was filled during the absence of Hildebrand
from Rome. The new Pope, who took the name of Benedict X., was
obnoxious to the reforming party, of which Hildebrand was the
head, and the validity of his election was denied. With the
support of the imperial court in Germany, Gerard, Bishop of
Florence, was raised to the throne, as Nicholas II., and his
rival gave way to him. Nicholas II., dying in 1061, was
succeeded by Alexander II. elected equally under Hildebrand's
influence. On the death of Alexander in 1073, Hildebrand
himself was forced against his will, to accept the papal
tiara. He "knew well the difficulties that would beset one who
should endeavour to govern the Church as became an upright and
conscientious Pope. Hence, dreading the responsibility, he
protested, but to no purpose, against his own elevation to the
papal throne. … Shrinking from its onerous duties, Gregory
thought he saw one way still open by which he might escape the
burden. The last decree on papal elections contained an
article requiring that the Pope-elect should receive the
approval of the Emperor of Germany. Gregory, who still assumed
only the title of 'Bishop-elect of Rome,' notified Henry IV.,
King of Germany and Emperor–elect, of what had taken place,
and begged him not to approve the action or confirm the choice
of the Romans. 'But should you,' he went on to say, 'deny my
prayer, I beg to assure you that I shall most certainly not
allow your scandalous and notorious excesses to go
unpunished.' Several historians, putting this bold declaration
beside the decree of Nicholas II. (A. D. 1059), which went on
the assumption that the King of Germany did not enjoy the
right of approving the Pope-elect until after he had been
crowned Emperor, and then, only by a concession made to
himself personally, have pronounced it suppositious. But when
it is recollected that its authenticity rests upon the
combined testimony of Bonizo, Bishop of Sutri, the friend of
Hildebrand, and of William, abbot of Metz, as well as on the
authority of the Acta Vaticana, it is difficult to see how the
objection can be sustained. … Henry IV., on receiving news of
Hildebrand's election, sent Count Eberhard, of Nellenburg, as
his plenipotentiary to Rome to protest against the proceeding.
The politic Hildebrand was careful not to be taken at a
disadvantage. 'I have indeed' said he, 'been elected by the
people, but against my own will. I would not, however, allow
myself to be forced to take priest's orders until my election
should have been ratified by the king and the princes of
Germany.' Lambert of Hersfeld informs us that Henry was so
pleased with this manner of speech that he gave orders to
allow the consecration to go on, and the ceremony was
accordingly performed on the Feast of the Purification in the
following year (A. D. 1074). This is the last instance of a
papal election being ratified by an emperor. … Out of respect
to the memory of Gregory VI., his former friend and master,
Hildebrand, on ascending the papal throne, took the
ever–illustrious name of Gregory VII."
J. Alzog,
Manual of Universal Church History,
volume 2, page 347-348.
{2429}
"From the most remote Christian antiquity, the marriage of
clergymen had been regarded with the dislike, and their
celibacy rewarded by the commendation, of the people. … This
prevailing sentiment had ripened into a customary law, and the
observance of that custom had been enforced by edicts and
menaces, by rewards and penalties. But nature had triumphed
over tradition, and had proved too strong for Councils and for
Popes. When Hildebrand ascended the chair first occupied by a
married Apostle, his spirit burned within him to see that
marriage held in her impure and unhallowed bonds a large
proportion of those who ministered at the altar, and who
handled there the very substance of the incarnate Deity. It
was a profanation well adapted to arouse the jealousy, not
less than to wound the conscience, of the Pontiff. Secular
cares suited ill with the stern duties of a theocratic
ministry. Domestic affections would choke or enervate in them
that corporate passion which might otherwise be directed with
unmitigated ardour towards their chief and centre. Clerical
celibacy would exhibit to those who trod the outer courts of
the great Christian temple, the impressive and subjugating
image of a transcendental perfection, too pure not only for
the coarser delights of sense, but even for the alloy of
conjugal or parental love. It would fill the world with
adherents of Rome, in whom every feeling would be quenched
which could rival that sacred allegiance. … With such
anticipations, Gregory, within a few weeks from his accession,
convened a council at the Lateran, and proposed a law, not, as
formerly, forbidding merely the marriage of priests, but
commanding every priest to put away his wife, and requiring
all laymen to abstain from any sacred office which any wedded
priest might presume to celebrate. Never was legislative
foresight so verified by the result. What the great Council of
Nicæa had attempted in vain, the Bishops assembled in the
presence of Hildebrand accomplished, at his instance, at once,
effectually, and for ever. Lamentable indeed were the
complaints, bitter the reproaches, of the sufferers. Were the
most sacred ties thus to be torn asunder at the ruthless
bidding of an Italian priest? Were men to become angels, or
were angels to be brought down from heaven to minister among
men? Eloquence was never more pathetic, more just, or more
unavailing. Prelate after prelate silenced these complaints by
austere rebukes. Legate after legate arrived with papal
menaces to the remonstrants. Monks and abbots preached the
continency they at least professed. Kings and barons laughed
over their cups at many a merry tale of compulsory divorce.
Mobs pelted, hooted, and besmeared with profane and filthy
baptisms the unhappy victims of pontifical rigour. It was a
struggle not to be prolonged —broken hearts pined and died
away in silence. Expostulations subsided into murmurs, and
murmurs were drowned in the general shout of victory. Eight
hundred years have since passed away. Amidst the wreck of
laws, opinions, and institutions, this decree of Hildebrand's
still rules the Latin Church, in every land where sacrifices
are offered on her altars. … With this Spartan rigour towards
his adherents, Gregory combined a more than Athenian address
and audacity towards his rivals and antagonists. So long as
the monarchs of the West might freely bestow on the objects of
their choice the sees and abbeys of their states, papal
dominion could be but a passing dream, and papal independency
an empty boast. Corrupt motives usually determined that
choice; and the objects of it were but seldom worthy.
Ecclesiastical dignities were often sold to the highest
bidder, and then the purchaser indemnified himself by a use no
less mercenary of his own patronage; or they were given as a
reward to some martial retainer, and the new churchman could
not forget that he had once been a soldier. The cope and the
coat-of-mail were worn alternately. The same hand bore the
crucifix in the holy festival, and the sword in the day of
battle. … In the hands of the newly consecrated Bishop was
placed a staff, and on his finger a ring, which, received as
they were from his temporal sovereign, proclaimed that homage
and fealty were due to him alone. And thus the sacerdotal
Proconsuls of Rome became, in sentiment at least, and by the
powerful obligation of honour, the vicegerents, not of the
Pontifex Maximus, but of the Imperator. To dissolve this
'trinoda necessitas' of simoniacal preferments, military
service, and feudal vassalage, a feebler spirit would have
exhorted, negotiated, and compromised. To Gregory it belonged
to subdue men by courage, and to rule them by reverence.
Addressing the world in the language of his generation, he
proclaimed to every potentate, from the Baltic to the Straits
of Calpé, that all human authority being holden of the divine,
and God himself having delegated his own sovereignty over men
to the Prince of the Sacred College, a divine right to
universal obedience was the inalienable attribute of the Roman
Pontiffs. … In turning ever the collection of the epistles of
Hildebrand, we are every where met by this doctrine asserted
in a tone of the calmest dignity and the most serene
conviction. Thus he informs the French monarch that every
house in his kingdom owed to Peter, as their father and
pastor, an annual tribute of a penny, and he commands his
legates to collect it in token of the subjection of France to
the Holy See. He assures Solomon the King of Hungary, that his
territories are the property of the Holy Roman Church. Solomon
being incredulous and refractory, was dethroned by his
competitor for the Hungarian crown. His more prudent
successor, Ladislaus, acknowledged himself the vassal of the
Pope, and paid him tribute. … From every part of the European
continent, Bishops are summoned by these imperial missives to
Rome, and there are either condemned and deposed, or absolved
and confirmed in their sees. In France, in Spain, and in
Germany, we find his legates exercising the same power; and
the correspondence records many a stern rebuke, sometimes for
their undue remissness, sometimes for their misapplied
severity. The rescripts of Trajan scarcely exhibit a firmer
assurance both of the right and the power to control every
other authority, whether secular or sacerdotal, throughout the
civilized world."
Sir J. Stephen,
Hildebrand
(Edinburgh Review, April, 1845).
{2430}
"At first Gregory appeared to desire to direct his weapons
against King Philip of France, 'the worst of, the tyrants who
enslaved the Church.' … But with a more correct estimate of
the circumstances of Germany and the dangers which threatened
from Lombardy, he let this conflict drop and turned against
Henry IV. The latter had so alienated Saxony and Thuringia by
harsh proceedings, that they desired to accuse him to the Pope
of oppression and simony. Gregory immediately demanded the
dismissal of the councillors who had been excommunicated by
his predecessor. His mother, who was devoted to the Pope,
sought to mediate, and the Saxon revolt which now broke out
(still in 1073) still further induced him to give way. He
wrote a submissive letter to the Pope, rendered a repentant
confession at Nuremberg in 1074 in the presence of his mother
and two Roman cardinals, and, along with the excommunicated
councillors, who had promised on oath to surrender all church
properties obtained by simony, was received into the communion
of the Church. … But … Henry, after overthrowing his enemies,
soon returned to his old manner, and the German clergy
resisted the interference of the Pope. At the Roman Synod
(February, 1075) Gregory then decreed numerous ecclesiastical
penalties against resistant German and Lombard bishops, and
five councillors of the King were once more laid under the ban
on account of simony. But in addition, at a Roman synod of the
same year, he carried through the bold law of investiture,
which prohibited bishops and abbots from receiving a bishopric
or abbacy from the hands of a layman, and prohibited the
rulers from conferring investiture on penalty of
excommunication. Before the publication of the law Gregory
caused confidential overtures to be made to the King, in
order, as it seems, to give the King an opportunity of taking
measures to obviate the threatening dangers which were
involved in this extreme step. At the same time he himself was
threatened and entangled on all hands; Robert Guiscard, whom
he had previously excommunicated, he once more laid under the
ban. … Henry, who in the summer of 1075 still negotiated
directly with the Pope through ambassadors, after completely
overthrowing the Saxons now ceased to pay any attention. … At
Worms (24th January 1076) he caused a great portion of the
German bishops to declare the deposition of the Pope who, as
was said, was shattering the Empire and degrading the bishops.
The Lombard bishops subscribed the decree of deposition at
Piacenza and Pavia. Its bearers aroused a fearful storm
against themselves at the Lenten Synod of Rome (1076), and
Gregory now declared the excommunication and deposition of
Henry, and released his subjects from their oath. Serious
voices did indeed deny the Pope's right to the latter course;
but a portion of the German bishops at once humbled themselves
before the Pope, others began to waver, and the German
princes, angered over Henry's government, demanded at Tribur
in October, 1076, that the King should give satisfaction to
the Pope, and the Pope hold judgment on Henry in Germany
itself; if by his own fault Henry should remain under the ban
for a year's time, another King was to be elected. Henry then
resolved to make his peace with the Pope in order to take
their weapon out of the hands of the German princes. Before
the Pope came to Germany, he hastened in the winter with his
wife and child from Besançon, over Mont Cenis, and found a
friendly reception in Lombardy, so that the Pope, already on
the way to Germany, betook himself to the Castle of Canossa to
the Margravine Matilda of Tuscany, fearing an evil turn of
affairs from Henry and the Lombards who were hostile to the
Pope. But Henry was driven by his threatened position in
Germany to seek release from the ban above every thing. This
brought him as a penitent into the courtyard of Canossa
(January 1077), where Gregory saw him stand from morning till
evening during three days before he released him from the ban
at the intercession of Matilda."
W. Moeller,
History of the Christian Church in the Middle Ages,
pages 256-258.
"It was on the 25th of January, 1077, that the scene took
place, which, as is natural, has seized so strongly upon the
popular imagination, and has so often supplied a theme for the
brush of the painter, the periods of the historian, the verse
of the poet. … The king was bent upon escaping at any
sacrifice from the bond of excommunication and from his
engagement to appear before the Pontiff, at the Diet summoned
at Augsburg for the Feast of the Purification. The character
in which he presented himself before Gregory was that of a
penitent, throwing himself in deep contrition upon the
Apostolic clemency, and desirous of reconciliation with the
Church. The Pope, after so long experience of his duplicity,
disbelieved in his sincerity, while, as a mere matter of
policy, it was in the highest degree expedient to keep him to
his pact with the German princes and prelates. … On three
successive days did he appear barefooted in the snowy
court-yard of the castle, clad in the white garb of a
penitent, suing for relief from ecclesiastical censure. It was
difficult for Gregory to resist the appeal thus made to his
fatherly compassion, the more especially as Hugh, Abbot of
Cluny, and the Countess Matilda besought him 'not to break the
bruised reed.' Against his better judgment, and in despite of
the warnings of secular prudence, the Pope consented on the
fourth day to admit to his presence the royal suppliant. … The
conditions of absolution imposed upon the king were mainly
four: that he should present himself upon a day and at a
place, to be named by the Pontiff, to receive the judgment of
the Apostolic See, upon the charges preferred by the princes
and prelates of Germany, and that he should abide the
Pontifical sentence—his subjects meanwhile remaining released
from their oath of fealty; that he should respect the rights
of the Church and carry out the papal decrees; and that breach
of this engagement should entitle the Teutonic magnates to
proceed to the election of another king. Such were the terms
to which Henry solemnly pledged himself, and on the faith of
that pledge the Pontiff, assuming the vestments of religion,
proceeded to absolve him with the appointed rites. … So ends
the first act in this great tragedy. Gregory's misgivings as
to the king's sincerity soon receive too ample justification.
'Fear not,' the Pontiff is reported to have said, with half
contemptuous sadness to the Saxon envoys who complained of his
lenity to the monarch: 'Fear not, I send him back to you more
guilty than he came.' Henry's words to the Pope had been
softer than butter; but he had departed with war in his heart.
… Soon he lays a plot for seizing Gregory at Mantua, whither
the Pontiff is invited for the purpose of presiding over a
Council. But the vigilance of the Great Countess foils the
proposed treachery.
{2431}
Shortly the ill-advised monarch again assumes an attitude of
open hostility to the Pope. … The Teutonic princes, glad to
throw off an authority which they loathe and despise—not
heeding the advice to pause given by the Roman legates—proceed
at the Diet of Forchein to the election of another king. Their
choice falls upon Rudolph of Swabia, who is crowned at Metz on
the 20th of March, 1077. The situation is now complicated by
the strife between the two rival sovereigns. … At last, in
Lent, 1080, Gregory, no longer able to tolerate the continual
violation by Henry of the pledges given at Canossa, and
greatly moved by tidings of his new and manifold sacrileges
and cruelties, pronounces again the sentence of
excommunication against him, releasing his subjects from their
obedience, and recognizing Rudolph as king. Henry thereupon
calls together some thirty simoniacal and incontinent prelates
at Brixen, and causes them to go through the form of electing
an anti-pope in the person of Guibert, Archbishop of Ravenna,
an ecclesiastic some time previously excommunicated by Gregory
for grave offences. Then the tide turns in Henry's favour. At
the battle of the Elster (15th October, 1080), Rudolph is
defeated and mortally wounded, and on the same day the army of
the Great Countess is overthrown and dispersed at La Volta in
the Mantuan territory. Next year, in the early spring, Henry
crosses the Alps and advances towards Rome. … A little before
Pentecost Henry appears under the walls of the Papal city,
expecting that his party within it will throw open the gates
to him; but his expectation is disappointed. … In 1082, the
monarch again advances upon Rome and ineffectually assaults
it. In the next year he makes a third and more successful
attempt, and captures the Leonine city. … On the 21st of
March, 1084, the Lateran Gate is opened to Henry by the
treacherous Romans, and the excommunicated monarch, with the
anti-pope by his side, rides in triumph through the streets.
The next day, Guibert solemnly takes possession of St. John
Lateran, and bestows the Imperial Crown upon Henry in the
Vatican Basilica. Meanwhile Gregory is shut up in the Castle
of St. Angelo. Thence, after six weeks, he is delivered by
Guiscard, Duke of Calabria, the faithful vassal of the Holy
See. But the burning of the city by Guiscard's troops, upon
the uprising of the Romans, turns the joy of his rescue into
mourning. Eight days afterwards he quits 'the smoking ruins of
his once beautiful Rome,' and after pausing for a few days, at
Monte Casino, reaches Salerno, where his life pilgrimage is to
end."
W. S. Lilly,
The Turning-Point of the Middle Ages
(Contemporary Review, August, 1882).
Gregory died at Salerno on the 25th of May, 1085, leaving
Henry apparently triumphant; but he had inspired the Papacy
with his will and mind, and the battle went on. At the end of
another generation—in A. D. 1122—the question of investitures
was settled by a compromise called the Concordat of Worms.
"Both of the contending parties gave up something, but one
much more than the other; the Church shadows, the State
substance. The more important elections should be henceforth
made in the presence of the Emperor, he engaging not to
interfere with them, but to leave to the Chapter or other
electing body the free exercise of their choice. This was in
fact to give over in most instances the election to the Pope;
who gradually managed to exclude the Emperor from all share in
Episcopal appointments. The temporalities of the See or Abbey
were still to be made over to the Bishop or Abbot elect, not,
however, any longer by the delivering to him of the ring and
crozier, but by a touch of the sceptre, he having done homage
for them, and taken the oath of obedience. All this was in
Germany to find place before consecration, being the same
arrangement that seven years earlier had brought the conflict
between Anselm and our Henry I. to an end."
R. C. Trench,
Lectures on Medieval Church History,
lecture 9.
ALSO IN:
A. F. Villemain,
Life of Gregory VII.,
book 2.
W. R. W. Stephens.
Hildebrand and His Times.
H. H. Milman,
History of Latin Christianity,
books 6-8.
E. F. Henderson,
Select Historical Documents of the Middle Ages,
book 4.
See, also,
GERMANY: A. D. 973-1122;
CANOSSA;
ROME: A. D. 1081-1084.
PAPACY: A. D. 1059.
Institution of the procedure of Papal Election.
"According to the primitive custom of the church, an episcopal
vacancy was filled up by election of the clergy and people
belonging to the city or diocese. … It is probable that, in
almost every case, the clergy took a leading part in the
selection of their bishops; but the consent of the laity was
absolutely necessary to render it valid. They were, however,
by degrees excluded from any real participation, first in the
Greek, and finally in the western church. … It does not appear
that the early Christian emperors interfered with the freedom
of choice any further than to make their own confirmation
necessary in the great patriarchal sees, such as Rome and
Constantinople, which were frequently the objects of violent
competition, and to decide in controverted elections. … The
bishops of Rome, like those of inferior sees, were regularly
elected by the citizens, laymen as well as ecclesiastics. But
their consecration was deferred until the popular choice had
received the sovereign's sanction. The Romans regularly
despatched letters to Constantinople or to the exarchs of
Ravenna, praying that their election of a pope might be
confirmed. Exceptions, if any, are infrequent while Rome was
subject to the eastern empire. This, among other imperial
prerogatives, Charlemagne might consider as his own. … Otho
the Great, in receiving the imperial crown, took upon him the
prerogatives of Charlemagne. There is even extant a decree of
Leo VIII., which grants to him and his successors the right of
naming future popes. But the authenticity of this instrument
is denied by the Italians. It does not appear that the Saxon
emperors went to such a length as nomination, except in one
instance (that of Gregory V. in 990); but they sometimes, not
uniformly, confirmed the election of a pope, according to
ancient custom. An explicit right of nomination was, however,
conceded to the emperor Henry III. in 1047, as the only means
of rescuing the Roman church from the disgrace and depravity
into which it had fallen. Henry appointed two or three very
good popes. … This high prerogative was perhaps not designed
to extend beyond Henry himself. But even if it had been
transmissible to his successors, the infancy of his son Henry
IV., and the factions of that minority, precluded the
possibility of its exercise. Nicolas II., in 1059, published a
decree which restored the right of election to the Romans, but
with a remarkable variation from the original form.
{2432}
The cardinal bishops (seven in number, holding sees in the
neighbourhood of Rome, and consequently suffragans of the pope
as patriarch or metropolitan) were to choose the supreme
pontiff, with the concurrence first of the cardinal priests
and deacons (or ministers of the parish churches of Rome), and
afterwards of the laity. Thus elected, the new pope was to be
presented for confirmation to Henry, 'now king, and hereafter
to become emperor,' and to such of his successors as should
personally obtain that privilege. This decree is the
foundation of that celebrated mode of election in a conclave
of cardinals which has ever since determined the headship of
the church. … The real author of this decree, and of all other
vigorous measures adopted by the popes of that age, whether
for the assertion of their independence or the restoration of
discipline, was Hildebrand"—afterwards Pope Gregory VII.
H. Hallam,
The Middle Ages,
chapter 7, part 1 (volume 2).
ALSO IN:
E. F. Henderson,
Select Historical Documents of the Middle Ages,
book 4, number 1.
PAPACY: A. D. 1077-1102.
Donation of the Countess Matilda.
"The Countess Matilda, born in 1040, was daughter of Boniface,
Marquis of Tuscany, and Beatrice, sister of the Emperor Henry
III. On the death of her only brother, without issue, she
succeeded to all his dominions, of Tuscany, Parma, Lucca,
Mantua and Reggio. Rather late in life, she married Guelpho,
son of the Duke of Bavaria—no issue resulting from their
union. This princess displayed great energy and administrative
ability in the troubled times in which she lived, occasionally
appearing at the head of her own troops. Ever a devoted
daughter of the Church, she specially venerated Pope Gregory
VII., to whom she afforded much material support, in the
difficulties by which he was constantly beset. To this
Pontiff, she made a donation of a considerable portion of her
dominions, for the benefit of the Holy See, A. D. 1077,
confirming the same in a deed to Pope Pascal II., in 1102,
entituled 'Cartula donationis Comitissæ Mathildis facta S.
Gregorio PP. VII., et innovata Paschali PP. II.'; apud Theiner
'Codex Diplomaticus,' etc., tom. 1, p. 10. As the original
deed to Gregory VII. is not extant, and the deed of
confirmation or renewal does not recite the territories
conveyed, there is some uncertainty about their exact limits.
However, it is generally thought that they comprised the
district formerly known as the Patrimony of Saint Peter, lying
on the right bank of the Tiber, and extending from
Aquapendente to Ostia. The Countess Matilda died in 1115, aged
75."
J. N. Murphy,
The Chair of Peter,
page 235, foot-note.
See PAPACY: A. D. 1122-1250.
PAPACY: A. D. 1086-1154.
The succession of Popes.
Victor III., A. D. 1086-1087;
Urban II., 1088-1099;
Pascal 11., 1099-1118;
Gelasius 11., 1118-1119;
Callistus II., 1119-1124;
Honorius II., 1124-1130;
Innocent II., 1130-1143;
Celestine II., 1143-1144;
Lucius II., 1144-1145;
Eugene III., 1145-1153;
Anastasius IV., 1153-1154.
PAPACY: A. D. 1094.
Pope Urban II. and the first Crusade.
The Council of Clermont.
See CRUSADES: A. D. 1094.
PAPACY: A. D. 1122-1250.
Continued conflict with the Empire.
The Popes and the Hohenstaufen Emperors.
"The struggle about investiture ended, as was to be expected,
in a compromise; but it was a compromise in which all the
glory went to the Papacy. Men saw that the Papal claims had
been excessive, even impossible; but the object at which they
aimed, the freedom of the Church from the secularising
tendencies of feudalism, was in the main obtained. … But the
contest with the Empire still went on. One of the firmest
supporters of Gregory VII. had been Matilda, Countess of
Tuscany, over whose fervent piety Gregory had thrown the spell
of his powerful mind. At her death, she bequeathed her
possessions, which embraced nearly a quarter of Italy, to the
Holy See [see PAPACY: A. D. 1077-1102]. Some of the lands
which she had held were allodial, some were fiefs of the
Empire; and the inheritance of Matilda was a fruitful source
of contention to two powers already jealous of one another.
The constant struggle that lasted for two centuries gave full
scope for the development of the Italian towns. … The old
Italian notion of establishing municipal freedom by an
equilibrium of two contending powers was stamped still more
deeply on Italian politics by the wars of Guelfs and
Ghibellins. The union between the Papacy and the Lombard
Republics was strong enough to humble the mightiest of the
Emperors. Frederic Barbarossa, who held the strongest views of

the Imperial prerogative, had to confess himself vanquished by
Pope Alexander III. [see ITALY: A. D. 1154-1162, to
1174-1183], and the meeting of Pope and Emperor at Venice was
a memorable ending to the long struggle; that the great
Emperor should kiss the feet of the Pope whom he had so long
refused to acknowledge, was an act which stamped itself with
dramatic effect on the imagination of men, and gave rise to
fables of a still more lowly submission [see VENICE: A. D.
1177]. The length of the strife, the renown of Frederic, the
unswerving tenacity of purpose with which Alexander had
maintained his cause, all lent lustre to this triumph of the
Papacy. The consistent policy of Alexander III., even in
adverse circumstances, the calm dignity with, which he
asserted the Papal claims, and the wisdom with which he used
his opportunities, made him a worthy successor of Gregory VII.
at a great crisis in the fortunes of the Papacy. It was
reserved, however, for Innocent III. to realise most fully the
ideas of Hildebrand. If Hildebrand was the Julius, Innocent
was the Augustus, of the Papal Empire. He had not the creative
genius nor the fiery energy of his great forerunner; but his
clear intellect never missed an opportunity, and his
calculating spirit rarely erred from its mark. … On all sides
Innocent III. enjoyed successes beyond his hopes. In the East,
the crusading zeal of Europe was turned by Venice to the
conquest of Constantinople [see CRUSADES: A. D. 1201-1203],
and Innocent could rejoice for a brief space in the subjection
of the Eastern Church. In the West, Innocent turned the
crusading impulse to the interest of the Papal power, by
diverting it against heretical sects which, in Northern Italy
and the South of France, attacked the system of the Church
[see ALBIGENSES]. … Moreover Innocent saw the beginning,
though he did not perceive the full importance, of a movement
which the reaction against heresy produced within the Church.
The Crusades had quickened men's activity, and the heretical
sects had aimed at kindling greater fervour of spiritual life. …
{2433}
By the side of the monastic aim of averting, by the prayers
and penitence of a few, God's anger from a wicked world, there
grew up a desire for self-devotion to missionary labour.
Innocent III. was wise enough not to repulse this new
enthusiasm, but find a place for it within the ecclesiastical
system. Francis of Assisi gathered round him a body of
followers who bound themselves to a literal following of the
Apostles, to a life of poverty and labour, amongst the poor
and outcast; Dominic of Castile formed a society which aimed
at the suppression of heresy by assiduous teaching of the
truth. The Franciscan and Dominican orders grew almost at once
into power and importance, and their foundation marks a great
reformation within the Church [see MENDICANT ORDERS]. The
reformation movement of the eleventh century, under the
skilful guidance of Hildebrand, laid the foundations of the
Papal monarchy in the belief of Europe. The reformation of the
thirteenth century found full scope for its energy under the
protection of the Papal power; for the Papacy was still in
sympathy with the conscience of Europe, which it could quicken
and direct. These mendicant orders were directly connected
with the Papacy, and were free from all episcopal control.
Their zeal awakened popular enthusiasm; they rapidly increased
in number and spread into every land. The Friars became the
popular preachers and confessors, and threatened to supersede
the old ecclesiastical order. Not only amongst the common
people, but in the universities as well, did their influence
become supreme. They were a vast army devoted to the service
of the Pope, and overran Europe in his name. They preached
Papal indulgences, they stirred up men to crusades in behalf
of the Papacy, they gathered money for the Papal use. … The
Emperor Frederic II., who had been brought up under Innocent's
guardianship, proved the greatest enemy of the newly-won
sovereignty of the Pope. King of Sicily and Naples, Frederic
was resolved to assert again the Imperial pretensions of North
Italy, and then win back the Papal acquisitions in the centre;
if his plan had succeeded, the Pope would have lost his
independence and sunk to be the instrument of the house of
Hohenstaufen. Two Popes of inflexible determination and
consummate political ability were the opponents of Frederic.
Gregory IX. and Innocent IV. flung themselves with ardour into
the struggle, and strained every nerve till the whole Papal
policy was absorbed by the necessities of the strife. …
See ITALY: A. D. 1183-1250;
and GERMANY: A. D. 1138-1268.
Frederic II. died [1250], but the Popes pursued with their
hostility his remotest descendants, and were resolved to sweep
the very remembrance of him out of Italy. To accomplish their
purpose, they did not hesitate to summon the aid of the
stranger. Charles of Anjou appeared as their champion, and in
the Pope's name took possession of the Sicilian kingdom.
See ITALY: A. D. 1250-1268].
By his help the last remnants of the Hohenstaufen house were
crushed, and the claims of the Empire to rule over Italy were
destroyed for ever. But the Papacy got rid of an open enemy
only to introduce a covert and more deadly foe. The Angevin
influence became superior to that of the Papacy, and French
popes were elected that they might carry out the wishes of the
Sicilian king. By its resolute efforts to escape from the
power of the Empire, the Papacy only paved the way for a
connexion that ended in its enslavement to the influence of
France."
M. Creighton,
History of the Papacy during the Period of the Reformation,
volume 1, pages 18-23.
ALSO IN:
T. L. Kington,
History of Frederick II. Emperor of the Romans.
PAPACY: A. D. 1154-1198.
The succession of Popes.
Hadrian IV., A. D. 1154-1159;
Alexander III., 1159-1181;
Lucius III., 1181-1185;
Urban III., 1185-1187;
Gregory VIII., 1187;
Clement III., 1187-1191;
Celestine III., 1191-1198.
PAPACY: A. D. 1162-1170.
Conflict of Church and State in England.
Becket and Henry II.
See ENGLAND: A. D. 1162-1170.
PAPACY: A. D. 1198-1216.
The establishing of Papal Sovereignty
in the States of the Church.
"Innocent III. may be called the founder of the States of the
Church. The lands with which Pippin and Charles had invested
the Popes were held subject to the suzerainty of the Frankish
sovereign and owned his jurisdiction. On the downfall of the
Carolingian Empire the neighbouring nobles, calling themselves
Papal vassals, seized on these lands; and when they were
ousted in the Pope's name by the Normans, the Pope did not
gain by the change of neighbours. Innocent III. was the first
Pope who claimed and exercised the rights of an Italian
prince. He exacted from the Imperial Prefect in Rome the oath
of allegiance to himself; he drove the Imperial vassals from
the Matildan domain [see TUSCANY: A. D. 685-1115], and
compelled Constance, the widowed queen of Sicily, to recognise
the Papal suzerainty over her ancestral kingdom. He obtained
from the Emperor Otto IV. (1201) the cession of all the lands
which the Papacy claimed, and so established for the first
time an undisputed title to the Papal States."
M. Creighton,
History of the Papacy during the Period of the Reformation,
volume 1. page 21.
PAPACY: A. D. 1198-1294.
The succession of Pores.
Innocent III., A. D. 1198-1216;
Honorius II., 1216-1227;
Gregory IX., 1227-1241;
Celestine IV., 1241;
Innocent IV., 1243-1204;
Alexander IV., 1254-1261;
Urban IV., 1261-1264;
Clement IV., 1265-1268;
Gregory X., 1271-1276;
Innocent V., 1276;
Hadrian V., 1276;
John XXI., 1276-1277;
Nicholas III., 1277-1280;
Martin IV., 1281-1285;
Honorius IV., 1285-1287;
Nicholas IV., 1288-1292;
Celestine V., 1294.
PAPACY: A. D. 1198-1303.
The acme of Papal power.
The pontificates from Innocent III. to Boniface VIII.
"The epoch when the spirit of papal usurpation was most
strikingly displayed was the pontificate of Innocent III. In
each of the three leading objects which Rome had pursued,
independent sovereignty, supremacy over the Christian church,
control over the princes of the earth, it was the fortune of
this pontiff to conquer. He realized … that fond hope of so
many of his predecessors, a dominion over Rome and the central
parts of Italy. During his pontificate Constantinople was
taken by the Latins; and however he might seem to regret a
diversion of the crusaders, which impeded the recovery of the
Holy Land, he exulted in the obedience of the new patriarch
and the reunion of the Greek church. Never, perhaps, either
before or since, was the great eastern schism in so fair a way
of being healed; even the kings of Bulgaria and Armenia
acknowledged the supremacy of Innocent, and permitted his
interference with their ecclesiastical institutions.
{2434}
The maxims of Gregory VII. were now matured by more than a
hundred years, and the right of trampling upon the necks of
kings had been received, at least among churchmen, as an
inherent attribute of the papacy. 'As the sun and the moon are
placed in the firmament' (such is the language of Innocent),
'the greater as the light of the day, and the lesser of the
night, thus are there two powers in the church—the pontifical,
which, as having the charge of souls, is the greater; and the
royal, which is the less, and to which the bodies of men only
are intrusted.' Intoxicated with these conceptions (if we may
apply such a word to successful ambition), he thought no
quarrel of princes beyond the sphere of his jurisdiction.
'Though I cannot judge of the right to a fief,' said Innocent
to the kings of France and England, 'yet it is my province to
judge where sin is committed, and my duty to prevent all
public scandals.' … Though I am not aware that any pope before
Innocent III. had thus announced himself as the general
arbiter of differences and conservator of the peace throughout
Christendom, yet the scheme had been already formed, and the
public mind was in some degree prepared to admit it. … The
noonday of papal dominion extends from the pontificate of
Innocent III. inclusively to that of Boniface VIII.; or, in
other words, through the 13th century. Rome inspired during
this age all the terror of her ancient name. She was once more
the mistress of the world, and kings were her vassals."
H. Hallam,
The Middle Ages,
chapter 7, parts 1-2 (volume 2).
ALSO IN:
J. Miley,
History of the Papal States,
volume 3, book 1, chapter 3.
M. Gosselin,
The Power of the Pope in the Middle Ages,
part 2, chapter 3.
M. Creighton,
History of the Papacy during the Reformation,
introduction, chapter 1 (volume 1).
PAPACY: A. D. 1203.
The planting of the germs of the Papal Inquisition.
See INQUISITION: A. D. 1203-1525.
PAPACY: A. D. 1205-1213.
Subjugation of the English King John.
See ENGLAND: A. D. 1205-1213.
PAPACY: A. D. 1215.
The beginning, in Italy, of the Wars
of the Guelfs and Ghibellines.
See ITALY: A. D. 1215.
PAPACY: A. D. 1266.
Transfer of the Kingdom of the Two Sicilies
to Charles of Anjou.
See ITALY: A. D. 1250-1268.
PAPACY: A. D. 1268.
The Pragmatic Sanction of St. Louis,
affirming the rights of the Gallican Church.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1268.
PAPACY: A. D. 1275.
Ratification of the Donation of Charlemagne
and the Capitulation of Otho IV. by Rodolph of Hapsburg.
See GERMANY: A. D. 1273-1308.
PAPACY: A. D. 1279.
The English Statute of Mortmain.
See ENGLAND: A. D. 1279.
PAPACY: A. D. 1294-1348.
The stormy pontificate of Boniface VIII.
His conflict with Philip IV. of France.
The "Babylonish Captivity."
Purchase of Avignon, which becomes the Papal Seat.
Boniface VIII., who came to the Papal throne in 1294, "was a
man of so much learning that Petrarch extols him as the wonder
of the world. His craft and cruelty, however, were shown in
his treatment of Celestine V. [his predecessor], whom he first
persuaded to resign the pontificate, five months after his
election, on account of his inexperience in politics; and
then, having succeeded to the chair, instead of letting the
good man return to the cloister for which he panted, he kept
him in confinement to the day of his death. His resentment of
the opposition of the two cardinals Colonna to his election
was so bitter, that not content with degrading them, he
decreed the whole family—one of the most illustrious in
Rome—to be for ever infamous, and incapable of ecclesiastical
dignities. He pulled down their town of Præneste, and ordered
the site to be sown with salt to extinguish it, like Carthage,
for ever. This pontificate is famous for the institution of
the Jubilee, though, according to some accounts, it was
established a century before by Innocent III. By a bull dated
22nd February 1300, Boniface granted a plenary remission of
sins to all who, before Christmas, in that and every
subsequent hundredth year, should visit the churches of St.
Peter and St. Paul daily, for 30 days if inhabitants of Rome,
and for half that time if strangers. His private enemies, the
Colonnas, Frederic of Sicily, who had neglected to pay his
tribute, and the abettors of the Saracens, were the only
persons excluded. The city was crowded with strangers, who
flocked to gain the indulgence; enormous sums were offered at
the holy tombs; and the solemnity became so profitable that
Clement VI. reduced the period for its observance from 100
years to 50, and later popes have brought it down to 25.
Boniface appeared at the jubilee with the spiritual and
temporal swords carried before him, the bearers of which
proclaimed the text,—'Behold, here are two swords.' … The pope
had the pleasure of receiving a … respectful recognition from
the barons of Scotland. Finding themselves hard pressed by the
arms of Edward I., they resolved to accept a distant, in
preference to a neighbouring, master; accordingly, they
tendered the kingdom to the pope, pretending that, from the
most ancient times, Scotland had been a fief of the holy Roman
See. Boniface, eagerly embracing the offer, commanded the
archbishop of Canterbury to require the king to withdraw his
troops, and submit his pretensions to the apostolic tribunal.
… Boniface got no other satisfaction than to be told that the
laws of England did not permit the king to subject the rights
of his crown to any foreign tribunal. His conflict with the
king of France was still more unfortunate. Philip the Fair,
like our own Edward I., thought fit to compel the clergy to
contribute towards the expenses of his repeated campaigns. The
pope thereupon issued a bull entitled 'Clericis laicos' (A. D.
1296), charging the laity with inveterate hostility to the
clergy, and prohibiting, under pain of excommunication, any
payment out of ecclesiastical revenues without his consent.
The king retorted by prohibiting the export of coin or
treasure from his dominions, without license from the crown.
This was cutting off the pope's revenue at a blow, and so
modified his anger that he allowed the clergy to grant a 'free
benevolence' to the king, when in urgent need. A few years
after (1301), Philip imprisoned a bishop on charge of
sedition, when Boniface thundered out his bulls 'Salvator
mundi,' and 'Ausculta fili,' the first of which suspended all
privileges accorded by the Holy See to the French king and
people, and the second, asserting the papal power in the now
familiar text from Jeremiah [Jeremiah i. 10], summoned the
superior clergy to Rome. Philip burned the bull, and
prohibited the clergy from obeying the summons.
{2435}
The peers and people of France stood by the crown, treating
the exhortations of the clergy with defiance. The pope,
incensed at this resistance, published the Decretal called
'Unam sanctam,' which affirms the unity of the Church, without
which there is no salvation, and hence the unity of its head
in the successor of St. Peter. Under the pope are two swords,
the spiritual and the material—the one to be used by the
church, the other for the church. … The temporal sword is …
subject to the spiritual, and the spiritual to God only. The
conclusion is, 'that it is absolutely essential to the
salvation of every human being that he be subject unto the
Roman pontiff.' The king, who showed great moderation,
appealed to a general council, and forbad his subjects to obey
any orders of Boniface till it should be assembled. The pope
resorted to the usual weapons. He drew up a bull for the
excommunication of the king; offered France to Albert of
Austria, king of the Romans, and wrote to the king of England
to incite him to prosecute his war. Meantime, Philip having
sent William de Nogaret on an embassy to the pope, this daring
envoy conceived the design of making him prisoner. Entering
Anagni [the pope's native town and frequent residence, 40
miles from Rome] at the head of a small force, privately
raised in the neighbourhood, the conspirators, aided by some
of the papal household, gained possession of the palace and
burst into the pope's presence. Boniface, deeming himself a
dead man, had put on his pontifical robes and crown, but these
had little effect on the irreverent intruders. De Nogaret was
one of the Albigenses; his companion, a Colonna, was so
inflamed at the sight of his persecutor that he struck him on
the face with his mailed hand, and would have killed him but
for the intervention of the other. The captors unaccountably
delaying to carry off their prize, the people of the place
rose and rescued the Holy Father. He hastened back to Rome,
but died of the shock a month after, leaving a dangerous feud
between the Church and her eldest son."
G. Trevor,
Rome: from the Fall of the Western Empire,
chapter 9.
"Boniface has been consigned to infamy by contemporary poets
and historians, for the exhibition of some of the most
revolting features of the human character. Many of the
charges, such as that he did not believe in eternal life; that
he was guilty of monstrous heresy; that he was a wizard; and
that he asserted that it is no sin to indulge in the most
criminal pleasures—are certainly untrue. They are due chiefly
to his cruelty to Celestine and the Celestinians, and his
severity to the Colonnas, which led the two latter to go
everywhere blackening his character. They have been
exaggerated by Dante; and they may be ascribed generally to
his pride and violence, and to the obstinate determination,
formed by a man who 'was born an age too late,' to advance
claims then generally becoming unpopular, far surpassing in
arrogance those maintained by the most arbitrary of his
predecessors. … This victory of Philip over Boniface was, in
fact, the commencement of a wide-spread reaction on the part
of the laity against ecclesiastical predominance. The Papacy
had first shown its power by a great dramatic act, and its
decline was shown in the same manner. The drama of Anagni is
to be set against the drama of Canossa."
A. R. Pennington.
The Church in Italy,
chapter 6.
"The next pope, Benedict XI., endeavoured to heal the breach
by annulling the decrees of Boniface against the French king,
and reinstating the Colonnas; but he was cut off by death in
ten months from his election [1304], and it was generally
suspected that his removal was effected by poison. … On the
death of Benedict, many of the cardinals were for closing the
breach with France by electing a French pope; the others
insisted that an Italian was essential to the independence of
the Holy See. The difference was compromised by the election
of the archbishop of Bordeaux, a Frenchman by birth, but owing
his preferments to Boniface, and an active supporter of his
quarrel against Philip. The archbishop, however, had secretly
come to terms with the king, and his first act, as Clement V.,
was to summon the cardinals to attend him at Lyons, where he
resolved to celebrate his coronation. The Sacred College
crossed the Alps with undissembled repugnance, and
two-and-seventy years elapsed before the Papal court returned
to Rome. This period of humiliation and corruption the Italian
writers not inaptly stigmatise as the 'Babylonish captivity.'
Clement began his pontificate by honourably fulfilling his
engagements with the French. He absolved the king and his
subjects. … If it be true that the king claimed … the
condemnation of Boniface as a heretic, Clement had the
manliness to refuse. He ventured to inflict a further
disappointment by supporting the claim of Henry of Luxembourg
to the empire in preference to the French king's brother. To
escape the further importunities of his too powerful ally, the
pope removed into the dominions of his own vicar, the king of
Naples (A. D. 1309). The place selected was Avignon, belonging
to Charles the Lame as count of Provence. … In the 9th
century, it [Avignon] passed to the kings of Aries, or
Burgundy, but afterwards became a free republic, governed by
its own consuls, under the suzerainty of the count of
Provence. … The Neapolitan dynasty, though of French origin,
was independent of the French crown, when the pope took up his
residence at Avignon. Charles the Lame was soon after
succeeded by his third son Robert, who, dying in 1343, left
his crown to his granddaughter Joanna, the young and beautiful
wife of Andrew, prince of Hungary. … In one of her frequent
exiles Clement took advantage of her necessities to purchase
her rights in Avignon for 80,000 gold florins, but this
inadequate price was never paid. The pope placed it to the
account of the tribute due to himself from the Neapolitan
crown, and having procured a renunciation of the paramount
suzerainty of the emperor, he took possession of the city and
territory as absolute sovereign (A. D. 1348)."
G. Trevor,
Rome: from the Fall of the Western Empire,
chapters 9-10.
ALSO IN:
H. H. Milman,
History of Latin Christianity,
book 12 (volume 5).
J. E. Darras.
History of the Catholic Church,
period 6, chapter 1 (volume 3).
PAPACY: A. D. 1305-1377.
The Popes of "the Babylonish Captivity" at Avignon.
The following is the succession of the Popes during the
Avignon period:
Boniface VIII., A. D. 1294-1303;
Benedict XI., 1303-1304;
Clement V., 1305-1314;
John XXII., 1316-1334;
Benedict XII., 1334-1342;
Clement VI., 1342-1352;
Innocent VI., 1352-1362;
Urban V., 1362-1370;
Gregory XI., 1371-1378.
{2436}
"The Avignon Popes, without exception, were all more or less
dependent upon France. Frenchmen themselves, and surrounded by
a College of Cardinals in which the French element
predominated, they gave a French character to the government
of the Church. This character was at variance with the
principle of universality inherent in it and in the Papacy. …
The migration to France, the creation of a preponderance of
French Cardinals, and the consequent election of seven French
Popes in succession, necessarily compromised the position of
the Papacy in the eyes of the world, creating a suspicion that
the highest spiritual power had become the tool of France.
This suspicion, though in many cases unfounded, weakened the
general confidence in the Head of the Church, and awakened in
the other nations a feeling of antagonism to the
ecclesiastical authority which had become French. The bonds
which united the States of the Church to the Apostolic See
were gradually loosened. … The dark points of the Avignon
period have certainly been greatly exaggerated. The assertion
that the Government of the Avignon Popes was wholly ruled by
the 'will and pleasure of the Kings of France,' is, in this
general sense, unjust. The Popes of those days were not all so
weak as Clement V., who submitted the draft of the Bull, by
which he called on the Princes of Europe to imprison the
Templars, to the French King. Moreover, even this Pope, the
least independent of the 14th century Pontiffs, for many years
offered a passive resistance to the wishes of France, and a
writer [Wenck], who has thoroughly studied the period,
emphatically asserts that only for a few years of the
Pontificate of Clement V. was the idea so long associated with
the 'Babylonian Captivity' of the Popes fully realized. The
extension of this epithet to the whole of the Avignon sojourn
is an unfair exaggeration."
L. Pastor,
History of the Popes from the Close of the Middle Ages,
volume 1, pages 58-60.
PAPACY: A. D. 1306-1393.
Resistance to Papal encroachments in England.
See ENGLAND: A. D. 1306-1393.
PAPACY: A. D. 1314-1347.
Pretension to settle the disputed election of Emperor.
The long conflict with Louis of Bavaria in Germany and Italy.
See GERMANY: A. D. 1314-1347.
PAPACY: A. D. 1347-1354.
Rienzi's revolution at Rome.
See ROME: A. D. 1347-1354.
PAPACY: A. D. 1352-1378.
Subjugation of the States of the Church
and the return from Avignon to Rome.
Revolt and war in the Papal States, supported by Florence.
"Under the pontificate of Innocent VI. the advantages reaped
by the Papal See from its sojourn at Avignon seemed to have
come to an end. The disturbed condition of France no longer
offered them security and repose. … Moreover, the state of
affairs in Italy called loudly for the Pope's intervention. …
The desperate condition of the States of the Church, which had
fallen into the hands of small princes, called for energetic
measures, unless the Popes were prepared to see them entirely
lost to their authority. Innocent VI. sent into Italy a
Spanish Cardinal, Gil Albornoz, who had already shown his
military skill in fighting against the Moors. The fiery energy
of Albornoz was crowned with success, and the smaller nobles
were subdued in a series of hard fought battles. In 1367 Urban
V. saw the States of the Church once more reduced into
obedience to the Pope." Several motives, accordingly, combined
"to urge Urban V., in 1367, to return to Rome amid the cries
of his agonised Cardinals, who shuddered to leave the luxury
of Avignon for a land which they held to be barbarous. A brief
stay in Rome was sufficient to convince Urban V. that the
fears of his Cardinals were not unfounded. … After a visit of
three years Urban returned to Avignon; his death, which
happened three months after his return, was regarded by many
as a judgment of God upon his desertion of Rome. Urban V. had
returned to Rome because the States of the Church were reduced
to obedience; his successor, Gregory XI., was driven to return
through dread of losing entirely all hold upon Italy. The
French Popes awakened a strong feeling of natural antipathy
among their Italian subjects, and their policy was not
associated with any of the elements of state life existing in
Italy. Their desire to bring the States of the Church
immediately under their power involved the destruction of the
small dynasties of princes, and the suppression of the
democratic liberties of the people. Albornoz had been wise
enough to leave the popular governments untouched, and to
content himself with bringing the towns under the Papal
obedience. But Urban V. and Gregory XI. set up French
governors, whose rule was galling and oppressive; and a revolt
against them was organised by Florence [1376], who, true to
her old traditions, unfurled a banner inscribed only with the
word 'Liberty.' The movement spread through all the towns in
the Papal States, and in a few months the conquests of
Albornoz had been lost. The temporal dominion of the Papacy
might have been swept away if Florence could have brought
about the Italian league which she desired. But Rome hung back
from the alliance, and listened to Gregory XI., who promised
to return if Rome would remain faithful. The Papal
excommunication handed over the Florentines to be the slaves
of their captors in every land, and the Kings of England and
France did not scruple to use the opportunity offered to their
cupidity. Gregory XI. felt that only the Pope's presence could
save Rome for the Papacy. In spite of evil omens—for his horse
refused to let him mount when he set out on his
journey—Gregory XI. left Avignon; in spite of the entreaties
of the Florentines Rome again joyfully welcomed the entry of
its Pope in 1377. But the Pope found his position in Italy to
be surrounded with difficulties. His troops met with some
small successes, but he was practically powerless, and aimed
only at settling terms of peace with the Florentines. A
congress was called for this purpose, and Gregory XI. was
anxiously awaiting its termination that he might return to
Avignon, when death seized him, and his last hours were
embittered by the thoughts of the crisis that was now
inevitable."
M. Creighton,
History of the Papacy during the Period of the Reformation,
introduction, chapter 2 (volume 1).
ALSO IN:
H. E. Napier,
Florentine History,
book 1, chapter 26 (volume 2).
See, also,
FLORENCE; A. D. 1375-1378.
PAPACY: A. D. 1369-1378.
Dealings with the Free Company of Sir John Hawkwood.
Wars with Milan, Florence and other states.
See ITALY: A. D. 1343-1393.
{2437}
PAPACY: A. D. 1377-1417.
Election of Urban VI. and Clement VII.
The Great Western Schism.
Battle in Rome and siege and partial
destruction of Castle St. Angelo.
The Council of Pisa.
Forty years of Popes and Anti-Popes.
"For 23 years after Rienzi's death, the seat of the Papal
Court remained at Avignon; and during this period Rome and the
States of the Church were harried to death by contending
factions. … At last Gregory XI. returned, in January, 1377.
The keys of the Castle St. Angelo were sent to him at Corneto;
the papal Court was re-established in Rome; but he survived
only about a year, and died in March, 1378. Then came the
election of a new Pope, which was held in the Castle St.
Angelo. While the conclave was sitting, a crowd gathered round
the place, crying out, 'Romano lo volemo'—we will have a Roman
for Pope. Yet, notwithstanding this clamour, Cardinal
Prignani, Archbishop of Bari, and a Neapolitan by birth, was
finally chosen, under the title of Urban VI.—[this being an
intended compromise between the Italian party and the French
party in the college of Cardinals]. When Cardinal Orsini
presented himself at the window to announce that a new Pope
had been elected, the mob below cried out, 'His name, his
name!' 'Go to St. Peter's and you will learn,' answered the
Cardinal. The people, misunderstanding his answer, supposed
him to announce the election of Cardinal Tebaldeschi, who was
arch-priest of St. Peter's, and a Roman by birth. This news
was received with great joy and acclamation," which turned to
rage when the fact was known. Then "the people … broke in to
still fiercer cries, rushed to arms, and gathering round the
conclave, threatened them with death unless a Roman was
elected. But the conclave was strong in its position, and
finally the people were pacified, and accepted Urban VI. Such,
however, was the fear of the Cardinals, that they were with
difficulty persuaded to proceed to the Vatican and perform the
ceremonies necessary for the installation of the new Pope.
This, however, finally was done, and the Castle was placed in
the charge of Pietro Guntellino, a Frenchman, and garrisoned
by a Gallic guard, the French Cardinals remaining also within
its walls for safety. On the 20th of September they withdrew
to Fondi, and in conjunction with other schismatics they
afterwards [September 20, 1378] elected an anti-Pope [Robert
of Geneva] under the title of Clement VII. Guntellino, who
took part with them, on being summoned by Urban to surrender
the Castle, refused to do so without the order of his
compatriots, the French Cardinals at Avignon. Meantime the
papal and anti-papal party assaulted each other, first with
citations, censures, and angry words, and then with armed
force. The anti-papal party, having with them the Breton and
Gascon soldiery, and the Savoyards of the Count of Mountjoy,
the anti-Pope's nephew, marched upon the city, overcame the
undisciplined party of the Pope, reinforced the Castle St.
Angelo, and fortified themselves in the Vatican, ravaging the
Campagna on their way. The papal party now besieged the
Castle, attacking it with machines and artillery, but for a
year's space it held out. Finally, on the 28th of April, 1379,
the anti-papal party were utterly routed by Alberico, Count of
Palliano and Galeazzo, at the head of the papal, Italian, and
imperial forces. Terrible was the bloodshed of this great
battle, at which, according to Baronius, 5,000 of the
anti-papal army fell. But the Castle still refused to
surrender," until famine forced a capitulation. "The damage
done to it during this siege must have been very great. In
some parts it had been utterly demolished, and of all its
marbles not a trace now remained. … After the surrender of the
Castle to Urban, such was the rage of the people against it
for the injury it had caused them during the siege, that they
passed a public decree ordering it to be utterly destroyed and
razed to the earth. … In consequence of this decree, an
attempt was made to demolish it. It was stripped of everything
by which it was adorned, and its outer casing was torn off;
but the solid interior of peperino defied all their efforts,
and the attempt was given up."
W. W. Story,
Castle St. Angelo,
chapter 5.
"Urban was a learned, pious, and austere man; but, in his zeal
for the reformation of manners, the correction of abuses, and
the retrenchment of extravagant expenditure, he appears to
have been wanting in discretion; for immediately after his
election he began to act with harshness to the members of the
Sacred College, and he also offended several of the secular
princes. Towards the end of June, 12 of the cardinals—11
Frenchmen and one Spaniard—obtained permission to leave Rome,
owing to the summer heats, and withdrew to Anagni. Here, in a
written instrument, dated 9th August, 1378, they protested
against the election, as not having been free, and they called
on Urban to resign. A few days later, they removed to Fondi,
in the kingdom of Naples, where they were joined by three of
the Italians whom they had gained over to their views; and, on
the 19th of September, the 15 elected an antipope, the French
Cardinal Robert of Cevennes [more frequently called Robert of
Geneva], who took the name of Clement VII. and reigned at
Avignon 16 years, dying September 16, 1394. Thus there were
two claimants of the Papal throne—Urban holding his court at
Rome, and Clement residing with his followers at Avignon. The
latter was strong in the support of the sovereigns of France,
Scotland, Naples, Aragon, Castile, and Savoy; while the
remainder of Christendom adhered to Urban. Clement was
succeeded by Peter de Luna, the Cardinal of Aragon, who, on
his election, assumed the name of Benedict XIII., and reigned
at Avignon 23 years—A. D. 1394-1417. This lamentable state of
affairs lasted altogether 40 years. Urban's successors at
Rome, duly elected by the Italian cardinals and those of other
nations acting with them, were:
Boniface IX., a Neapolitan, A. D. 1389-1404;
Innocent VII., a native of Sulmona, A. D. 1404-1406;
Gregory XII., a Venetian, A. D. 1406-1409;
Alexander V., a native of Candia,
who reigned ten months, A. D. 1409-1410;
and John XXIII., a Neapolitan, A. D. 1410-1417.
…
Although the Popes above enumerated, as having reigned at
Rome, are now regarded as the legitimate pontiffs, and, as
such, are inscribed in the Catalogues of Popes, while Clement
and Benedict are classed as anti-popes, there prevailed at the
time much uncertainty on the subject. … In February, 1395,
Charles VI. of France convoked an assembly of the clergy of
his dominions, under the presidency of Simon Cramandus,
Patriarch of Alexandria, in order, if possible, to terminate
the schism. The assembly advised that the rival Pontiffs,
Boniface IX. and Benedict XIII., should abdicate.
{2438}
The same view was taken by most of the universities of
Europe," but the persons chiefly concerned would not accept
it. Nor was it found possible in 1408 to bring about a
conference of the two popes. The cardinals, then, of both
parties, withdrew support from the factious pontiffs and held
a general meeting at Leghorn. There they agreed that Gregory
XII. and Benedict XIII. had equally lost all claim to
obedience, and they resolved to convoke, on their own
authority "a General Council, to meet at Pisa, on the 25th of
March, 1409. Gregory and Benedict were duly informed thereof,
and were requested to attend the council. … The Council of
Pisa sat from March 25th to August 7th, 1409. There were
present 24 cardinals of both 'obediences,' 4 patriarchs, 12
archbishops, 80 bishops, 87 abbots; the procurators of 102
absent archbishops and bishops, and of 200 absent abbots; the
generals of 4 mendicant orders; the deputies of 13
Universities …; the representatives of over 100 cathedral and
collegiate chapters, 282 doctors and licentiates of canon and
civil law; and the ambassadors of the Kings of England,
France, Poland, Bohemia, Portugal, Sicily, and Cyprus." Both
claimants of the Papacy were declared unworthy to preside over
the Church, and forbidden to act as Pope. In June, the
conclave of cardinals assembled and elected a third Pope—one
Peter Filargo, a Friar Minor, who took the name of Alexander
V., but who died ten months afterwards. The cardinals then
elected as his successor Cardinal Cossa, "a politic worldly
man, who assumed the name of John XXIII." But, meantime,
Germany, Naples and some of the other Italian States still
adhered to Gregory, and Benedict kept the support of Scotland,
Spain and Portugal. The Church was as much divided as ever.
"The Council of Pisa … only aggravated the evil which it
laboured to cure. Instead of two, there were now three
claimants of the Papal Chair. It was reserved for the General
Council of Constance to restore union and peace to the
Church."
J. N. Murphy,
The Chair of Peter,
chapter 20.
"The amount of evil wrought by the schism of 1378, the longest
known in the history of the Papacy, can only be estimated,
when we reflect that it occurred at a moment, when thorough
reform in ecclesiastical affairs was a most urgent need. This
was now utterly out of the question, and, indeed, all evils
which had crept into ecclesiastical life were infinitely
increased. Respect for the Holy See was also greatly impaired,
and the Popes became more than ever dependent on the temporal
power, for the schism allowed each Prince to choose which Pope
he would acknowledge. In the eyes of the people, the simple
fact of a double Papacy must have shaken the authority of the
Holy See to its very foundations. It may truly be said that
these fifty years of schism prepared the way for the great
Apostacy of the 16th century."
L. Pastor,
History of the Popes from the Close of the Middle Ages,
volume 1, page 141.
ALSO IN:
A. Neander,
General History of the Christian Religion and Church,
volume 9, section 1.
H. H. Milman,
History of Latin Christianity,
book 13, chapters 1-5 (volume 6).
J. Alzog,
Manual of Universal Church History,
sections 269-270 (volume 3).
J. C. Robertson,
History of the Christian Church,
book 8, chapter 5 (volume 7).
St. C. Baddeley,
Charles III. of Naples and Urban VI.
See, also, ITALY: A. D. 1343-1389.
PAPACY: A. D. 1378-1415.
Rival Popes during the Great Schism.
Urban VI., A. D. 1378-1389 (Rome);
Clement VII., 1378-1394 (Avignon);
Boniface IX., 1389-1404 (Rome);
Benedict XIII., 1394-1423 (Avignon);
Innocent VII., 1404-1406 (Rome);
Gregory XII., 1406-1415 (Rome);
Alexander V., 1409-1410 (elected by the Council of Pisa);
John XXIII., 1410-1415.
PAPACY: A. D. 1386-1414.
Struggle of the Italian Popes against Ladislas of Naples.
See ITALY (SOUTHERN): A. D. 1386-1414.
PAPACY: A. D. 1414-1418.
The Council of Constance.
Election of Martin V.
Ending of the Great Schism and failure of Church Reform.
"In April, A. D. 1412, the Pope [John XXIII.], to preserve
appearances, opened at Rome the council which had been agreed
upon at Pisa for the reformation of the Church in her Head and
members. Quite a small number of bishops put in an appearance,
who, after having condemned the antipopes, and some heretical
propositions of Wycliffe and John Huss, hastily adjourned.
John, who does not seem to have had any very earnest wish to
correct his own life, and who, consequently, could not be
expected to be over solicitous about the correction of those
of others, was carefully provident to prevent the bishops
coming to Rome in excessive numbers. He had come to a secret
understanding with Ladislaus, his former enemy, that the
latter should have all the roads well guarded. Ladislaus soon
turned against the Pope, and forced him to quit Rome, and seek
refuge, first at Florence, and next at Bologna (A. D. 1413).
From this city John opened communications with the princes of
Europe with the purpose of fixing a place for holding the
council. … The Emperor Sigismund appointed the city of
Constance, where the council did, in fact, convene, November
1, A. D. 1414. … The abuses which prevailed generally
throughout the Church, and which were considerably increased
by the existence of three rival Popes, and by the various
theories on Church government called forth by the controversy,
greatly perplexed men's minds, and created much anxiety as to
the direction affairs might eventually take. This unsettled
state of feeling accounts for the unusually large number of
ecclesiastics who attended the council. There were 18,000
ecclesiastics of all ranks, of whom, when the number was
largest, 3 were patriarchs, 24 cardinals, 33 archbishops,
close upon 150 bishops, 124 abbots, 50 provosts, and 300
doctors in the various degrees. Many princes attended in
person. There were constantly 100,000 strangers in the city,
and, on one occasion, as many as 150,000, among whom were many
of a disreputable character. Feeling ran so high that, as
might have been anticipated, every measure was extreme. Owing
to the peculiar composition of the Council, at which only a
limited number of bishops were present, and these chiefly in
the interest of John XXIII., it was determined to decide all
questions, not by a majority of episcopal suffrages, but by
that of the representatives of the various nations, including
doctors. The work about to engage the Council was of a
threefold character, viz.,
1. To terminate the papal schism;
2. To condemn errors against faith, and particularly
those of Huss; and
3. To enact reformatory decrees.
… It was with some difficulty that John could be induced to
attend at Constance, and when he did finally consent, it was
only because he was forced to take the step by the
representations of others. …
{2439}
Regarding the Council as a continuation of that of Pisa, he
naturally thought that he would be recognized as the
legitimate successor of the Pope chosen by the latter. … All
questions were first discussed by the various nations, each
member of which had the right to vote. Their decision was next
brought before a general conference of nations, and this
result again before the next session of the Council. This plan
of organisation destroyed the hopes of John XXIII., who relied
for success on the preponderance of Italian prelates and
doctors. … To intimidate John, and subdue his resistance, a
memorial, written probably by an Italian, was put in
circulation, containing charges the most damaging to that
pontiff's private character. … So timely and effective was
this blow that John was thenceforth utterly destitute of the
energy and consideration necessary to support his authority,
or direct the affairs of the Council." In consequence, he sent
a declaration to the Council that, in order to give peace to
the Church, he would abdicate, provided his two rivals in the
Papacy, Gregory XII. and Benedict XIII., would also resign.
Later, in March, 1415, he repeated this promise under oath.
The Emperor, Sigismund, was about to set out to Nizza to
induce the other claimants to resign, when John's conduct gave
rise to a suspicion that he did not intend to act in good
faith. He was charged with an intention to escape from the
Council, with the assistance of Frederic, Duke of Austria. He
now gave his promise under oath not to depart from the city
before the Council had dissolved. "But, notwithstanding these
protestations, John escaped (March 21, 1415), disguised as a
groom, during a great tournament arranged by the duke, and
made his way to Schaffhausen, belonging to the latter, thence
to Laufenburg and Freiburg, thence again to the fortress of
Brisac, whence he had intended to pass to Burgundy, and on to
Avignon. That the Council went on with its work after the
departure of John, and amid the general perplexity and
confusion, was entirely due to the resolution of the emperor,
the eloquence of Gerson [of the University of Paris], and the
indefatigable efforts of the venerable master, now cardinal,
d'Ailly. The following memorable decrees were passed …: 'A
Pope can neither transfer nor dissolve a general Council
without the consent of the latter, and hence the present
Council may validly continue its work even after the flight of
the Pope. All persons, without distinction of rank, even the
Pope himself, are bound by its decisions, in so far as these
relate to matters of faith, to the closing of the present
schism, and to the reformation of the Church of God in her
Head and members. All Christians, not excepting the Pope, are
under obligation to obey the Council.' … Pope John, after
getting away safe to Schaffhausen, complained formally of the
action of the Council towards himself, summoned all the
cardinals to appear personally before him within six days, and
sent memorials to the King of France [and others], …
justifying his flight. Still the Council went on with its
work; disposed, after a fashion, of the papal difficulty, and
of the cases of Buss and Jerome of Prague [whom it condemned
and delivered to the civil authorities, to be burned. …
See BOHEMIA: A. D. 1405-1415].
In the meantime, Frederic, Margrave of Brandenburg, acting
under the joint order of Council and Emperor, arrested the
fugitive Pope at Freiburg, and led him a prisoner to
Radolfzell, near Constance, where 54 (originally 72) charges
—some of them of a most disgraceful character—extracted from
the testimony of a host of witnesses, were laid before him by
a committee of the Council." He attempted no defense, and on
May 29, 1415, John XXIII. was formally and solemnly deposed
and was kept in confinement for the next three years. In July,
Gregory XII. was persuaded to resign his papal claims and to
accept the dignity of Cardinal Legate of Ancona. Benedict
XIII., more obstinate, refused to give up his pretensions,
though abandoned even by the Spaniards, and was deposed, on
the 26th of July, 1417. "The three claimants to the papacy
having been thus disposed of, it now remained to elect a
legitimate successor to St. Peter. Previously to proceeding to
an election, a decree was passed providing that, in this
particular instance, but in no other, six deputies of each
nation should be associated with the cardinals in making the
choice." It fell upon Otho Colonna, "a cardinal distinguished
for his great learning, his purity of life, and gentleness of
disposition." In November, 1417, he was anointed and crowned
under the name of Martin V. The Council was formally closed on
the 16th of May following, without having accomplished the
work of Church reformation which had been part of its intended
mission. "Sigismund and the German nation, and for a time the
English also, insisted that the question of the reformation of
the Church, the chief points of which had been sketched in a
schema of 18 articles, should be taken up and disposed of
before proceeding to the election of a Pope." But in this they
were baffled. "Martin, the newly elected Pope, did not fully
carry out all the proposed reforms. It is true, he appointed a
committee composed of six cardinals and deputies from each
nation, and gave the work into their hands; but their councils
were so conflicting that they could neither come to a definite
agreement among themselves, nor would they consent to adopt
the plan of reform submitted by the Pope."
J. Alzog,
Manual of Universal Church History,
sections 270-271 (volume 3).
The election of Martin V. might have been a source of
unalloyed happiness to Christendom, if he had at once taken
the crucial question of Church Reform vigorously in hand; but
the Regulations of the Chancery issued soon after his
accession showed that little was to be expected from him in
this respect. They perpetuated most of the practices in the
Roman Court which the Synod had designated as abuses. Neither
the isolated measures afterwards substituted for the universal
reform so urgently required, nor the Concordats made with
Germany, the three Latin nations, and England, sufficed to
meet the exigencies of the case, although they produced a
certain amount of good. The Pope was indeed placed in a most
difficult position, in the face of the various and opposite
demands made upon him, and the tenacious resistance offered by
interests now long established to any attempt to bring things
back to their former state. The situation was complicated to
such a degree that any change might have brought about a
revolution.
{2440}
It must also be borne in mind that all the proposed reforms
involved a diminution of the Papal revenues; the regular
income of the Pope was small and the expenditure was very
great. For centuries, complaints of Papal exactions had been
made, but no one had thought of securing to the Popes the
regular income they required. … The delay of the reform, which
was dreaded by both clergy and laity, may be explained, though
not justified, by the circumstances we have described. It was
an unspeakable calamity that ecclesiastical affairs still
retained the worldly aspect caused by the Schism, and that the
much needed amendment was again deferred."
L. Pastor,
History of the Popes, from the Close of the Middle Ages,
volume 1, pages 209-210.
ALSO IN:
H. H. Milman,
History of Latin Christianity,
book 13, chapters 8-10 (volume 6).
J. C. Robertson,
History of the Christian Church,
book 8, chapter 8 (volume 7).
PAPACY: A. D. 1431.
Election of Eugenius IV.
PAPACY: A. D. 1431-1448.
The Council of Basle.
Triumph of the Pope and defeat, once more, of Church Reform.
"The Papacy had come forth so little scathed from the perils
with which at one time these assemblies menaced it, that a
Council was no longer that word of terror which a little
before it had been. There was more than one motive for
summoning another, if indeed any help was to be found in them.
Bohemia, wrapt in the flames of the Hussite War, was scorching
her neighbours with fiercer fires than those by which she
herself was consumed. The healing of the Greek Schism was not
yet confessed to be hopeless, and the time seemed to offer its
favourable opportunities. No one could affirm that the
restoration of sound discipline, the reformation of the Church
in head and in members, had as yet more than begun. And thus,
in compliance with the rule laid down at the Council of
Constance,—for even at Rome they did not dare as yet openly to
set at nought its authority,—Pope Eugenius IV. called a third
Council together [1431], that namely of Basle. … Of those who
sincerely mourned over the Church's ills, the most part, after
the unhappy experience of the two preceding Councils, had so
completely lost all faith in these assemblies that slight
regard was at first yielded to the summons; and this Council
seemed likely to expire in its cradle as so many had done
before, as not a few should do after. The number of Bishops
and high Church dignitaries who attended it was never great. A
democratic element made itself felt throughout all its
deliberations; a certain readiness to resort to measures of a
revolutionary violence, such as leaves it impossible to say
that it had not itself to blame for much of its ill-success.
At the first indeed it displayed unlooked-for capacities for
work, entering into important negotiations with the Hussites
for their return to the bosom of the Church; till the Pope,
alarmed at these tokens of independent activity, did not
conceal his ill-will, making all means in his power to
dissolve the Council. This, meanwhile, growing in strength and
in self-confidence, re-affirmed all of strongest which had
been affirmed already at Pisa and Constance, concerning the

superiority of Councils over Popes; declared of itself that,
as a lawfully assembled Council, it could neither be
dissolved, nor the place of its meeting changed, unless by its
own consent; and, having summoned Eugenius and his Cardinals
to take their share in its labours, began the work of
reformation in earnest. Eugenius yielded for the time;
recalled the Bull which had hardly stopped short of
anathematizing the Council; and sent his legates to Basle.
Before long, however, he and the Council were again at strife;
Eugenius complaining, apparently with some reason, that in
these reforms one source after another of the income which had
hitherto sustained the Papal Court was being dried up, while
no other provision was made for the maintenance of its due
dignity, or even for the defraying of its necessary expenses.
As the quarrel deepened the Pope removed the seat of the
Council to Ferrara (September 18, 1437), on the plea that
negotiations with the envoys of the Greek Church would be more
conveniently conducted in an Italian city; and afterwards to
Florence. The Council refused to stir, first suspending
(January 24, 1438), then deposing the Pope (July 7, 1439), and
electing another, Felix V., in his stead; this Felix being a
retired Duke of Savoy, who for some time past had been playing
the hermit in a villa on the shores of the lake of Geneva.
See SAVOY: 11-15th CENTURIES.
The Council in this extreme step failed to carry public
opinion with it. It was not merely that Eugenius denounced his
competitor by the worst names he could think of, declaring him
a hypocrite, a wolf in sheep's clothing, a Moloch, a Cerberus,
a Golden Calf, a second Mahomet, an anti-christ; but the
Church in general shrank back in alarm at the prospect of
another Schism, to last, it might be, for well-nigh another
half century. And thus the Council lost ground daily; its
members fell away; its confidence in itself departed; and,
though it took long in dying, it did in the end die a death of
inanition (June 23, 1448). Again the Pope remained master of
the situation, the last reforming Council,—for it was the
last,—having failed in all which it undertook as completely
and as ingloriously as had done the two which went before."
R. C. Trench,
Lectures on Medieval Church History,
lecture 20.
"In the year 1438 the Emperor John and the Greek Patriarch
made their appearance at the council of Ferrara. In the
following year the council was transferred to Florence, where,
after long discussions, the Greek emperor, and all the members
of the clergy who had attended the council, with the exception
of the Bishop of Ephesus, adopted the doctrine of the Roman
church concerning the possession of the Holy Ghost, the
addition to the Nicene Creed, the nature of purgatory, the
condition of the soul after its separation from the body until
the day of judgment, the use of unleavened bread in the
sacrament of the Lord's Supper, and the papal supremacy. The
union of the two churches was solemnly ratified in the
magnificent cathedral of Florence on the 6th of July 1439,
when the Greeks abjured their ancient faith in a vaster
edifice and under a loftier dome than that of their own
much-vaunted temple of St. Sophia. The Emperor John derived
none of the advantages he had expected from the simulated
union of the churches. Pope Eugenius, it is true, supplied him
liberally with money, and bore all the expenses both of the
Greek court and clergy during their absence from
Constantinople; he also presented the emperor with two
galleys, and furnished him with a guard of 300 men, well
equipped, and paid at the cost of the papal treasury; but his
Holiness forgot his promise to send a fleet to defend
Constantinople, and none of the Christian princes showed any
disposition to fight the battles of the Greeks, though they
took up the cross against the Turks.
{2441}
On his return John found his subjects indignant at the manner
in which the honour and doctrines of the Greek church had been
sacrificed in an unsuccessful diplomatic speculation. The
bishops who had obsequiously signed the articles of union at
Florence, now sought popularity by deserting the emperor, and
making a parade of their repentance, lamenting their
wickedness in falling off for a time from the pure doctrine of
the orthodox church. The only permanent result of this
abortive attempt at Christian union was to increase the
bigotry of the orthodox, and to furnish the Latins with just
grounds for condemning the perfidious dealings and bad faith
of the Greeks. In both ways it assisted the progress of the
Othoman power. The Emperor John, seeing public affairs in this
hopeless state, became indifferent to the future fate of the
empire, and thought only of keeping on good terms with the
sultan."
G. Finlay,
History of the Byzantine and Greek Empires,
book 4, chapter 2, section 6 (volume 2).
Pope "Eugenius died, February 23, 1447; … but his successors
were able to secure the fruits of the victory [over the
Council of Basel] for a long course of years. The victory was
won at a heavy cost, both for the Popes and for Christendom;
for the Papacy recovered its ascendancy far more as a
political than as a religious power. The Pope became more than
ever immersed in the international concerns of Europe, and his
policy was a tortuous course of craft and intrigue, which in
those days passed for the new art of diplomacy. … To revert to
a basis of spiritual domination lay beyond the vision of the
energetic princes, the refined dilettanti, the dexterous
diplomatists, who sat upon the chair of St. Peter during the
age succeeding the Council of Basle. Of signs of uneasiness
abroad they could not be quite ignorant; but they sought to
divert men's minds from the contemplation of so perplexing a
problem as Church reform, by creating or fostering new
atmospheres of excitement and interest; … or at best (if we
may adopt the language of their apologists) they took
advantage of the literary and artistic movement then active in
Italy as a means to establish a higher standard of
civilisation which might render organic reform needless."
R. L. Poole,
Wycliffe and Movements for Reform,
chapter 12.
ALSO IN:
J. E. Darras,
General History of the Catholic Church, 6th period,
chapter 4 (volume 3).
See, also, FRANCE: A. D. 1438; and 1515-1518.
PAPACY: A. D. 1439.
Election of Felix V. (by the Council of Basle).
PAPACY: A. D. 1447-1455.
The pontificate of Nicolas V.
Recovery of character and influence.
Beginning of the Renaissance.
See ITALY: A. D. 1447-1480.
PAPACY: A. D. 1455.
Election of Callistus III.
PAPACY: A. D. 1458.
Election of Pius II., known previously as the learned
Cardinal Æneas Sylvius Piccolomini, historian and diplomatist.
PAPACY: A. D. 1464.
Election of Paul II.
PAPACY: A. D. 1471-1513.
The darkest age of Papal crime and vice.
Sixtus IV. and the Borgias.
The warrior Pontiff, Julius II.
"The impunity with which the Popes escaped the councils held
in the early part of the 15th century was well fitted to
inspire them with a reckless contempt for public opinion; and
from that period down to the Reformation, it would be
difficult to parallel among temporal princes the ambitious,
wicked, and profligate lives of many of the Roman Pontiffs.
Among these, Francesco della Rovere, who succeeded Paul II.
with the title of Sixtus IV., was not the least notorious.
Born at Savona, of an obscure family, Sixtus raised his
nephews, and his sons who passed for nephews, to the highest
dignities in Church and State, and sacrificed for their
aggrandisement the peace of Italy and the cause of Christendom
against the Turks. Of his two nephews, Julian, and Leonard
della Rovere, the former, afterwards Pope Julius II., was
raised to the purple in the second year of his uncle's
pontificate." It was this pope—Sixtus IV.—who had a part in
the infamous "Conspiracy of the Pazzi" to assassinate Lorenzo
de' Medici and his brother.
See FLORENCE: A. D. 1469-1492.
"This successor of St. Peter took a pleasure in beholding the
mortal duels of his guards, for which he himself sometimes
gave the signal. He was succeeded [1484] by Cardinal Gian
Batista Cibò, a Genoese, who assumed the title of Innocent
VIII. Innocent was a weak man, without any decided principle.
He had seven children, whom he formally acknowledged, but he
did not seek to advance them so shamelessly as Sixtus had
advanced his 'nephews.' … Pope Innocent VIII. [who died July
25, 1492] was succeeded by the atrocious Cardinal Roderigo
Borgia, a Spaniard of Valencia, where he had at one time
exercised the profession of an advocate. After his election he
assumed the name of Alexander VI. Of 20 cardinals who entered
the conclave, he is said to have bought the suffrages of all
but five; and Cardinal Ascanio Sforza, whom he feared as a
rival, was propitiated with a present of silver that was a
load for four mules. Alexander's election was the signal for
flight to those cardinals who had opposed him. … Pope
Alexander had by the celebrated Vanozza, the wife of a Roman
citizen, three sons: John, whom he made Duke of Gandia, in
Spain; Cæsar and Geoffrey; and one daughter, Lucretia."
T. H. Dyer,
History of Modern Europe,
volume 1, pages 105, 108, 175, 177-178.
Under the Borgias, "treasons, assassinations, tortures, open
debauchery, the practice of poisoning, the worst and most
shameless outrages, are unblushingly and publicly tolerated in
the open light of heaven. In 1490, the Pope's vicar having
forbidden clerics and laics to keep concubines, the Pope
revoked the decree, 'saying that that was not forbidden,
because the life of priests and ecclesiastics was such that
hardly one was to be found who did not keep a concubine, or at
least who had not a courtesan.' Cæsar Borgia at the capture of
Capua 'chose forty of the most beautiful women, whom he kept
for himself; and a pretty large number of captives were sold
at a low price at Rome.' Under Alexander VI., 'all
ecclesiastics, from the greatest to the least, have concubines
in the place of wives, and that publicly. If God hinder it
not,' adds this historian, 'this corruption will pass to the
monks and religious orders, although, to confess the truth,
almost all the monasteries of the town have become
bawd–houses, without anyone to speak against it.' With respect
to Alexander VI., who loved his daughter Lucretia, the reader
may find in Burchard the description of the marvellous orgies
in which he joined with Lucretia and Cæsar, and the
enumeration of the prizes which he distributed.
{2442}
Let the reader also read for himself the story of the
bestiality of Pietro Luigi Farnese, the Pope's son, how the
young and upright Bishop of Fano died from his outrage, and
how the Pope, speaking of this crime as 'a youthful levity,'
gave him in this secret bull 'the fullest absolution from all
the pains which he might have incurred by human incontinence,
in whatever shape or with whatever cause.' As to civil
security, Bentivoglio caused all the Marescotti to be put to
death; Hippolyto d' Este had his brother's eyes put out in his
presence; Cæsar Borgia killed his brother; murder is consonant
with their public manners, and excites no wonder. A fisherman
was asked why he had not informed the governor of the town
that he had seen a body thrown into the water; 'he replied
that he had seen about a hundred bodies thrown into the water
during his lifetime in the same place, and that no one had
ever troubled about it.' 'In our town,' says an old historian,
'much murder and pillage was done by day and night, and hardly
a day passed but some one was killed.' Cæsar Borgia one day
killed Peroso, the Pope's favourite, between his arms and
under his cloak, so that the blood spurted up to the Pope's
face. He caused his sister's husband to be stabbed and then
strangled in open day, on the steps of the palace; count, if
you can, his assassinations. Certainly he and his father, by
their character, morals, open and systematic wickedness, have
presented to Europe the two most successful images of the
devil. … Despotism, the Inquisition, the Cicisbei, dense
ignorance, and open knavery, the shamelessness and the
smartness of harlequins and rascals, misery and vermin,—such
is the issue of the Italian Renaissance."
H. A. Taine,
History of English Literature,
volume 1, pages 354-355.
"It is certain … that the profound horror with which the name
of Alexander VI. strikes a modern ear, was not felt among the
Italians at the time of his election. The sentiment of hatred
with which he was afterwards regarded arose partly from the
crimes by which his Pontificate was rendered infamous, partly
from the fear which his son Cesare inspired, and partly from
the mysteries of his private life which revolted even the
corrupt conscience of the 16th century. This sentiment of
hatred had grown to universal execration at the time of his
death. In course of time, when the attention of the Northern
nations had been directed to the iniquities of Rome, and when
the glaring discrepancy between Alexander's pretension as a
Pope and his conduct as a man had been apprehended, it
inspired a legend, which, like all legends, distorts the facts
which it reflects. Alexander was, in truth, a man eminently
fitted to close an old age and to inaugurate a new, to
demonstrate the paradoxical situation of the Popes by the
inexorable logic of his practical impiety, and to fuse two
conflicting world forces in the cynicism of supreme
corruption. … Alexander was a stronger and a firmer man than
his immediate predecessors. 'He combined,' says Guicciardini,
'craft with singular sagacity, a sound judgment with
extraordinary powers of persuasion; and to all the grave
affairs of life he applied ability and pains beyond belief.'
His first care was to reduce Rome to order. The old factions
of Colonna and Orsini, which Sixtus had scotched, but which
had raised their heads again during the dotage of Innocent,
were destroyed in his pontificate. In this way, as Machiavelli
observed, he laid the real basis for the temporal power of the
Papacy. Alexander, indeed, as a sovereign, achieved for the
Papal See what Louis XI. had done for the throne of France,
and made Rome on its small scale follow the type of the large
European monarchies. … Former Pontiffs had raised money by the
sale of benefices and indulgences: this, of course, Alexander
also practised—to such an extent, indeed, that an epigram
gained currency; 'Alexander sells the keys, the altars,
Christ. Well, he bought them; so he has a right to sell them.'
But he went further and took lessons from Tiberius. Having
sold the scarlet to the highest bidder, he used to feed his
prelate with rich benefices. When he had fattened him
sufficiently, he poisoned him, laid hands upon his hoards, and
recommenced the game. … Former Popes had preached crusades
against the Turk, languidly or energetically according as the
coasts of Italy were threatened. Alexander frequently invited
Bajazet to enter Europe and relieve him of the princes who
opposed his intrigues in the favour of his children. The
fraternal feeling which subsisted between the Pope and the
Sultan was to some extent dependent on the fate of Prince
Djem, a brother of Bajazet and son of the conqueror of
Constantinople, who had fled for protection to the Christian
powers, and whom the Pope kept prisoner, receiving 40,000
ducats yearly from the Porte for his jail fee. … Lucrezia, the
only daughter of Alexander by Vannozza, took three husbands in
succession, after having been formally betrothed to two
Spanish nobles. … History has at last done justice to the
memory of this woman, whose long yellow hair was so beautiful,
and whose character was so colourless. The legend which made
her a poison-brewing Mænad, has been proved a lie—but only at
the expense of the whole society in which she lived. … It
seems now clear enough that not hers, but her father's and her
brother's, were the atrocities which made her married life in
Rome a byeword. She sat and smiled through all the tempests
which tossed her to and fro, until she found at last a fair
port in the Duchy of Ferrara. … [On the 12th of August, 1503],
the two Borgias invited the Cardinal Carneto to dine with them
in the Belvedere of Pope Innocent. Thither by the hands of
Alexander's butler they previously conveyed some poisoned
wine. By mistake they drank the death-cup mingled for their
victim. Alexander died, a black and swollen mass, hideous to
contemplate, after a sharp struggle with the poison."
J. A. Symonds,
Renaissance in Italy: The Age of the Despots,
chapter 6.
The long-accepted story of Pope Alexander's poisoning, as
related above by Mr. Symonds, is now discredited. "The
principal reason why this picturesque tale has of late been
generally regarded as a fiction is the apparent impossibility
of reconciling it with a fact in connexion with Pope
Alexander's last illness which admits of no dispute, the date
of its commencement. The historians who relate the poisoning
unanimously assert that the effect was sudden and
overpowering, that the pope was carried back to the Vatican in
a dying state and expired shortly afterwards. The 18th of
August has hitherto been accepted without dispute as the date
of his death: it follows, therefore, that the fatal banquet
must have been on the 17th at the earliest.
{2443}
But a cloud of witnesses, including the despatches of
ambassadors resident at the papal court, prove that the pope's
illness commenced on the 12th, and that by the 17th his
condition was desperate. The Venetian ambassador and a
Florentine letter-writer, moreover, the only two contemporary
authorities who assign a date for the entertainment, state
that it was given on the 5th or 6th, … which would make it a
week before the pope was taken ill. … It admits … of absolute
demonstration that the banquet could not have been given on
the 12th or even on the 11th, and of proof hardly less cogent
that the pope did actually die on the 18th. All the evidence
that any entertainment was ever given, or that any poisoning
was ever attempted, connects the name of Cardinal Corneto with
the transaction. He and no other, according to all respectable
authorities (the statement of late writers that ten cardinals
were to have been poisoned at once may be dismissed without
ceremony as too ridiculous for discussion), was the cardinal
whom Alexander on this occasion designed to remove. Now,
Cardinal Corneto was not in a condition to partake of any banquet
either on 11 August or 12 August Giustiniani, the Venetian
ambassador, who attributes the pope's illness to a fever
contracted at supper at the cardinal's villa on 5 August,
says, writing on the 13th, 'All have felt the effects, and
first of all Cardinal Adrian [Corneto], who attended mass in
the papal chapel on Friday [11 August], and after supper was
attacked by a violent paroxysm of fever, which endured until
the following morning; yesterday [the 12th] he had it again,
and it has returned to-day.' Evidently, then, the cardinal
could not give or even be present at an entertainment on the
12th, and nothing could have happened on that day to throw a
doubt on the accuracy of Burcardus's statement that the pope
was taken ill in the morning, which would put any banquet and
any poisoning during the course of it out of the question. …
There is, therefore, no reason for discrediting the evidence
of the two witnesses, the only contemporary witnesses to date,
who fix the supper to 5 August or 6 August at the latest. It
is possible that poison may have been then administered which
did not produce its effects until 12 August; but the
picturesque statement of the suddenness of the pope's illness
and the consternation thus occasioned are palpable fictions,
which so gravely impair the credit of the historians relating
them that the story of the poisoning cannot be accepted on
their authority. … The story, then, that Alexander
accidentally perished by poison which he had prepared for
another—though not in itself impossible or even very
improbable—must be dismissed as at present unsupported by
direct proof or even incidental confirmation of any kind. It
does not follow that he may not have been poisoned
designedly."
R. Garnett,
The Alleged Poisoning of Alexander VI.
(English Historical Review, April, 1894).
"Of Pius III., who reigned for a few days after Alexander, no
account need be taken. Giuliano della Rovere was made Pope in
1503. Whatever opinion may be formed of him considered as the
high-priest of the Christian faith, there can be no doubt that
Julius II. was one of the greatest figures of the Renaissance,
and that his name, instead of that of Leo X., should by right
be given to the golden age of letters and of arts in Rome. He
stamped the century with the impress of a powerful
personality. It is to him we owe the most splendid of Michael
Angelo's and Raphael's masterpieces. The Basilica of St.
Peter's, that materialized idea, which remains to symbolize
the transition from the Church of the Middle Ages to the
modern semi-secular supremacy of Papal Rome, was his thought.
No nepotism, no loathsome sensuality, no flagrant violation of
ecclesiastical justice stain his pontificate. His one purpose
was to secure and extend the temporal authority of the Popes;
and this he achieved by curbing the ambition of the Venetians,
who threatened to enslave Romagna, by reducing Perugia and
Bologna to the Papal sway, by annexing Parma and Piacenza, and
by entering on the heritage bequeathed to him by Cesare
Borgia. At his death he transmitted to his successors the
largest and most solid sovereignty in Italy. But restless,
turbid, never happy unless fighting, Julius drowned the
peninsula in blood. He has been called a patriot, because from
time to time he raised the cry of driving the barbarians from
Italy: it must, however, be remembered that it was he, while
still Cardinal di San Pietro in Vincoli, who finally moved
Charles VIII. from Lyons; it was he who stirred up the League
of Cambray [see VENICE: A. D. 1508-1509] against Venice, and
who invited the Swiss mercenaries into Lombardy [see ITALY: A.
D. 1510-1513]; in each case adding the weight of the Papal
authority to the forces which were enslaving his country. …
Leo X. succeeded Julius in 1513, to the great relief of the
Romans, wearied with the continual warfare of the old
'Pontefice terribile.'"
J. A. Symonds,
Renaissance in Italy: The Age of the Despots,
chapter 6.
ALSO IN:
J. C. Robertson,
History of the Christian Church,
book 9, chapter 5 (volume 8).
M. Creighton,
History of the Papacy,
book 5, chapters 3-17.
W. Gilbert,
Lucrezia Borgia.
P. Villari,
Life and Times of Machiavelli,
introduction, chapter 4 (volume 1);
book 1, chapters 6-14 (volumes 2-3).
PAPACY: A. D. 1493.
The Pope's assumption of authority
to give the New World to Spain.
See AMERICA: A. D. 1493.
PAPACY: A. D. 1496-1498.
The condemnation of Savonarola.
See FLORENCE: A. D. 1490-1498.
PAPACY: A. D. 1503 (September).
Election of Pius III.
PAPACY: A. D. 1503 (October).
Election of Julius II.
PAPACY: A. D. 1508-1509.
Pope Julius II. and the League of Cambrai against Venice.
See VENICE: A. D. 1508-1509.
PAPACY: A. D. 1510-1513.
The Holy League against France.
The pseudo-council at Pisa.
Conquests of Julius II.
See ITALY: A. D. 1510-1513.
PAPACY: A. D. 1513.
Election of Leo X.
PAPACY: A. D. 1515-1516.
Treaty of Leo X. with Francis I. of France.
Abrogation of the Pragmatic Sanction of Charles VII.
The Concordat of Bologna.
Destruction of the liberties of the Gallican Church.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1515-1518.
{2444}
PAPACY: A. D. 1516-1517.
Monetary demands of the court and family of Pope Leo X.,
and his financial expedients.
The theory of Indulgences and their marketability.
"The position which the pope [Leo X.], now absolute lord of
Florence and master of Siena, occupied, the powerful alliances
he had contracted with the other powers of Europe, and the views
which his family entertained on the rest of Italy, rendered it
absolutely indispensable for him, spite of the prodigality of
a government that knew no restraint, to be well supplied with
money. He seized every occasion of extracting extraordinary
revenues from the church. The Lateran council was induced,
immediately before its dissolution (15th of March, 1517), to
grant the pope a tenth of all church property throughout
Christendom. Three different commissions for the sale of
indulgences traversed Germany and the northern states at the
same moment. These expedients were, it is true, resorted to
under various pretexts. The tenths were, it was said, to be
expended in a Turkish war, which was soon to be declared; the
produce of indulgences was for the building of St. Peter's
Church, where the bones of the martyrs lay exposed to the
inclemency of the elements. But people had ceased to believe
in these pretences. … For there was no doubt on the mind of
any reasonable man, that all these demands were mere financial
speculations. There is no positive proof that the assertion
then so generally made —that the proceeds of the sale of
indulgences in Germany was destined in part for the pope's
sister Maddelena—was true. But the main fact is indisputable,
that the ecclesiastical aids were applied to the uses of the
pope's family."
L. Ranke,
History of the Reformation in Germany,
book 2, chapter 1 (volume 1).
"Indulgences, in the earlier ages of the Church, had been a
relaxation of penance, or of the discipline imposed by the
Church on penitents who had been guilty of mortal sin. The
doctrine of penance required that for such sin satisfaction
should be superadded to contrition and confession. Then came
the custom of commuting these appointed temporal penalties.
When Christianity spread among the northern nations, the
canonical penances were frequently found to be inapplicable to
their condition. The practice of accepting offerings of money
in the room of the ordinary forms of penance, harmonized with
the penal codes in vogue among the barbarian peoples. At first
the priest had only exercised the office of an intercessor.
Gradually the simple function of declaring the divine
forgiveness to the penitent transformed itself into that of a
judge. By Aquinas, the priest is made the instrument of
conveying the divine pardon, the vehicle through which the
grace of God passes to the penitent. With the jubilees, or
pilgrimages to Rome, ordained by the popes, came the plenary
indulgences, or the complete remission of all temporal
penalties—that is, the penalties still obligatory on the
penitent—on the fulfillment of prescribed conditions. These
penalties might extend into purgatory, but the indulgence
obliterated them all. In the 13th century, Alexander of Hales
and Thomas Aquinas set forth the theory of supererogatory
merits, or the treasure of merit bestowed upon the Church
through Christ and the saints, on which the rulers of the
Church might draw for the benefit of the less worthy and more
needy. This was something distinct from the power of the keys,
the power to grant absolution, which inhered in the priesthood
alone. The eternal punishment of mortal sin being remitted or
commuted by the absolution of the priest, it was open to the
Pope or his agents, by the grant of indulgences, to remit the
temporal or terminable penalties that still rested on the head
of the transgressor. Thus souls might be delivered forthwith
from purgatorial fire. Pope Sixtus IV., in 1477, had
officially declared that souls already in purgatory are
emancipated 'per modum suffragii'; that is, the work done in
behalf of them operates to effect their release in a way
analogous to the efficacy of prayer. Nevertheless, the power
that was claimed over the dead, was not practically diminished
by this restriction. The business of selling indulgences had
grown by the profitableness of it. 'Everywhere,' says Erasmus,
'the remission of purgatorial torment is sold; nor is it sold
only, but forced upon those who refuse it.' As managed by
Tetzel and the other emissaries sent out to collect money for
the building of St. Peter's Church, the indulgence was a
simple bargain, according to which, on the payment of a
stipulated sum, the individual received a full discharge from
the penalties of sin or procured the release of a soul from
the flames of purgatory. The forgiveness of sins was offered
in the market for money."
G. P. Fisher,
The Reformation,
chapter 4.
The doctrine concerning indulgences which the Roman Catholic
Church maintains at the present day is stated by one of its
most eminent prelates as follows: "What then is an Indulgence?
It is no more than a remission by the Church, in virtue of the
keys, or the judicial authority committed to her, of a
portion, or the entire, of the temporal punishment due to sin.
The infinite merits of Christ form the fund whence this
remission is derived: but besides, the Church holds that, by
the communion of Saints, penitential works performed by the
just, beyond what their own sins might exact, are available to
other members of Christ's mystical body; that, for instance,
the sufferings of the spotless Mother of God, afflictions such
as probably no other human being ever felt in the soul, —the
austerities and persecutions of the Baptist, the friend of the
Bridegroom, who was sanctified in his mother's womb, and
chosen to be an angel before the face of the Christ,—the
tortures endured by numberless martyrs, whose lives had been
pure from vice and sin,—the prolonged rigours of holy
anchorites, who, flying from the temptations and dangers of
the world, passed many years in penance and contemplation, all
these made consecrated and valid through their union with the
merits of Christ's passion,—were not thrown away, but formed a
store of meritorious blessings, applicable to the satisfaction
of other sinners. It is evident that, if the temporal
punishment reserved to sin was anciently believed to be
remitted through the penitential acts, which the sinner
assumed, any other substitute for them, that the authority
imposing or recommending them received as an equivalent, must
have been considered by it truly of equal value, and as
acceptable before God. And so it must be now. If the duty of
exacting such satisfaction devolves upon the Church,—and it
must be the same now as it formerly was,—she necessarily
possesses at present the same power of substitution, with the
same efficacy, and, consequently, with the same effects. And
such a substitution is what constitutes all that Catholics
understand by the name of an Indulgence. … Do I then mean to
say, that during the middle ages, and later, no abuse took
place in the practise of indulgences? Most certainly not.
{2445}
Flagrant and too frequent abuses, doubtless, occurred through
the avarice, and rapacity, and impiety of men; especially when
indulgence was granted to the contributors towards charitable
or religious foundations, in the erection of which private
motives too often mingle. But this I say, that the Church felt
and ever tried to remedy the evil. … The Council of Trent, by
an ample decree, completely reformed the abuses which had
subsequently crept in, and had been unfortunately used as a
ground for Luther's separation from the Church."
N. Wiseman,
Lectures on the Principal Doctrines and
Practices of the Catholic Church,
lecture 12.
PAPACY: A. D. 1517.
Tetzel and the hawking of Indulgences through Germany.
"In Germany the people were full of excitement. The Church had
opened a vast market on earth. The crowd of customers, and the
cries and jests of the sellers, were like a fair—and that, a
fair held by monks. The article which they puffed off and
offered at the lowest price, was, they said, the salvation of
souls. These dealers travelled through the country in a
handsome carriage, with three outriders, made a great show,
and spent a great deal of money. … When the cavalcade was
approaching a town, a deputy was dispatched to the magistrate:
'The grace of God and St. Peter is before your gates,' said
the envoy; and immediately all the place was in commotion. The
clergy, the priests, the nuns, the council, the schoolmasters,
the schoolboys, the trade corporations with their banners, men
and women, young and old, went to meet the merchants, bearing
lighted torches in their hands, advancing to the sound of
music and of all the bells, 'so that,' says a historian, 'they
could not have received God Himself in greater state.' The
salutations ended, the whole cortege moved towards the church,
the Pope's bull of grace being carried in advance on a velvet
cushion, or on a cloth of gold. The chief indulgence-merchant
followed next, holding in his hand a red wooden cross. In this
order the whole procession moved along, with singing, prayers,
and incense. The organ pealed, and loud music greeted the
hawker monk and those who accompanied him, as they entered the
temple. The cross he bore was placed in front of the altar;
the Pope's arms were suspended from it. … One person
especially attracted attention at these sales. It was he who
carried the great red cross and played the principal part. He
wore the garb of the Dominicans. He had an arrogant bearing
and a thundering voice, and he was in full vigour, though he
had reached his sixty-third year. This man, the son of a
goldsmith of Leipsic, named Dietz, was called John Dietzel, or
Tetzel. He had received numerous ecclesiastical honours. He
was Bachelor in Theology, prior of the Dominicans, apostolic
commissioner and inquisitor, and since the year 1502 he had
filled the office of vendor of indulgences. The skill he had
acquired soon caused him to be named commissioner-in-chief. …
The cross having been elevated and the Pope's arms hung upon
it, Tetzel ascended the pulpit, and with a confident air began
to extol the worth of indulgences, in presence of the crowd
whom the ceremony had attracted to the sacred spot. The people
listened with open mouths. Here is a specimen of one of his
harangues:—'Indulgences,' he said, 'are the most precious and
sublime gifts of God. This cross (pointing to the red cross)
has as much efficacy as the cross of Jesus Christ itself.
Come, and I will give you letters furnished with seals, by
which, even the sins that you may have a wish to commit
hereafter, shall be all forgiven you. I would not exchange my
privileges for those of St. Peter in heaven; for I have saved
more souls by my indulgences than the Apostle by his
discourses. There is no sin so great, that an indulgence
cannot remit it. Repentance is not necessary. But, more than
that; indulgences not only save the living, they save the dead
also. Priest! noble! merchant! woman! young girl! young
man!—harken to your parents and your friends who are dead, and
who cry to you from the depths of the abyss: "We are enduring
horrible tortures! A small alms would deliver us. You can give
it, and you will not!"' The hearers shuddered at these words,
pronounced in the formidable voice of the charlatan monk. 'The
very instant,' continued Tetzel, 'the piece of money chinks at
the bottom of the strong box, the soul is freed from
purgatory, and flies to heaven.' … Such were the discourses
heard by astonished Germany in the days when God was raising
up Luther. The sermon ended, the indulgence was considered as
'having solemnly established its throne' in that place.
Confessionals were arranged, adorned with the Pope's arms; and
the people flocked in crowds to the confessors. They were
told, that, in order to obtain the full pardon of all their
sins, and to deliver the souls of others from purgatory, it
was not necessary for them to have contrition of heart, or to
make confession by mouth; only, let them be quick and bring
money to the box. Women and children, poor people, and those
who lived on alms, all of them soon found the needful to
satisfy the confessor's demands. The confession being over—and
it did not require much time—the faithful hurried to the sale,
which was conducted by a single monk. His counter stood near
the cross. He fixed his sharp eyes upon all who approached
him, scrutinized their manners, their bearing, their dress,
and demanded a sum proportioned to the appearance of each.
Kings, queens, princes, archbishops, bishops, had to pay,
according to regulation, twenty-five ducats; abbots, counts,
and barons, ten; and so on, or according to the discretion of
the commissioner. For particular sins, too, both Tetzel in
Germany, and Samson in Switzerland, had a special scale of
prices."
J. N. Merle D'Aubigne,
The Story of the! Reformation,
part 1, chapter 6
(or History of the Reformation, book 3, chapter 1).
ALSO IN:
M. J. Spalding,
History of the Protestant Reformation,
part 2, chapter 3.
PAPACY: A. D. 1517.
Luther's attack upon the Indulgences.
His 95 Theses nailed to the Wittenberg Church.
The silent support of Elector Frederick of Saxony.
The satisfaction of awakened Germany.
"Wittenberg was an old-fashioned town in Saxony, on the Elbe.
Its main street was parallel with the broad river, and within
its walls, at one end of it, near the Elster gate, lay the
University, founded by the good Elector—Frederic of Saxony—of
which Luther was a professor; while at the other end of it was
the palace of the Elector and the palace church of All Saints.
The great parish church lifted its two towers from the centre
of the town, a little back from the main street.
{2446}
This was the town in which Luther had been preaching for
years, and towards which Tetzel, the seller of indulgences,
now came, just as he did to other towns, vending his 'false
pardons'—granting indulgences for sins to those who could pay
for them, and offering to release from purgatory the souls of
the dead, if any of their friends would pay for their release.
As soon as the money chinked in his money-box, the souls of
their dead friends would be let out of purgatory. This was the
gospel of Tetzel. It made Luther's blood boil. He knew that
what the Pope wanted was people's money, and that the whole
thing was a cheat. This his Augustinian theology had taught
him, and he was not a man to hold back when he saw what ought
to be done. He did see it. On the day [October 31] before the
festival of All Saints, on which the relics of the Church were
displayed to the crowds of country people who flocked into the
town, Luther passed down the long street with a copy of
ninety-five theses or Statements [see text below] against
indulgences in his hand, and nailed them upon the door of the
palace church ready for the festival on the morrow. Also on
All Saints' day he read them to the people in the great parish
church. It would not have mattered much to Tetzel or the Pope
that the monk of Wittenberg had nailed up his papers on the
palace church, had it not been that he was backed by the
Elector of Saxony."
F. Seebohm,
The Era of the Protestant Revolution,
part 2, chapter 3 (c).
"As the abuse complained of had a double character, religious
and political, or financial, so also political events came in
aid of the opposition emanating from religious ideas.
Frederick of Saxony [on the occasion of an indulgence
proclaimed in 1501] … had kept the money accruing from it in
his own dominions in his possession, with the determination
not to part with it, till an expedition against the infidels,
which was then contemplated, should be actually undertaken;
the pope and, on the pope's concession, the emperor, had
demanded it of him in vain: he held it for what it really
was—a tax levied on his subjects; and after all the projects
of a war against the Turks had come to nothing, he had at
length applied the money to his university. Nor was he now
inclined to consent to a similar scheme of taxation. … The
sale of indulgences at Jüterbock and the resort of his
subjects thither, was not less offensive to him on financial
grounds than to Luther on spiritual. Not that the latter were
in any degree excited by the former; this it would be
impossible to maintain after a careful examination of the
facts; on the contrary, the spiritual motives were more
original, powerful, and independent than the temporal, though
these were important, as having their proper source in the
general condition of Germany. The point whence the great
events arose which were soon to agitate the world, was the
coincidence of the two. There was … no one who represented the
interests of Germany in the matter. There were innumerable
persons who saw through the abuse of religion, but no one who
dared to call it by its right name and openly to denounce and
resist it. But the alliance between the monk of Wittenberg and
the sovereign of Saxony was formed; no treaty was negotiated;
they had never seen each other; yet they were bound together
by an instinctive mutual understanding. The intrepid monk
attacked the enemy; the prince did not promise him his aid—he
did not even encourage him; he let things take their course. …
Luther's daring assault was the shock which awakened Germany
from her slumber. That a man should arise who had the courage
to undertake the perilous struggle, was a source of universal
satisfaction, and as it were tranquillised the public
conscience. The most powerful interests were involved in
it;—that of sincere and profound piety, against the most
purely external means of obtaining pardon of sins; that of
literature, against fanatical persecutors, of whom Tetzel was
one; the renovated theology against the dogmatic learning of
the schools, which lent itself to all these abuses; the
temporal power against the spiritual, whose usurpations it
sought to curb; lastly, the nation against the rapacity of
Rome."
L. Ranke,
History of the Reformation in Germany,
book 2, chapter 1 (volume 1).
ALSO IN:
J. Köstlin,
Life of Luther,
part 3, chapter 1.
C. Beard,
Martin Luther and the Reformation,
chapter 5.
See, also, GERMANY: A. D. 1517-1523.
PAPACY: A. D. 1517.
The Ninety-five Theses of Luther.
The following is a translation of the ninety-five theses:
"In the desire and with the purpose of elucidating the truth,
a disputation will be held on the underwritten propositions at
Wittemberg, under the presidency of the Reverend Father Martin
Luther, Monk of the Order of St. Augustine, Master of Arts and
of Sacred Theology, and ordinary Reader of the same in that
place. He therefore asks those who cannot be present and
discuss the subject with us orally, to do so by letter in
their absence. In the name of our Lord Jesus Christ. Amen.
1. Our Lord and Master Jesus Christ in saying: 'Repent ye,'
etc., intended that the whole life of believers should be
penitence.
2. This word cannot be understood of sacramental penance, that
is, of the confession and satisfaction which are performed
under the ministry of priests.
3. It does not, however, refer solely to inward penitence; nay
such inward penitence is naught, unless it outwardly produces
various mortifications of the flesh.
4. The penalty thus continues as long as the hatred of
self—that is, true inward penitence—continues; namely, till
our entrance into the kingdom of heaven.
5. The Pope has neither the will nor the power to remit any
penalties, except those which he has imposed by his own
authority, or by that of the canons.
6. The Pope has no power to remit any guilt, except by
declaring and warranting it to have been remitted by God; or
at most by remitting cases reserved for himself; in which
eases, if his power were despised, guilt would certainly
remain.
7. God never remits any man's guilt, without at the same time
subjecting him, humbled in all things, to the authority of his
representative the priest.
8. The penitential canons are imposed only on the living, and
no burden ought to be imposed on the dying, according to them.
9. Hence the Holy Spirit acting in the Pope does well for us,
in that, in his decrees, he always makes exception of the
article of death and of necessity.
10. Those priests act wrongly and unlearnedly, who, in the
case of the dying, reserve the canonical penances for
purgatory.
11. Those tares about changing of the canonical penalty into
the penalty of purgatory seem surely to have been sown while
the bishops were asleep.
12. Formerly the canonical penalties were imposed not after,
but before absolution, as tests of true contrition.
{2447}
13. The dying pay all penalties by death, and are already dead
to the canon laws, and are by right relieved from them.
14. The imperfect soundness or charity of a dying person
necessarily brings with it great fear, and the less it is, the
greater the fear it brings.
15. This fear and horror is sufficient by itself, to say
nothing of other things, to constitute the pains of purgatory,
since it is very near to the horror of despair.
16. Hell, purgatory, and heaven appear to differ as despair,
almost despair, and peace of mind differ.
17. With souls in purgatory it seems that it must needs be
that, as horror diminishes, so charity increases.
18. Nor does it seem to be proved by any reasoning or any
scriptures, that they are outside of the state of merit or of
the increase of charity.
19. Nor does this appear to be proved, that they are sure and
confident of their own blessedness, at least all of them,
though we may be very sure of it.
20. Therefore the Pope, when he speaks of the plenary
remission of all penalties, does not mean simply of all, but
only of those imposed by himself.
21. Thus those preachers of indulgences are in error who say
that, by the indulgences of the Pope, a man is loosed and
saved from all punishment.
22. For in fact he remits to souls in purgatory no penalty
which they would have had to pay in this life according to the
canons.
23. If any entire remission of all penalties can be granted to
anyone, it is certain that it is granted to none but the most
perfect, that is, to very few.
24. Hence the greater part of the people must needs be
deceived by this indiscriminate and high-sounding promise of
release from penalties.
25. Such power as the Pope has over purgatory in general, such
has every bishop in his own diocese, and every curate in his
own parish, in particular.
26. The Pope acts most rightly in granting remission to souls,
not by the power of the keys (which is of no avail in this
case) but by the way of suffrage.
27. They preach man, who say that the soul flies out of
purgatory as soon as the money thrown into the chest rattles.
28. It is certain that, when the money rattles in the chest,
avarice and gain may be increased, but the suffrage of the
Church depends on the will of God alone.
29. Who knows whether all the souls in purgatory desire to be
redeemed from it, according to the story told of Saints
Severinus and Paschal.
30. No man is sure of the reality of his own contrition, much
less of the attainment of plenary remission.
31. Rare as is a true penitent, so rare is one who truly buys
indulgences—that is to say, most rare.
32. Those who believe that, through letters of pardon, they
are made sure of their own salvation, will be eternally damned
along with their teachers.
33. We must especially beware of those who say that these
pardons from the Pope are that inestimable gift of God by
which man is reconciled to God.
34. For the grace conveyed by these pardons has respect only
to the penalties of sacramental satisfaction, which are of
human appointment.
35. They preach no Christian doctrine, who teach that
contrition is not necessary for those who buy souls out of
purgatory or buy confessional licences.
36. Every Christian who feels true compunction has of right
plenary remission of pain and guilt, even without letters of
pardon.
37. Every true Christian, whether living or dead, has a share
in all the benefits of Christ and of the Church, given him by
God, even without letters of pardon.
38. The remission, however, imparted by the Pope is by no
means to be despised, since it is, as I have said, a
declaration of the Divine remission.
39. It is a most difficult thing, even for the most learned
theologians, to exalt at the same time in the eyes of the
people the ample effect of pardons and the necessity of true
contrition.
40. True contrition seeks and loves punishment; while the
ampleness of pardons relaxes it, and causes men to hate it, or
at least gives occasion for them to do so.
41. Apostolic pardons ought to be proclaimed with caution,
lest the people should falsely suppose that they are placed
before other good works of charity.
42. Christians should be taught that it is not the mind of the
Pope that the buying of pardons is to be in any way compared
to works of mercy.
43. Christians should be taught that he who gives to a poor
man, or lends to a needy man, does better than if he bought
pardons.
44. Because, by a work of charity, charity increases, and the
man becomes better; while, by means of pardons, he does not
become better, but only freer from punishment.
45. Christians should be taught that he who sees anyone in
need, and, passing him by, gives money for pardons, is not
purchasing for himself the indulgences of the Pope, but the
anger of God.
46. Christians should be taught that, unless they have
superfluous wealth, they are bound to keep what is necessary
for the use of their own households, and by no means to lavish
it on pardons.
47. Christians should be taught that, while they are free to
buy pardons, they are not commanded to do so.
48. Christians should be taught that the Pope, in granting
pardons, has both more need and more desire that devout prayer
should be made for him, than that money should be readily
paid.
49. Christians should be taught that the Pope's pardons are
useful, if they do not put their trust in them, but most
hurtful, if through them they lose the fear of God.
50. Christians should be taught that, if the Pope were
acquainted with the exactions of the preachers of pardons, he
would prefer that the Basilica of St. Peter should be burnt to
ashes, than that it should be built up with the skin, flesh,
and bones of his sheep.
51. Christians should be taught that, as it would be the duty,
so it would be the wish of the Pope, even to sell, if
necessary, the Basilica of St. Peter, and to give of his own
money to very many of those from whom the preachers of pardons
extract money.
52. Vain is the hope of salvation through letters of pardon,
even if a commissary—nay the Pope himself—were to pledge his
own soul for them.
53. They are enemies of Christ and of the Pope, who, in order
that pardons may be preached, condemn the word of God to utter
silence in other churches.
54. Wrong is done to the word of God when, in the same sermon,
an equal or longer time is spent on pardons that [than] on it.
55. The mind of the Pope necessarily is that, if pardons,
which are a very small matter, are celebrated with single
bells, single processions, and single ceremonies, the Gospel,
which is a very great matter, should be preached with a
hundred bells, a hundred processions, and a hundred
ceremonies.
56. The treasures of the Church, whence the Pope grants
indulgences, are neither sufficiently named nor known among
the people of Christ.
{2448}
57. It is clear that they are at least not temporal treasures,
for these are not so readily lavished, but only accumulated,
by many of the preachers.
58. Nor are they the merits of Christ and of the saints, for
these, independently of the Pope, are always working grace to
the inner man, and the cross, death, and hell to the outer
man.
59. St. Lawrence said that the treasures of the Church are the
poor of the Church, but he spoke according to the use of the
word in his time.
60. We are not speaking rashly when we say that the keys of
the Church, bestowed through the merits of Christ, are that
treasure.
61. For it is clear that the power of the Pope is alone
sufficient for the remission of penalties and of reserved

cases.
62. The true treasure of the Church is the Holy Gospel of the
glory and grace of God.
63. This treasure, however, is deservedly most hateful,
because it makes the first to be last.
64. While the treasure of indulgences is deservedly most
acceptable, because it makes the last to be first.
65. Hence the treasures of the Gospel are nets, wherewith of
old they fished for the men of riches.
66. The treasures of indulgences are nets, wherewith they now
fish for the riches of men.
67. Those indulgences, which the preachers loudly proclaim to
be the greatest graces, are seen to be truly such as regards
the promotion of gain.
68. Yet they are in reality in no degree to be compared to the
grace of God and the piety of the cross.
69. Bishops and curates are bound to receive the commissaries
of apostolic pardons with all reverence.
70. But they are still more bound to see to it with all their
eyes, and take heed with all their ears, that these men do not
preach their own dreams in place of the Pope's commission.
71. He who speaks against the truth of apostolic pardons, let
him be anathema and accursed.
72. But he, on the other hand, who exerts himself against the
wantonness and licence of speech of the preachers of pardons,
let him be blessed.
73. As the Pope justly thunders against those who use any kind
of contrivance to the injury of the traffic in pardons.
74. Much more is it his intention to thunder against those
who, under the pretext of pardons, use contrivances to the
injury of holy charity and of truth.
75. To think that Papal pardons have such power that they
could absolve a man even if—by an impossibility—he had
violated the Mother of God, is madness.
76. We affirm on the contrary that Papal] pardons cannot take
away even the least of venial sins, as regards its guilt.
77. The saying that, even if St. Peter were now Pope, he could
grant no greater graces, is blasphemy against St. Peter and
the Pope.
78. We affirm on the contrary that both he and any other Pope
has greater graces to grant, namely, the Gospel, powers, gifts
of healing, etc. (1 Corinthians xii. 9).
79. To say that the cross set up among the insignia of the
Papal arms is of equal power with the cross of Christ, is
blasphemy.
80. Those bishops, curates, and theologians who allow such
discourses to have currency among the people, will have to
render an account.
81. This licence in the preaching of pardons makes it no easy
thing, even for learned men, to protect the reverence due to
the Pope against the calumnies, or, at all events, the keen
questionings of the laity.
82. As for instance:—Why does not the Pope empty purgatory for
the sake of most holy charity and of the supreme necessity of
souls—this being the most just of all reasons—if he redeems
an infinite number of souls for the sake of that most fatal
thing money, to be spent on building a basilica—this being a
very slight reason?
83. Again; why do funeral masses and anniversary masses for
the deceased continue, and why does not the Pope return, or
permit the withdrawal of the funds bequeathed for this
purpose, since it is a wrong to pay for those who are already
redeemed?
84. Again; what is this new kindness of God and the Pope, in
that for money's sake, they permit an impious man and an enemy
of God to redeem a pious soul which loves God, and yet do not
redeem that same pious and beloved soul, out of free charity,
on account of its own need?
85. Again; why is it that the penitential canons, long since
abrogated and dead in themselves in very fact and not only by
usage, are yet still redeemed with money, through the granting
of indulgences, as if they were full of life?
86. Again; why does not the Pope, whose riches are at this day
more ample than those of the wealthiest of the wealthy, build
the one basilica of St. Peter with his own money, rather than
with that of poor believers?
87. Again; what does the Pope remit or impart to those who,
through perfect contrition, have a right to plenary remission
and participation?
88. Again; what greater good would the Church receive if the
Pope, instead of once, as he does now, were to bestow these
remissions and participations a hundred times a day on any one
of the faithful?
89. Since it is the salvation of souls, rather than money,
that the Pope seeks by his pardons, why does he suspend the
letters and pardons granted long ago, since they are equally
efficacious.
90. To repress these scruples and arguments of the laity by
force alone, and not to solve them by giving reasons, is to
expose the Church and the Pope to the ridicule of their
enemies, and to make Christian men unhappy.
91. If then pardons were preached according to the spirit and
mind of the Pope, all these questions would be resolved with
ease; nay, would not exist.
92. Away then with all those prophets who say to the people of
Christ: 'Peace, peace,' and there is no peace.
93. Blessed be all those prophets, who say to the people of
Christ: 'The cross, the cross,' and there is no cross.
94. Christians should be exhorted to strive to follow Christ
their head through pains, deaths, and hells.
95. And thus trust to enter heaven through many tribulations,
rather than in the security of peace."
H. Wace and C. A. Buchheim,
First Principles of the Reformation,
page 6-13.
PAPACY: A. D. 1517-1521.
Favoring circumstances under which the Reformation in Germany
gained ground.
The Bull "Exurge Domine."
Excommunication of Luther.
The imperial summons from Worms.
"It was fortunate for Luther's cause that he lived under a
prince like the Elector of Saxony. Frederick, indeed, was a
devout catholic; he had made a pilgrimage to Palestine, and
had filled All Saints' Church at Wittenberg with relics for
which he had given large sums of money. His attention,
however, was now entirely engrossed by his new university, and
he was unwilling to offer up to men like Tetzel so great an
ornament of it as Dr. Martin Luther, since whose appointment
at Wittenberg the number of students had so wonderfully
increased as to throw the universities of Erfurt and Leipsic
quite into the shade. …
{2449}
As one of the principal Electors he was completely master in
his own dominions, and indeed throughout Germany he was as
much respected as the Emperor; and Maximilian, besides his
limited power, was deterred by his political views from taking
any notice of the quarrel. Luther had thus full liberty to
prepare the great movement that was to ensue. … The contempt
entertained by Pope Leo X. for the whole affair was also
favourable to Luther; for Frederick might not at first have
been inclined to defend him against the Court of Rome. … The
Court of Rome at length became more sensible of the importance
of Luther's innovations and in August 1518, he was commanded
either to recant, or to appear and answer for his opinions at
Rome, where Silvester Prierias and the bishop Ghenucci di
Arcoli had been appointed his judges. Luther had not as yet
dreamt of throwing off his allegiance to the Roman See. In the
preceding May he had addressed a letter to the Pope himself,
stating his views in a firm but modest and respectful tone,
and declaring that he could not retract them. The Elector
Frederick, at the instance of the university of Wittenberg,
which trembled for the life of its bold and distinguished
professor, prohibited Luther's journey to Rome, and expressed
his opinion that the question should be decided in Germany by
impartial judges. Leo consented to send a legate to Augsburg
to determine the cause, and selected for that purpose Cardinal
Thomas di Vio, better known by the name of Cajetanus, derived
from his native city of Gaeta. … Luther set out for Augsburg
on foot provided with several letters of recommendation from
the Elector, and a safe conduct from the Emperor Maximilian. …
Luther appeared before the cardinal for the first time,
October 12th, at whose feet he fell; but it was soon apparent
that no agreement could be expected. … Cajetanus, who had at
first behaved with great moderation and politeness, grew warm,
demanded an unconditional retraction, forbade Luther again to
appear before him till he was prepared to make it, and
threatened him with the censures of the Church. The fate of
Huss stared Luther in the face, and he determined to fly. His
patron Staupitz procured him a horse, and on the 20th of
October, Langemantel, a magistrate of Augsburg, caused a
postern in the walls to be opened for him before day had well
dawned. … Cajetanus now wrote to the Elector Frederick
complaining of Luther's refractory departure from Augsburg,
and requiring either that he should be sent to Rome or at
least be banished from Saxony. … So uncertain were Luther's
prospects that he made preparations for his departure. … At
length, just on the eve of his departure, he received an
intimation from Frederick that he might remain at Wittenberg.
Before the close of the year he gained a fresh accession of
strength by the arrival of Melanchthon, a pupil of Reuchlin,
who had obtained the appointment of Professor of Greek in the
university. Frederick offered a fresh disputation at
Wittenberg; but Leo X. adopted a course more consonant with
the pretensions of an infallible Church by issuing a Bull
dated November 9th 1518, which, without adverting to Luther or
his opinions, explained and enforced the received doctrine of
indulgences. It failed, however, to produce the desired
effect. … Leo now tried the effects of seduction. Carl Von
Miltitz, a Saxon nobleman, canon of Mentz, Treves, and
Meissen, … was despatched to the Elector Frederick with the
present of a golden rose, and with instructions to put an end,
as best he might, to the Lutheran schism. On his way through
Germany, Miltitz soon perceived that three fourths of the
people were in Luther's favour; nor was his reception at the
Saxon Court of a nature to afford much encouragement. …
Miltitz saw the necessity for conciliation. Having obtained an
interview with Luther at Altenburg, Miltitz persuaded him to
promise that he would be silent, provided a like restraint
were placed upon his adversaries. … Luther was even induced to
address a letter to the Pope, dated from Altenburg, March 3rd
1510, in which, in humble terms, he expressed his regret that
his motives should have been misinterpreted, and solemnly
declared that he did not mean to dispute the power and
authority of the Pope and the Church of Rome, which he
considered superior to everything except Jesus Christ alone. …
The truce effected by Miltitz lasted only a few months. It was
broken by a disputation to which Dr. Eck challenged
Bodenstein, a Leipsic professor, better known by the name of
Carlstadt. … The Leipsic disputation was preceded and followed
by a host of controversies. The whole mind of Germany was in
motion, and it was no longer with Luther alone that Rome had
to contend. All the celebrated names in art and literature
sided with the Reformation; Erasmus, Ulrich von Hutten,
Melanchthon, Lucas Cranach, Albert Durer, and others. Hans
Sachs, the Meistersänger of Nuremberg, composed in his honour
the pretty song called 'the Wittenberg Nightingale.' Silvester
von Schaumburg and Franz von Sickingen invited Luther to their
castles, in case he were driven from Saxony; and Schaumburg
declared that 100 more Franconian knights were ready to
protect him. … The Elector Frederick became daily more
convinced that his doctrines were founded in Scripture. …
Meanwhile, Luther had made great strides in his opinions since
the publication of his Theses. … He had begun to impugn many
of the principles of the Romish church; and so far from any
longer recognising the paramount authority of the Pope, or
even of a general council, he was now disposed to submit to no
rule but the Bible. The more timid spirits were alarmed at his
boldness, and even Frederick himself exhorted him to
moderation. It must be acknowledged, indeed, that Luther
sometimes damaged his cause by the intemperance of his
language; an instance of which is afforded by the remarkable
letter he addressed to Leo X., April 6th 1520, as a dedication
to his treatise 'De Libertate Christiana.' … The letter just
alluded to was, perhaps, the immediate cause of the famous
Bull, 'Exurge Domine,' which Leo fulminated against Luther,
June 15th 1520. The Bull, which is conceived in mild terms,
condemned forty-one propositions extracted from Luther's
works, allowed him sixty days to recant, invited him to Rome,
if he pleased to come, under a safe conduct, and required him
to cease from preaching and writing, and to burn his published
treatises. If he did not conform within the above period, he
was condemned as a notorious and irreclaimable heretic; all
princes and magistrates were required to seize him and his
adherents, and to send them to Rome; and all places that gave
them shelter were threatened with an interdict.
{2450}
The Bull was forwarded to Archbishop Albert of Mentz; but in
North Germany great difficulty was found in publishing it. …
On December 10th Luther consummated his rebellion by taking
that final step which rendered it impossible for him to
recede. On the banks of the Elbe before the Elster Gate of
Wittenberg, … Luther, in the presence of a large body of
professors and students, solemnly committed with his own hands
to the flames the Bull by which he had been condemned,
together with the code of the canon law, and the writings of
Eck and Emser, his opponents. … On January 3rd 1521, Luther
and his followers were solemnly excommunicated by Leo with
bell, book, and candle, and an image of him, together with his
writings, was committed to the flames. … At the Diet of Worms
which was held soon after, the Emperor [Charles V., who
succeeded Maximilian in 1519] having ordered that Luther's
books should be delivered up to the magistrates to be burnt,
the States represented to him the uselessness and impolicy of
such a step, pointing out that the doctrines of Luther had
already sunk deep into the hearts of the people; and they
recommended that he should be summoned to Worms and
interrogated whether he would recant without any disputation.
… In compliance with the advice of the States, the Emperor
issued a mandate, dated March 6th 1521, summoning Luther to
appear at Worms within twenty-one days. It was accompanied
with a safe conduct."
T. H. Dyer,
History of Modern Europe,
book 2, chapter 3 (volume 1).
ALSO IN:
L. von Ranke,
History of the Reformation in Germany,
book 2 (volume 1).
P. Bayne,
Martin Luther: his Life and Work,
book 5, chapter 3;
book 8, chapter 6 (volumes 1-2).
J. E. Darras,
History of the Church,
7th period, chapter 1 (volume 4).
P. Schaff,
History of the Christian Church,
volume 6, chapter 4.
PAPACY: A. D. 1519-1524.
The sale of Indulgences in Switzerland.
Beginning of the Reformation under Zwingli.
Near the close of the year 1518, Ulric Zwingle, or Zwingli, or
Zuinglius, already much respected for his zealous piety and
his learning, "was appointed preacher in the collegiate church
at Zurich. The crisis of his appearance on this scene was so
extraordinary as to indicate to every devout mind a
providential dispensation, designed to raise up a second
instrument in the work of reformation, and that, almost by the
same means which had been employed to produce the first. One
Bernhard Samson, or Sanson, a native of Milan, and a
Franciscan monk, selected this moment to open a sale of
indulgences at Zurich. He was the Tetzel of Switzerland. He
preached through many of its provinces, exercising the same
trade, with the same blasphemous pretensions and the same
clamorous effrontery; and in a land of greater political
freedom his impostures excited even a deeper and more general
disgust. … He encountered no opposition till he arrived at
Zurich. But here appears a circumstance which throws a shade
of distinction between the almost parallel histories of Samson
and Tetzel. The latter observed in his ministration all the
necessary ecclesiastical forms; the former omitted to present
his credentials to the bishop of the diocese, and acted solely
on the authority of the pontifical bulls: Hugo, Bishop of
Constance, was offended at this disrespectful temerity, and
immediately directed Zwingle and the other pastors to exclude
the stranger from their churches. The first who had occasion
to show obedience to this mandate was John Frey, minister of
Staufberg. Bullinger, Dean of Bremgarten, was the second. From
Bremgarten, after a severe altercation which ended by the
excommunication of that dignitary, Samson proceeded to Zurich.
Meanwhile Zwingle had been engaged for about two months in
rousing the indignation of the people against the same object;
and so successfully did he support the instruction of the
Bishop, and such efficacy was added to his eloquence by the
personal unpopularity of Samson, that the senate determined
not so much as to admit him within the gates of the city. A
deputation of honour was appointed to welcome the pontifical
legate without the walls. He was then commanded to absolve the
Dean from the sentence launched against him, and to depart
from the canton. He obeyed, and presently turned his steps
towards Italy and repassed the mountains. This took place at
the end of February, 1519. The Zurichers immediately addressed
a strong remonstrance to the Pope, in which they denounced the
misconduct of his agent. Leo replied, on the last of April,
with characteristic mildness; for though he maintained, as
might be expected, the Pope's authority to grant those
indulgences, … yet he accorded the prayer of the petition so
far as to recall the preacher, and to promise his punishment,
should he be convicted of having exceeded his commission. …
But Zwingle's views were not such as long to be approved by an
episcopal reformer in that [the Roman] church. … He began to
invite the Bishop, both by public and private solicitations,
with perfect respect but great earnestness, to give his
adhesion to the evangelical truth … and to permit the free
preaching of the gospel throughout his diocese. … From the
beginning of his preaching at Zurich it was his twofold object
to instruct the people in the meaning, design, and character
of the scriptural writings; and at the same time to teach them
to seek their religion only there. His very first proceeding
was to substitute the gospel of St. Matthew, as the text-book
of his discourses, for the scraps of Scripture exclusively
treated by the papal preachers; and he pursued this purpose by
next illustrating the Acts of the Apostles, and the epistles
of Paul and Peter. He considered the doctrine of justification
by faith as the corner-stone of Christianity, and he strove to
draw away his hearers from the gross observances of a
pharasaical church to a more spiritual conception of the
covenant of their redemption. … His success was so
considerable, that at the end of 1519 he numbered as many as
2,000 disciples; and his influence so powerful among the
chiefs of the commonwealth, that he procured, in the following
year, an official decree to the effect: That all pastors and
ministers should thenceforward reject the unfaithful devices
and ordinances of men, and teach with freedom such doctrines
only as rested on the authority of the prophecies, gospels,
and apostolical epistles."
G. Waddington,
History of the Reformation,
chapter 27 (volume 2).
{2451}
"With unflagging zeal and courage Zwingli followed his ideal
in politics, viz., to rear a republic on the type of the Greek
free states of old, with perfect national independence. Thanks
to his influence Zurich in 1521 abolished 'Reislaufen,' and
the system of foreign pay [mercenary military service]. This
step, however, brought down on the head of Zurich the wrath of
the twelve sister republics, which had just signed a military
contract with Francis I. … It was only in 1522 that he began
to launch pamphlets against the abuses in the Church-fasting,
celibacy of the clergy and the like. On the 29th of January,
1523, Zwingli obtained from the Council of Zurich the opening
of a public religious discussion in presence of the whole of
the clergy of the canton, and representatives of the Bishop of
Constance, whose assistance in the debate the Council had
invited. In 67 theses, remarkable for their penetration and
clearness, he sketched out his confession of faith and plan of
reform. … On the 25th of October, 1523, a second discussion
initiated the practical consequences of the reformed
doctrine—the abrogation of the mass and image worship.
Zwingli's system was virtually that of Calvin, but was
conceived in a broader spirit, and carried out later on in a
far milder manner by Bullinger. … The Council gave the fullest
approval to the Reformation. In 1524 Zwingli married Anne
Reinhard, the widow of a Zurich nobleman (Meyer von Knonau),
and so discarded the practice of celibacy obtaining amongst
priests. … In 1524 Zwingli began to effect the most sweeping
changes with the view of overthrowing the whole fabric of
mediæval superstition. In the direction of reform he went far
beyond Luther, who had retained oral confession, altar
pictures, &c. The introduction of his reforms in Zurich called
forth but little opposition. True, there were the risings of
the Anabaptists, but these were the same everywhere. …
Pictures and images were removed from the churches, under
government direction. … At the Landgemeinden [parish
gatherings] called for the purpose, the people gave an
enthusiastic assent to his doctrines, and declared themselves
ready 'to die for the gospel truth.' Thus a national Church
was established, severed from the diocese of Constance, and
placed under the control of the Council of Zurich and a
clerical synod. The convents were turned into schools,
hospitals, and poorhouses."
Mrs. L. Hug and R. Stead,
Switzerland,
chapter 22.
ALSO IN:
H. Stebbing,
History of the Reformation,
chapter 7 (volume l).
C. Beard,
The Reformation
(Hibbert Lectures, 1883).
lecture 7.
J. H. Merle D'Aubigné.
History of the Reformation,
books 8 and 11 (volumes 2-3).
M. J. Spalding.
History of the Protestant Reformation,
part 2, chapter 5.
P. Schaff,
History of the Christian Church,
volume 7, chapters 1-3.
PAPACY: A. D. 1521-1522.
Luther before the Diet at Worms.
His friendly abduction and concealment at Wartburg.
His translation of the Bible.
"On the 2nd of April [1521], the Tuesday after Easter, Luther
set out on his momentous journey. He travelled in a cart with
three of his friends, the herald riding in front in his coat
of arms. … The Emperor had not waited for his appearance to
order his books to be burnt. When he reached Erfurt on the way
the sentence had just been proclaimed. The herald asked him if
he still meant to go on. 'I will go,' he said, 'if there are
as many devils in Worms as there are tiles upon the
house-tops. Though they burnt Huss, they could not burn the
truth.' The Erfurt students, in retaliation, had thrown the
Bull into the water. The Rector and the heads of the
university gave Luther a formal reception as an old and
honoured member; he preached at his old convent, and he
preached again at Gotha and at Eisenach. Caietan had
protested against the appearance in the Diet of an
excommunicated heretic. The Pope himself had desired that the
safe–conduct should not be respected, and the bishops had said
that it was unnecessary. Manœvres were used to delay him on
the road till the time allowed had expired. But there was a
fierce sense of fairness in the lay members of the Diet, which
it was dangerous to outrage. Franz von Sickingen hinted that
if there was foul play it might go hard with Cardinal
Caietan—and Von Sickingen was a man of his word in such
matters. On the 16th of April, at ten in the morning, the cart
entered Worms, bringing Luther in his monk's dress, followed
and attended by a crowd of cavaliers. The town's people were
all out to see the person with whose name Germany was ringing.
As the cart passed through the gales the warder on the walls
blew a blast upon his trumpet. … Luther needed God to stand by
him, for in all that great gathering he could count on few
assured friends. The princes of the empire were resolved that
he should have fair play, but they were little inclined to
favour further a disturber of the public peace. The Diet sate
in the Bishop's palace, and the next evening Luther appeared.
The presence in which he found himself would have tried the
nerves of the bravest of men: the Emperor, sternly hostile,
with his retinue of Spanish priests and nobles; the
archbishops and bishops, all of opinion that the stake was the
only fitting place for so insolent a heretic; the dukes and
barons, whose stern eyes were little likely to reveal their
sympathy, if sympathy any of them felt. One of them only,
George of Frundsberg, had touched Luther on the shoulder as he
passed through the ante–room. 'Little monk, little monk,' he
said, 'thou hast work before thee, that I, and many a man
whose trade is war, never faced the like of. If thy heart is
right, and thy cause good, go on in God's name. He will not
forsake thee. A pile of books stood on a table when he was
brought forward. An officer of the court read the titles,
asked if he acknowledged them, and whether he was ready to
retract them. Luther was nervous, not without cause. He
answered in a low voice that the books were his. To the other
question he could not reply at once. He demanded time. His
first appearance had not left a favourable impression; he was
allowed a night to consider. The next morning, April 18, he
had recovered himself; he came in fresh, courageous, and
collected. His old enemy, Eck, was this time the spokesman
against him, and asked what he was prepared to do. He said
firmly that his writings were of three kinds: some on simple
Gospel truth, which all admitted, and which of course he could
not retract; some against Papal laws and customs, which had
tried the consciences of Christians and had been used as
excuses to oppress and spoil the German people. If he
retracted these he would cover himself with shame. In a third
sort he had attacked particular persons, and perhaps had been
too violent. Even here he declined to retract simply, but
would admit his fault if fault could be proved. He gave his
answers in a clear strong voice, in Latin first, and then in
German.
{2452}
There was a pause, and then Eck said that he had spoken
disrespectfully; his heresies had been already condemned at
the Council at Constance; let him retract on these special
points, and he should have consideration for the rest. He
required a plain Yes or No from him, 'without horns.' The
taunt roused Luther's blood. His full brave self was in his
reply. 'I will give you an answer,' he said, 'which has
neither horns nor teeth. Popes have erred and councils have
erred. Prove to me out of Scripture that I am wrong, and I
submit. Till then my conscience binds me. Here I stand. I can
do no more. God help me. Amen.' All day long the storm raged.
Night had fallen, and torches were lighted in the hall before
the sitting closed. Luther was dismissed at last; it was
supposed, and perhaps intended, that he was to be taken to a
dungeon. But the hearts of the lay members of the Diet had
been touched by the courage which he had shown. They would not
permit a hand to be laid on him. … When he had reached his
lodging again, he flung up his hands. 'I am through!' he
cried. 'I am through! If I had a thousand heads they should be
struck off one by one before I would retract.' The same
evening the Elector Frederick sent for him, and told him he
had done well and bravely. But though he had escaped so far,
he was not acquitted. Charles conceived that he could be now
dealt with as an obstinate heretic. At the next session (the
day following), he informed the Diet that he would send Luther
home to Wittenberg, there to be punished as the Church
required. The utmost that his friends could obtain was that
further efforts should be made. The Archbishop of Treves was
allowed to tell him that if he would acknowledge the
infallibility of councils, he might be permitted to doubt the
infallibility of the Pope. But Luther stood simply upon
Scripture. There, and there only, was infallibility. The
Elector ordered him home at once, till the Diet should decide
upon his fate. … A majority in the Diet, it was now clear,
would pronounce for his death. If he was sentenced by the
Great Council of the Empire, the Elector would be no longer
able openly to protect him. It was decided that he should
disappear, and disappear so completely that no trace of him
should be discernible. On his way back through the Thuringian
Forest, three or four miles from Altenstein, a party of armed
men started out of the wood, set upon his carriage, seized and
carried him off to Wartburg Castle. There he remained, passing
by the name of the Ritter George, and supposed to be some
captive knight. The secret was so well kept, that even the
Elector's brother was ignorant of his hiding place. Luther was
as completely lost as if the earth had swallowed him. … On the
8th of May the Edict of Worms was issued, placing him under
the ban of the empire; but he had become 'as the air
invulnerable,' and the face of the world had changed before he
came back to it: … Luther's abduction and residence at
Wartburg is the most picturesque incident in his life. He
dropped his monk's gown, and was dressed like a gentleman; he
let his beard grow and wore a sword. … The revolution,
deprived of its leader, ran wild meanwhile. An account of the
scene at Worms, with Luther's speeches, and wood cut
illustrations, was printed on broadsheets and circulated in
hundreds of thousands of copies. The people were like
schoolboys left without a master. Convents and monasteries
dissolved by themselves; monks and nuns began to marry; there
was nothing else for the nuns to do, turned as they were
adrift without provision. The Mass in most of the churches in
Saxony was changed into a Communion. But without Luther it was
all chaos, and no order could be taken. So great was the need
of him, that in December he went to Wittenberg in disguise;
but it was not yet safe for him to remain there. He had to
retreat to his castle again, and in that compelled retreat he
bestowed on Germany the greatest of all the gifts which he was
able to offer. He began to translate the Bible into clear
vernacular German. … He had probably commenced the work at the
beginning of his stay at the castle. In the spring of 1522 the
New Testament was completed. In the middle of March, the
Emperor's hands now being fully occupied, the Elector sent him
word that he need not conceal himself any longer; and he
returned finally to his home and his friends. The New
Testament was printed in November of that year, and became at
once a household book in Germany. … The Old Testament was
taken in hand at once, and in two years half of it was roughly
finished."
J. A. Froude,
Luther: a Short Biography,
pages 28-35.
ALSO IN:
G. Waddington,
History of the Reformation,
chapters 13-14 (volume 1).
W. Robertson,
History of the Reign of Charles V.,
book 2 (volume 1).
C. Beard,
Martin Luther and the Reformation,
chapter 9.
J. Köstlin,
Life of Luther,
part 3, chapter 9.
PAPACY: A. D. 1521-1535.
Beginning of the Protestant Reform movement in France.
Hesitation of Francis I.
His final persecution of the Reformers.
"The long contest for Gallican rights had lowered the prestige
of the popes in France, but it had not weakened the Catholic
Church, which was older than the monarchy itself, and, in the
feeling of the people, was indissolubly associated with it.
The College of the Sorbonne, or the Theological Faculty at
Paris, and the Parliament, which had together maintained
Gallican liberty, were united in stern hostility to all
doctrinal innovations. … In Southern France a remnant of the
Waldenses had survived, and the recollection of the
Catharists was still preserved in popular songs and legends.
But the first movements towards reform emanated from the
Humanist culture. A literary and scientific spirit was
awakened in France through the lively intercourse with Italy
which subsisted under Louis XII. and Francis I. By Francis
especially, Italian scholars and artists were induced in large
numbers to take up their abode in France. Frenchmen likewise
visited Italy and brought home the classical culture which
they acquired there. Among the scholars who cultivated Greek
was Budæus, the foremost of them, whom Erasmus styled the
'wonder of France.' After the 'Peace of the Dames' was
concluded at Cambray, in 1529, when Francis surrendered Italy
to Charles V., a throng of patriotic Italians who feared or
hated the Spanish rule, streamed over the Alps and gave a new
impulse to literature and art. Poets, artists, and scholars
found in the king a liberal and enthusiastic patron. The new
studies, especially Hebrew and Greek, were opposed by all the
might of the Sorbonne, the leader of which was the Syndic,
Beda. He and his associates were on the watch for heresy, and
every author who was suspected of overstepping the bounds of
orthodoxy was immediately accused and subjected to
persecution.
{2453}
Thus two parties were formed, the one favorable to the new
learning, and the other inimical to it and rigidly wedded to
the traditional theology. The Father of the French
Reformation, or the one more entitled to this distinction than
any other, is Jacques Lefèvre. … Lefèvre was honored among the
Humanists as the restorer of philosophy and science in the
University. Deeply imbued with a religious spirit, in 1509 he
put forth a commentary on the Psalms, and in 1512 a commentary
on the Epistles of Paul. As early as about 1512, he said to
his pupil Farel: 'God will renovate the world, and you will be
a witness of it'; and in the last named work; he says that the
signs of the times betoken that a renovation of the Church is
near at hand. He teaches the doctrine of gratuitous
justification, and deals with the Scriptures as the supreme
and sufficient authority. But a mystical, rather than a
polemical vein characterizes him; and while this prevented him
from breaking with the Church, it also blunted the sharpness
of the opposition which his opinions were adapted to produce.
One of his pupils was Briçonnet, Bishop of Meaux, who held the
same view of justification with Lefèvre, and fostered the
evangelical doctrine in his diocese. The enmity of the
Sorbonne to Lefèvre and his school took a more aggressive form
when the writings of Luther began to be read in the University
and elsewhere. … The Sorbonne [1521] formally condemned a
dissertation of Lefèvre on a point of evangelical history, in
which he had controverted the traditional opinion. He, with
Farel, Gérard Roussel, and other preachers, found an asylum
with Briçonnet. Lefèvre translated the New Testament from the
Vulgate, and, in a commentary on the Gospels, explicitly
pronounced the Bible the sole rule of faith, which the
individual might interpret for himself, and declared
justification to be through faith alone, without human works
or merit. It seemed as if Meaux aspired to become another
Wittenberg. At length a commission of parliament was appointed
to take cognizance of heretics in that district. Briçonnet,
either intimidated, as Beza asserts, or recoiling at the sight
of an actual secession from the Church, joined in the
condemnation of Luther and of his opinions, and even
acquiesced in the persecution which fell upon Protestantism
within his diocese. Lefèvre fled to Strasburg, was afterwards
recalled by Francis I., but ultimately took up his abode in
the court of the King's sister, Margaret, the Queen of
Navarre. Margaret, from the first, was favorably inclined to
the new doctrines. There were two parties at the court. The
mother of the King, Louisa of Savoy, and the Chancellor
Duprat, were allies of the Sorbonne. … Margaret, on the
contrary, a versatile and accomplished princess, cherished a
mystical devotion which carried her beyond Briçonnet in her
acceptance of the teaching of the Reformers. … Before the
death of her first husband, the Duke of Alençon, and while she
was a widow, she exerted her influence to the full extent in
behalf of the persecuted Protestants, and in opposition to the
Sorbonne. After her marriage to Henry d'Albret, the King of
Navarre, she continued, in her own little court and
principality, to favor the reformed doctrine and its
professors. …
See NAVARRE: A. D. 1528-1563].
The drift of her influence appears in the character of her
daughter, the heroic Jeanne d'Albret, the mother of Henry IV.,
and in the readiness of the people over whom Margaret
immediately ruled to receive the Protestant faith. … Francis
I., whose generous patronage of artists and men of letters
gave him the title of 'Father of Science,' had no love for the
Sorbonne, for the Parliament, or for the monks. He entertained
the plan of bringing Erasmus to Paris, and placing him at the
head of an institution of learning. He read the Bible with his
mother and sister, and felt no superstitious aversion to the
leaders of reform. … The revolt of the Constable Bourbon [see
FRANCE: A. D. 1520-1523] made it necessary for Francis to
conciliate the clergy; and the battle of Pavia, followed by
the captivity of the King, and the regency of his mother, gave
a free rein to the persecutors. An inquisitorial court,
composed partly of laymen, was ordained by Parliament.
Heretics were burned at Paris and in the provinces. Louis de
Berquin, who combined a culture which won the admiration of
Erasmus, with the religious earnestness of Luther, was thrown
into prison." Three times the King interposed and rescued him
from the persecutors; but at last, in November, 1529, Berquin
was hanged and burned.
G. P. Fisher,
The Reformation,
chapter 8.
"Such scenes [as the execution of Berquin], added to the
preaching and dissemination of the Scriptures and religious
tracts, caused the desire for reform to spread far and wide.
In the autumn of 1534, a violent placard against the mass was
posted about Paris, and one was even fixed on the king's own
chamber. The cry was soon raised, 'Death! death to the
heretics!' Francis had long dallied with the Reformation. …
Now … he develops into what was quite contrary to his
disposition, a cruel persecutor. A certain bourgeois of Paris,
unaffected by any heretical notions, kept in those days a
diary of what was going on in Paris, and from this precious
document … we learn that between the 13th of November, 1534,
and the 13th of March, 1535, twenty so-called Lutherans were
put to death in Paris. … The panic caused by the Anabaptist
outbreak at Munster may perhaps account for the extreme
cruelty, … as the siege was in actual progress at the time. It
was to defend the memories of the martyrs of the 29th of
January, 1535, and of others who had suffered elsewhere, and
to save, if possible, those menaced with a similar fate, that
Calvin wrote his 'Institution of the Christian Religion.' A
timid, feeble-bodied young student, he had fled from France
[1535], in the hope of finding some retreat where he might
lose himself in the studies he loved. Passing through Geneva
[1536] with the intention of staying there only for a night,
he met the indefatigable, ubiquitous, enterprising, courageous
Farel, who, taking him by the hand, adjured him to stop and
carry on the work in that city. Calvin shrank instinctively,
but … was forced to yield. … Calvin once settled at Geneva had
no more doubt about his calling than if he had been Moses
himself."
R. Heath,
The Reformation in France,
book 1, chapters 2-3.
ALSO IN:
H. M. Baird,
History of the Rise of the Huguenots of France,
chapters 2-4 (volume 1).
R. T. Smith,
The Church in France,
chapter 12.
PAPACY: A. D. 1521-1555.
Beginnings of the Reformation in the Netherlands.
See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1521-1555.
{2454}
PAPACY: A. D. 1522.
Election of Adrian VI.
PAPACY: A. D. 1522-1525.
The deepening and strengthening of the Lutheran Reformation
and its systematic organization.
The two diets of Nuremberg.
The Catholic League of Ratisbon.
The formal adoption of the Reformed Religion in Northern Germany.
"Fortunately for the reformation, the emperor was prevented
from executing the edict of Worms by his absence from Germany,
by the civil commotions in Spain, and still more by the war
with Francis I., which extended into Spain, the Low Countries,
and Italy, and for above eight years involved him in a
continued series of contests and negotiations at a distance
from Germany. His brother, Ferdinand, on whom, as joint
president of the council of regency, the administration of
affairs devolved, was occupied in quelling the discontents in
the Austrian territories, and defending his right to the
crowns of Hungary and Bohemia; and thus the government of the
empire was left to the council of regency, of which several
members were inclined to favour innovation, In consequence of
these circumstances, the Lutherans were enabled to overcome
the difficulties to which innovators of every kind are
exposed; and they were no less favoured by the changes at the
court of Rome. Leo dying in 1521, Adrian, his successor, who,
by the influence of Charles, was raised to the pontifical
chair, on the 9th of January, 1522, saw and lamented the
corruptions of the church, and his ingenuous, but impolitic
confessions, that the whole church, both in its head and
members, required a thorough reformation, strengthened the
arguments of his opponents. … Nothing, perhaps, proved more
the surprising change of opinion in Germany, the rapid
increase of those whom we shall now distinguish by the name of
Lutherans, and the commencement of a systematic opposition to
the church of Rome, than the transactions of the two diets of
Nuremberg, which were summoned by the archduke Ferdinand,
principally for the purpose of enforcing the execution of the
edict of Worms. In a brief dated in November, 1522, and
addressed to the first diet, pope Adrian, after severely
censuring the princes of the empire for not carrying into
execution the edict of Worms, exhorted them, if mild and
moderate measures failed, to cut off Luther from the body of
the church, as a gangrened and incurable member. … At the same
time, with singular inconsistency, he acknowledged the
corruptions of the Roman court as the source of the evils
which overspread the church, [and] promised as speedy a
reformation as the nature of the abuses would admit. … The
members of the diet, availing themselves of his avowal,
advised him to assemble a council in Germany for the
reformation of abuses, and drew up a list of a hundred
grievances which they declared they would no longer tolerate,
and, if not speedily delivered from such burdens, would
procure relief by the authority with which God had intrusted
them. … The recess of the diet, published in March, 1523, was
framed with the same spirit; instead of threats of
persecution, it only enjoined all persons to wait with
patience the determination of a free council, forbade the
diffusion of doctrines likely to create disturbances, and
subjected all publications to the approbation of men of
learning and probity appointed by the magistrate. Finally, it
declared, that as priests who had married, or monks who had
quitted their convents, were not guilty of a civil crime, they
were only amenable to an ecclesiastical jurisdiction, and
liable at the discretion of the ordinary to be deprived of
their ecclesiastical privileges and benefices. The Lutherans
derived their greatest advantages from these proceedings, as
the gross corruptions of the church of Rome were now proved by
the acknowledgment of the pontiff himself. … From this period
they confidently appealed to the confession of the pontiff,
and as frequently quoted the hundred grievances which were
enumerated in a public and authentic act of the Germanic body.
They not only regarded the recess as a suspension of the edict
of Worms, but construed the articles in their own favour. …
Hitherto the innovators had only preached against the
doctrines and ceremonies of the Roman church, without
exhibiting a regular system of their own." But now "Luther was
persuaded, at the instances of the Saxon clergy, to form a
regular system of faith and discipline; he translated the
service into the German tongue, modified the form of the mass,
and omitted many superstitious ceremonies; but he made as few
innovations as possible, consistently with his own principles.
To prevent also the total alienation or misuse of the
ecclesiastical revenues, he digested a project for their
administration, by means of an annual committee, and by his
writings and influence effected its introduction. Under this
judicious system the revenues of the church, after a provision
for the clergy, were appropriated for the support of schools;
for the relief of the poor, sick, and aged, of orphans and
widows; for the reparation of churches and sacred buildings;
and for the erection of magazines and the purchase of corn
against periods of scarcity. These regulations and ordinances,
though not established with the public approbation of the
elector, were yet made with his tacit acquiescence, and may be
considered as the first institution of a reformed system of
worship and ecclesiastical polity; and in this institution the
example of the churches of Saxony was followed by all the
Lutheran communities in Germany. The effects of these changes
were soon visible, and particularly at the meeting of the
second diet of Nuremberg, on the 10th of January, 1524. Faber,
canon of Strasburgh, who had been enjoined to make a progress
through Germany for the purpose of preaching against the
Lutheran doctrines, durst not execute his commission, although
under the sanction of a safe conduct from the council of
regency. Even the legate Campegio could not venture to make
his public entry into Nuremberg with the insignia of his
dignity, … for fear of being insulted by the populace. …
Instead, therefore, of annulling the acts of the preceding
diet, the new assembly pursued the same line of conduct. … The
recess was, if possible, still more galling to the court of
Rome, and more hostile to its prerogatives than that of the
former diet. … The Catholics, thus failing in their efforts to
obtain the support of the diet, on the 6th of July, 1524,
entered into an association at Ratisbon, under the auspices of
Campegio, in which the archduke Ferdinand, the duke of
Bavaria, and most of the German bishops concurred, for
enforcing the edict of Worms.
{2455}
At the same time, to conciliate the Germans, the legate
published 29 articles for, the amendment of some abuses; but
these being confined to points of minor importance, and
regarding only the inferior clergy, produced no satisfaction,
and were attended with no effect. Notwithstanding this
formidable union of the Catholic princes, the proceedings of
the diet of Nuremberg were but the prelude to more decisive
innovations, which followed each other with wonderful
rapidity. Frederic the Wise, elector of Saxony, dying in 1525,
was succeeded by his brother, John the Constant, who publicly
espoused and professed the Lutheran doctrines. The system
recently digested by Luther, with many additional alterations,
was introduced by his authority, and declared the established
religion; and by his order the celebrated Melanchthon drew up
an apology in defence of the reformed tenets for the princes
who adopted them. Luther himself, who had in the preceding
year thrown off the monastic habit, soon after the accession
of the new sovereign ventured to give the last proof of his
emancipation from the fetters of the church of Rome, by
espousing, on the 13th of July, 1525, Catherine Bora, a noble
lady, who had escaped from the nunnery at Nimptschen, and
taken up her residence at Wittemberg. The example of the
elector of Saxony was followed by Philip, landgrave of Hesse
Cassel, a prince of great influence and distinguished civil
and military talents; by the dukes of Mecklenburgh, Pomerania,
and Zell; and by the imperial cities of Nuremberg, Strasburgh,
Frankfort, Nordhausen, Magdeburgh, Brunswick, Bremen, and
others of less importance. … Albert, margrave of Brandenburgh,
grand-master of the Teutonic order, … in 1525, renounced his
vow of celibacy, made a public profession of the Lutheran
tenets, and, with the consent of Sigismond, king of Poland,
secularised Eastern Prussia."
W. Coxe,
History of the House of Austria,
chapter 28 (volume 1).
ALSO IN:
L. von Ranke,
History of the Reformation in Germany,
book 3, chapters 2-5 (volume 2).
P. Bayne,
Martin Luther: his Life and Work,
books 10-13 (volume 2).
L. Häusser,
The Period of the Reformation,
chapters 5-6.
PAPACY: A. D. 1523.
Election of Clement VII.
PAPACY: A. D. 1523-1527.
The double-dealings of Pope Clement VII. with the emperor
and the king of France.
Imperial revenge.
The sack of Rome.
See ITALY: A. D. 1523-1527, and 1527.
PAPACY: A. D. 1524.
Institution of the Order of the Theatines.
See THEATINES.
PAPACY: A. D. 1525-1529.
The League of Torgau.
Contradictory action of the Diets at Spires.
The Protest of Lutheran princes which gave
rise to the name "Protestants."
"At the Diet of Nuremberg it had been determined to hold an
assembly shortly after at Spires for the regulation of
ecclesiastical affairs. The princes were to procure beforehand
from their councillors and scholars a statement of the points
in dispute. The grievances of the nation were to be set forth,
and remedies were to be sought for them. The nation was to
deliberate and act on the great matter of religious reform.
The prospect was that the evangelical party would be in the
majority. The papal court saw the danger that was involved in
an assembly gathered for such a purpose, and determined to
prevent the meeting. At this moment war was breaking out
between Charles and Francis. Charles had no inclination to
offend the Pope. He forbade the assembly at Spires, and, by
letters addressed to the princes individually, endeavored to
drive them into the execution of the edict of Worms. In
consequence of these threatening movements, the Elector of
Saxony and the Landgrave of Hesse entered into the defensive
league of Torgau, in which they were joined by several
Protestant communities. The battle of Pavia and the capture of
Francis I. [see FRANCE: A. D. 1523-1525] were events that
appeared to be fraught with peril to the Protestant cause. In
the Peace of Madrid (January 14, 1526) both sovereigns avowed
the determination to suppress heresy. But the dangerous
preponderance obtained by the Emperor created an alarm
throughout Europe; and the release of Francis was followed by
the organization of a confederacy against Charles, of which
Clement was the leading promoter.
See ITALY: A. D. 1523-1527.
This changed the imperial policy in reference to the
Lutherans. The Diet of Spires in 1526 unanimously resolved
that, until the meeting of a general council, every state
should act in regard to the edict of Worms as it might answer
to God and his imperial majesty. Once more Germany refused to
stifle the Reformation, and adopted the principle that each of
the component parts of the Empire should be left free to act
according to its own will. It was a measure of the highest
importance to the cause of Protestantism. It is a great
landmark in the history of the German Reformation. The war of
the Emperor and the Pope involved the necessity of tolerating
the Lutherans. In 1527, an imperial army, composed largely of
Lutheran infantry, captured and sacked the city of Rome. For
several months the Pope was held a prisoner. For a number of
years the position of Charles with respect to France and the
Pope, and the fear of Turkish invasion, had operated to
embolden and greatly strengthen the cause of Luther. But now
that the Emperor had gained a complete victory in Italy, the
Catholic party revived its policy of repression."
G. P. Fisher,
The Reformation,
chapter 4.
"While Charles and Clement were arranging matters in 1529, a
new Diet was held at Spires, and the reactionists exerted
themselves to obtain a reversal of that ordinance of the Diet
of 1526 which had given to the reformed doctrines a legal
position in Germany. Had it heen possible, the Papist leaders
would have forced back the Diet on the old Edict of Worms, but
in this they were baffled. Then they took up another line of
defence and aggression. Where the Worms Edict had been
enforced, it was, they urged, to be maintained; but all
further propagation of the reformed doctrines, all religious
innovation whatever, was to be forbidden, pending the
assemblage of a General Council. … This doom of arrest and
paralysis —this imperious mandate, 'Hitherto shall ye come,
but no further,'—could not be brooked by the followers of
Luther. They possessed the advantage of being admirably led.
Philip of Hesse supplied some elements of sound counsel that
were wanting in Luther himself. … Luther regarded with favour

… the doctrine of passive obedience. It was too much his
notion that devout Germans, if their Emperor commanded them to
renounce the truth, should simply die at the stake without a
murmur. …
{2456}
The most ripe and recent inquiries seem to prove that it was
about this very time, when the Evangelical Princes and Free
Cities of Germany were beginning to put shoulder to shoulder
and organise resistance, in arms if necessary, to the Emperor
and the Pope, that Luther composed 'Ein' feste Burg ist unser
Gott,' a psalm of trust in God, and in God only, as the
protector of Christians. He took no fervent interest, however,
in the Diet; and Philip and his intrepid associates derived
little active support from him. These were inflexibly
determined that the decree of the majority should not be
assented to. Philip of Hesse, John of Saxony, Markgraf George
the Pious of Brandenburg-Anspach, the Dukes of Lunenburg and
Brunswick, the Prince of Anhalt, and the representatives of
Strasburg, Nürnberg, and twelve other free cities [Ulm,
Constance, Reutlingen, Windsheim, Memmingen, Lindau, Kempten,
Heilbron, Isna, Weissemburgh, Nordlingen, and St. Gallen],
entered a solemn protest against the Popish resolution. They
were called Protestants. The name, as is customary with names
that felicitously express and embody facts, was caught up in
Germany and passed into every country in Europe and the
world."
P. Bayne,
Martin Luther, his Life and Work,
book 14, chapter 4 (volume 2).
ALSO IN:
L. von Ranke,
History of the Reformation in Germany,
books 4-5 (volumes 2-3).
J. H. Merle D'Aubigne,
History of the Reformation,
book 10, chapter 14,
and book 13, chapter 1-6 (volumes 3-4).
J. Alzog,
Manual of Universal Church History,
section 311 (volume 3).
PAPACY: A. D. 1527-1533.
The rupture with England.
See ENGLAND: A. D. 1527-1534.
PAPACY: A. D. 1530-1531.
The Diet at Augsburg.
Presentation and condemnation of the
Protestant Confession of Faith.
The breach with the Reformation complete.
"In the year 1530, Charles V., seeing France prostrate, Italy
quelled, and Solyman driven within his own boundaries,
determined upon undertaking the decision of the great question
of the Reformation. The two conflicting parties were summoned,
and met at Augsburg. The sectaries of Luther, known by the
general name of protestants, were desirous to be distinguished
from the other enemies of Rome, the excesses committed by whom
would have thrown odium upon their cause; to be distinguished
from the Zwinglian republicans of Switzerland, odious to the
princes and to the nobles; above all, they desired not to be
confounded with the anabaptists, proscribed by all as the
enemies of society and of social order. Luther, over whom
there was still suspended the sentence pronounced against him
at Worms, whereby he was declared a heretic, could not appear
at Augsburg; his place was supplied by the learned and pacific
Melancthon, a man timid and gentle as Erasmus, whose friend he
continued to be, despite of Luther. The elector, however,
conveyed the great reformer as near to the place of
convocation as regard to his friend's personal safety rendered
advisable. He had him stationed in the strong fortress of
Coburg. From this place, Luther was enabled to maintain with
ease and expedition a constant intercourse with the protestant
ministers. … Melancthon believed in the possibility of
effecting a reconciliation between the two parties. Luther, at
a very early period of the schism, saw that they were utterly
irreconcilable. In the commencement of the Reformation, he had
frequently had recourse to conferences and to public
disputations. It was then of moment to him to resort to every
effort, to try, by all the means in his power, to preserve the
bond of Christianity, before he abandoned all hope of so
doing. But towards the close of his life, dating from the
period of the Diet of Augsburg, he openly discouraged and
disclaimed these wordy contests, in which the vanquished would
never avow his defeat. On the 26th of August, 1530, he writes:
'I am utterly opposed to any effort being made to reconcile
the two doctrines; for it is an impossibility, unless, indeed,
the pope will consent to abjure papacy. Let it suffice us that
we have established our belief upon the basis of reason, and
that we have asked for peace. Why hope to convert them to the
truth?' And on the same day (26th August), he tells Spalatin:
'I understand you have undertaken a notable mission—that of
reconciling Luther and the pope. But the pope will not be
reconciled and Luther refuses. Be mindful how you sacrifice
both time and trouble.' … These prophecies were, however,
unheeded: the conferences took place, and the protestants were
required to furnish their profession of faith. This was drawn
up by Melancthon." The Confession, as drawn up by Melancthon,
was adopted and signed by five electors, 30 ecclesiastical
princes, 23 secular princes, 22 abbots, 32 counts and barons,
and 39 free and imperial cities, and has since been known as
the Augsburg Confession.
J. Michelet,
Life of Luther,
(translated by W. Hazlitt),
book 3, chapter 1.
"A difficulty now arose as to the public reading of the
Confession in the Diet. The Protestant princes, who had
severally signed it, contended against the Catholic princes,
that, in fairness, it should be read; and, against the
emperor, that, if read at all, it should be read in German,
and not in Latin. They were successful in both instances, and
the Confession was publicly read in German by Bayer, one of
the two chancellors of the Elector of Saxony, during the
afternoon session of June 25, held in the chapel of the
imperial palace. Campeggio, the Papal Legate, was absent. The
reading occupied two hours, and the powerful effect it
produced was, in a large measure, due to the rich, sonorous
voice of Bayer, and to his distinct articulation and the
musical cadence of his periods. Having finished, he handed the
Confession to the Emperor, who submitted it for examination to
Eck, Conrad Wimpina, Cochlæus, John Faber, and others of the
Catholic theologians present in the Diet." These prepared a
"Confutation" which was "finally agreed upon and read in a
public session of the Diet, held August 3rd, and with which
the Emperor and the Catholic princes expressed themselves
fully satisfied. The Protestant princes were commanded to
disclaim their errors, and return to the allegiance of the
ancient faith, and 'should you refuse,' the Emperor added, 'we
shall regard it a conscientious duty to proceed as our
coronation oath and our office of protector of Holy Church
require.' This declaration roused the indignant displeasure of
the Protestant princes. Philip of Hesse … excited general
alarm by abruptly breaking off the transactions, lately
entered upon between the princes and the bishops, and suddenly
quitting Augsburg. Charles V. now ordered the controverted
points to be discussed in his presence, and appointed seven
Protestants and an equal number of Catholics to put forward
and defend the views of their respective parties."
{2457}
Subsequently Melancthon "prepared and published his 'Apology
for the Augsburg Confession,' which was intended to be an
answer to the 'Confutation' of the Catholic theologians. The
Protestant princes laid a copy of the 'Apology' before the
emperor, who rejected both it and the Confession. … After many
more fruitless attempts to bring about a reconciliation, the
emperor, on the 22nd of September, the day previous to that
fixed for the departure of the Elector of Saxony, published an
edict, in which he stated, among other things, that 'the
Protestants have been refuted by sound and irrefragable
arguments drawn from Holy Scripture.' 'To deny free-will,' he
went on to say, 'and to affirm that faith without works avails
for man's salvation, is to assert what is absurdly erroneous;
for, as we very well know from past experience, were such
doctrines to prevail, all true morality would perish from the
earth. But that the Protestants may have sufficient time to
consider their future course of action, we grant them from
this to the 15th of April of next year for consideration.' On
the following day, Joachim, Elector of Brandenburg, speaking
in the emperor's name, addressed the evangelic princes and
deputies of the Protestant cities as follows: 'His majesty is
extremely amazed at your persisting in the assertion that your
doctrines are based on Holy Scripture. Were your assertion
true, then would it follow that his Majesty's ancestors,
including so many kings and emperors, as well as the ancestors
of the Elector of Saxony, were heretics!' … The Protestant
princes forthwith took their leave of the emperor. On the 13th
of October, the 'Recess,' or decree of the Diet, was read to
the Catholic States, which on the same day entered into a
Catholic League. On the 17th of the same month, sixteen of the
more important German cities refused to aid the emperor in
repelling the Turks, on the ground that peace had not yet been
secured to Germany. The Zwinglian and Lutheran cities were
daily becoming more sympathetic and cordial in their relations
to each other. Charles V. informed the Holy See, October 23,
of his intention of drawing the sword in defence of the faith.
The 'Recess' was read to the Protestant princes November 11,
and rejected by them on the day following, and the deputies of
Hesse and Saxony took their departure immediately after. … The
decree was rather more severe than the Protestants had
anticipated, inasmuch as the emperor declared that he felt it
to be his conscientious duty to defend the ancient faith, and
that 'the Catholic princes had promised to aid him to the full
extent of their power.' … The appointment of the emperor's
brother, Ferdinand, as King of the Romans (1531), gave deep
offence to the Protestant princes, who now expressed their
determination of withholding all assistance from the emperor
until the 'Recess' of Augsburg should have been revoked.
Assembling at Smalkald, … they entered into an alliance
offensive and defensive, known as the League of Smalkald, on
March 29, 1531, to which they severally bound themselves to
remain faithful for a period of six years."
J. Alzog,
Manual of Universal Church History,
section 312 (volume 3).
ALSO IN:
H. Worsley,
Life of Luther,
chapter 7 (volume 2).
F. A. Cox,
Life of Melancthon,
chapter 8 (giving the text of the "Augsburg Confession").
See, also,
GERMANY: A. D. 1530-1532.
PAPACY: A. D. 1530-1532.
Protestant League of Smalkalde and
alliance with the king of France.
The Pacification of Nuremberg.
See GERMANY: A. D. 1530-1532.
PAPACY: A. D. 1533.
Treaty of Pope Clement VII. with Francis I. of France,
for the marriage of Catherine d'Medici.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1532-1547.
PAPACY: A. D. 1533-1546.
Mercenary aspects of the Reformation in Germany.
The Catholic Holy League.
Preparations for war.
See GERMANY: A. D. 1533-1546.
PAPACY: A. D. 1534.
Election of Paul III.
PAPACY: A. D. 1534-1540.
Beginnings of the Counter-Reformation.
"A well-known sentence in Macaulay's Essay on Ranke's 'History
of the Popes' asserts, correctly enough, that in a particular
epoch of history 'the Church of Rome, having lost a large part
of Europe, not only ceased to lose, but actually regained
nearly half of what she had lost.' Any fairly correct use of
the familiar phrase 'the Counter-Reformation' must imply that
this remarkable result was due to a movement pursuing two
objects, originally distinct, though afterwards largely
blended, viz., the regeneration of the Church of Rome, and the
recovery of the losses inflicted upon her by the early
successes of Protestantism. … The earliest continuous
endeavour to regenerate the Church of Rome without impairing
her cohesion dates from the Papacy of Paul III. [1534-1549],
within which also falls the outbreak of the first religious
war of the century.
See GERMANY: A. D. 1546-1552.
Thus the two impulses which it was the special task of the
Counter-Reformation to fuse were brought into immediate
contact. The onset of the combat is marked by the formal
establishment of the Jesuit Order [1540] as a militant agency
devoted alike to both the purposes of the Counter-Reformation,
and by the meeting of the Council of Trent [1545] under
conditions excluding from its programme the task of
conciliation."
A. W. Ward,
The Counter Reformation,
pages vii-viii.
"I intend to use this term Counter-Reformation to denote the
reform of the Catholic Church, which was stimulated by the
German Reformation, and which, when the Council of Trent had
fixed the dogmas and discipline of Latin Christianity, enabled
the Papacy to assume a militant policy in Europe, whereby it
regained a large portion of the provinces that had previously
lapsed to Lutheran and Calvinistic dissent. … The centre of
the world-wide movement which is termed the
Counter-Reformation was naturally Rome. Events had brought the
Holy See once more into a position of prominence. It was more
powerful as an Italian State now, through the support of Spain
and the extinction of national independence, than at any
previous period of history. In Catholic Christendom its
prestige was immensely augmented by the Council of Trent. At
the same epoch, the foreigners who dominated Italy, threw
themselves with the enthusiasm of fanaticism into this
Revival. Spain furnished Rome with the militia of the Jesuits
and with the engines of the Inquisition. The Papacy was thus
able to secure successes in Italy which were elsewhere only
partially achieved. … In order to understand the transition of
Italy from the Renaissance to the Counter-Reformation manner,
it will be well to concentrate attention on the history of the
Papacy during the eight reigns [1534-1605] of Paul III., Julius
III., Paul IV., Pius IV., Pius V., Gregory XIII., Sixtus V.,
and Clement VIII. In the first of these reigns we hardly
notice that the Renaissance has passed away. In the last we
are aware of a completely altered Italy."
J. A. Symonds,
Renaissance in Italy: The Catholic Reaction,
chapter 2, with foot-note (volume 1).
{2458}
PAPACY: A. D. 1537-1563.
Popular weakness of the Reformation movement in Italy.
Momentary inclination towards the Reform at Rome.
Beginning of the Catholic Reaction.
The Council of Trent and its consolidating work.
"The conflict with the hierarchy did not take the same form in
Italy as elsewhere. … There is no doubt that the masses saw no
cause for discontent under it. We have proof that the
hierarchy was popular—that among the people, down to the
lowest grades, the undiminished splendour of the Papacy was
looked upon as a pledge of the power of Italy. But this did
not prevent reform movements from taking place. The Humanistic
school had its home here; its opposition tendencies had not
spared the Church any more than Scholasticism; it had
everywhere been the precursor and ally of the intellectual
revolt, and not the least in Italy. There were from the first
eminent individuals at Venice, Modena, Ferrara, Florence, even
in the States of the Church themselves, who were more or less
followers of Luther. The cardinals Contarini and Morone, Bembo
and Sadolet, distinguished preachers like Peter Martyr, Johann
Valdez, and Bernardino Occhino, and from among the princely
families an intellectual lady, Renata of Ferrara, were
inclined to the new doctrines. But they were leaders without
followers; the number of their adherents among the masses was
surprisingly small. The Roman Curia, under the Pontificate of
Paul III., 1534-49, vacillated in its policy for a time;
between 1537-41, the prevailing sentiments were friendly and
conciliatory towards Reform. … They were, in fact, gravely
entertaining the question at Rome, whether it would not be
better to come to terms with Reform, to adopt the practicable
part of its programme, and so put an end to the schism which
was spreading so fast in the Church. … An honest desire then
still prevailed to effect a reconciliation. Contarini was in
favour of it with his whole soul. But it proceeded no further
than the attempt; for once the differences seemed likely to be
adjusted, so far as this was possible; but in 1542, the
revulsion took place, which was never again reversed. Only one
result remained. The Pope could no longer refuse to summon a
council. The Emperor had been urging it year after year; the
Pope had acceded to it further than any of his predecessors
had done; and, considering the retreat which now took place,
this concession was the least that could be demanded. At
length, therefore, three years after it was convened, in May,
1542, the council assembled at Trent in December, 1545. It was
the Emperor's great desire that a council should be held in
Germany, that thus the confidence of the Germans in the
supreme tribunal in the great controversy might be gained; but
the selection of Trent, which nominally belonged to Germany,
was the utmost concession that could be obtained. The
intentions of the Emperor and the Pope with regard to the
council were entirely opposed to each other. The Pope was
determined to stifle all opposition in the bud, while the
Emperor was very desirous of having a counterpoise to the
Pope's supremacy in council, provided always that it concurred
in the imperial programme. … The assembly consisted of Spanish
and Italian monks in overwhelming majority, and this was
decisive as to its character. When consulted as to the course
of business, the Emperor had expressed a wish that those
questions on which agreement between the parties was possible
should first be discussed. There were a number of questions on
which they were agreed, as, for example, Greek Christianity.
Even now there are a number of points on which Protestants and
Catholics are agreed, and differ from the Eastern Church. If
these questions were considered first, the attendance of the
Protestants would be rendered very much easier; it would open
the door as widely as possible, they would probably come in
considerable numbers, and might in time take a part which at
least might not be distasteful to the Emperor, and might
influence his ideas on Church reform. The thought that they
were heretics was half concealed. But Rome was determined to
pursue the opposite course, and at once to agitate those
questions on which there was the most essential disagreement,
and to declare all who would not submit to be incorrigible
heretics. … The first subjects of discussion were, the
authority of the Scriptures in the text of the Vulgate,
ecclesiastical tradition, the right of interpretation, the
doctrine of justification. These were the questions on which
the old and new doctrines were irreconcilably at variance; all
other differences were insignificant in comparison. And these
questions were decided in the old Roman Catholic sense; not
precisely as they had been officially treated in 1517—for the
stream of time had produced some little effect—but in the main
the old statutes were adhered to, and everything rejected
which departed from them. This conduct was decisive. …
Nevertheless some reforms were carried out. Between the time
of meeting and adjournment, December, 1545, to the spring of
1547, the following were the main points decided on:
1. The bishops were to provide better teachers and better
schools.
2. The bishops should themselves expound the word of God.
3. Penalties were to be enforced for the neglect of their
duties, and various rules were laid down as to the necessary
qualifications for the office of a bishop.
Dispensations, licenses, and privileges were abolished. The
Church was therefore to be subjected to a reform which
abolished sundry abuses, without conceding any change in her
teaching. The course the council was taking excited the
Emperor's extreme displeasure. … He organized a sort of
opposition to Rome; his commissaries kept up a good
understanding with the Protestants, and it was evident that he
meant to make use of them for an attack on the Pope. This made
Rome eager to withdraw the assembly from the influence of
German bishops and imperial agents as soon as possible. A
fever which had broken out at Trent, but had soon disappeared,
was made a pretext for transferring the council to Bologna, in
the spring of 1547. The imperial commissioners protested that
the decrees of such a hole-and-corner council would be null
and void. The contest remained undecided for years. Paul III.
died in the midst of it, in November, 1549, and was succeeded
by Cardinal del Monte, one of the papal legates at the
council, as Pope Julius III.
{2459}
The Emperor at length came to an understanding with him, and
in May, 1551, the council was again opened at Trent. … The
assembly remained Catholic; the Protestant elements, which
were represented at first, all disappeared after the turn of
affairs in 1552.
See GERMANY: A. D. 1546-1552; and 1552-1561.
After that there was no further thought of an understanding
with the heretics. The results for reform were very small
indeed. The proceedings were dragging wearily on when a fresh
adjournment was announced in 1552. Pope Julius III. died in
March, 1555. His successor, the noble Cardinal Cervin, elected
as Marcellus II., died after only twenty-two days, and was
succeeded by Cardinal Caraffa as Paul IV., 1555-9. … He was
the Pope of the restoration. The warm Neapolitan blood flowed
in his veins, and he was a fiery, energetic character. He was
not in favour of any concessions or abatement, but for a
complete breach with the new doctrines, and a thorough
exclusiveness for the ancient Church. He was one of the ablest
men of the time. As early as in 1542, he had advised that no
further concessions should be made, but that the Inquisition,
of which indeed he was the creator, should be restored. It was
he who decidedly initiated the great Catholic reaction. He
established the Spanish Inquisition in Italy, instituted the
first Index, and gave the Jesuits his powerful support in the
interests of the restoration. This turn of affairs was the
answer to the German religious Peace. Since the Protestants no
longer concerned themselves about Rome, Rome was about to set
her house in order without them, and as a matter of course the
council stood still." But in answer to demands from several
Catholic princes, "the council was convened afresh by the next
Pope, Pius IV. (1559-65), in November, 1560, and so the
Council of Trent was opened for the third time in January,
1562. Then began the important period of the council, during
which the legislation to which it has given a name was
enacted. … The Curia reigned supreme, and, in spite of the
remonstrances of the Emperor and of France, decided that the
council should be considered a continuation of the previous
ones, which meant—'All the decrees aimed against the
Protestants are in full force; we have no further idea of
coming to terms with them.' The next proceeding was to
interdict books and arrange an Index. …
See PAPACY: A. D. 1559-1595.
The restoration of the indisputable authority of the Pope was
the ruling principle of all the decrees. … The great
achievement of the council for the unity of the Catholic
Church was this: it formed into a code of laws, on one
consistent principle, that which in ancient times had been
variable and uncertain, and which had been almost lost sight
of in the last great revolution. Controverted questions were
replaced by dogmas, doubtful traditions by definite doctrines;
a uniformity was established in matters of faith and
discipline which had never existed before, and an impregnable
bulwark was thus erected against the sectarian spirit and the
tendency to innovation. Still when this unity was established
upon a solid basis, the universal Church of former times was
torn asunder." The Council of Trent was closed December 4,
1563, 18 years after its opening.
L. Häusser,
Period of the Reformation,
chapters 19 and 16.
ALSO IN:
J. A. Symonds,
Renaissance in Italy: The Catholic Reaction,
chapters 2-3 (volume l).
L. von Ranke,
History of the Popes,
books 2-3 (volume l).
L. F. Bungener,
History of the Council of Trent.
T. R. Evans,
The Council of Trent.
A. de Reumont,
The Carafas of Maddaloni,
book 1, chapter 3.

MAP OF CENTRAL EUROPE
AT THE ABDICATION OF CHARLES V (1556).
AUSTRIAN HAPSBURGS.
SPANISH HAPSBURGS.
VENETIAN POSSESSIONS.
GENOESE POSSESSIONS.
ECCLESIASTICAL STATES OF THE EMPIRE.
STATES OF THE CHURCH.

CENTRAL EUROPE
SHOWING THE DISTRIBUTION OF RELIGIONS ABOUT 1618.
LUTHERAN.
ZWINGLIAN.
CALVINIST.
UNITED BRETHREN.
CATHOLIC.
LANDS RECLAIMED BY THE CATHOLIC CHURCH
DURING THE COUNTER REFORMATION SHOWN THUS.
GREEK.
MOHAMMEDAN.
PAPACY: A. D. 1540.
The founding of the Order of the Jesuits.
See JESUITS: A. D. 1540-1556.
PAPACY: A. D. 1545-1550.
Separation of Parma and Placentia from the States
of the Church to form a duchy for the Pope's family.
The Farnese.
See PARMA: A. D. 1545-1592.
PAPACY: A. D. 1550.
Election of Julius III.
PAPACY: A. D. 1555 (April).
Election of Marcellus II.
PAPACY: A. D. 1555 (May).
Election of Paul IV.
PAPACY: A. D. 1555-1603.
The aggressive age of the reinvigorated Church.
Attachment and subserviency to Spain.
Giovanni Piero Caraffa, founder of the Order of the Theatines,
was raised to the papal chair in 1555, assuming the title of
Paul IV. He "entered on his station with the haughty notions
of its prerogatives which were natural to his austere and
impetuous spirit. Hence his efforts in concert with France,
unsuccessful as they proved, to overthrow the Spanish
greatness, that he might extricate the popedom from the
galling state of dependence to which the absolute ascendancy
of that power in Italy had reduced it. Paul IV. is remarkable
as the last pontiff who embarked in a contest which had now
become hopeless, and as the first who, giving a new direction
to the policy of the holy see, employed all the influence, the
arts, and the resources of the Roman church against the
protestant cause. He had, during the pontificate of Paul III.
[1534-1549], already made himself conspicuous for his
persecuting zeal. He had been the principal agent in the
establishment of the inquisition at Rome, and had himself
filled the office of grand inquisitor. He seated himself in
the chair of St. Peter with the detestable spirit of that
vocation; and the character of his pontificate responded to
the violence of his temper. His mantle descended upon a long
series of his successors. Pius IV., who replaced him on his
death in 1559; Pius V., who received the tiara in the
following year; Gregory XIII., who was elected in 1572, and
died in 1585; Sixtus V., who next reigned until 1590; Urban
VII., Gregory XIV., and Innocent IX., who each filled the
papal chair only a few months; and Clement VIII., whose
pontificate commenced in 1592 and extended beyond the close of
the century [1603]: all pursued the same political and
religious system. Resigning the hope, and perhaps the desire,
of re-establishing the independence of their see, they
maintained an intimate and obsequious alliance with the royal
bigot of Spain; they seconded his furious persecution of the
protestant faith; they fed the civil wars of the Low
Countries, of France, and of Germany."
G. Procter,
History of Italy,
chapter 9.
"The Papacy and Catholicism had long maintained themselves
against these advances of their enemy [the Protestant
Reformation], in an attitude of defence it is true, but
passive only; upon the whole they were compelled to endure
them. Affairs now assumed a different aspect. … It may be
affirmed generally that a vital and active force was again
manifested, that the church had regenerated her creed in the
spirit of the age, and had established reforms in accordance
with the demands of the times.
{2460}
The religious tendencies which had appeared in southern Europe
were not suffered to become hostile to herself, she adopted
them, and gained the mastery of their movements; thus she
renewed her powers, and infused fresh vigour into her system.
… The influence of the restored Catholic system was first
established in the two southern peninsulas, but this was not
accomplished without extreme severities. The Spanish
Inquisition received the aid of that lately revived in Rome;
every movement of Protestantism was violently suppressed. But
at the same time those tendencies of the inward life which
renovated Catholicism claimed and enchained as her own, were
peculiarly powerful in those countries. "The sovereigns also
attached themselves to the interests of the church. It was of
the highest importance that Philip II., the most powerful of
all, adhered so decidedly to the popedom; with the pride of a
Spaniard, by whom unimpeachable Catholicism was regarded as a
sign of a purer blood and more noble descent, he rejected
every adverse opinion: the character of his policy was however
not wholly governed by mere personal feeling. From remote
times, and more especially since the regulations established
by Isabella, the kingly dignity of Spain had assumed an
ecclesiastical character; in every province the royal
authority was strengthened by the addition of spiritual power;
deprived of the Inquisition, it would not have sufficed to
govern the kingdom. Even in his American possessions, the king
appeared above all in the light of a disseminator of the
Christian and Catholic faith. This was the bond by which all
his territories were united in obedience to his rule; he could
not have abandoned it, without incurring real danger. The
extension of Huguenot opinions in the south of France caused
the utmost alarm in Spain; the Inquisition believed itself
bound to redoubled vigilance. … The power possessed by Philip
in the Netherlands secured to the southern system an immediate
influence over the whole of Europe; but besides this, all was
far from being lost in other countries. The emperor, the kings
of France and Poland, with the duke of Bavaria, still adhered
to the Catholic church. On all sides there were spiritual
princes whose expiring zeal might be reanimated; there were
also many places where Protestant opinions had not yet made
their way among the mass of the people. The majority of the
peasantry throughout France, Poland, and even Hungary, still
remained Catholic. Paris, which even in those days exercised a
powerful influence over the other French towns, had not yet
been affected by the new doctrines. In England a great part of
the nobility and commons were still Catholic; and in Ireland
the whole of the ancient native population remained in the old
faith. Protestantism had gained no admission into the Tyrolese
or Swiss Alps, nor had it made any great progress among the
peasantry of Bavaria. Canisius compared the Tyrolese and
Bavarians with the two tribes of Israel, 'who alone remained
faithful to the Lord.' The internal causes on which this
pertinacity, this immovable attachment to tradition, among
nations so dissimilar, was founded, might well repay a more
minute examination. A similar constancy was exhibited in the
Walloon provinces of the Netherlands. And now the papacy
resumed a position in which it could once more gain the
mastery of all these inclinations, and bind them indissolubly
to itself. Although it had experienced great changes, it still
possessed the inestimable advantage of having all the
externals of the past and the habit of obedience on its side.
In the council so prosperously concluded, the popes had even
gained an accession of that authority which it had been the
purpose of the temporal powers to restrict; and had
strengthened their influence over the national churches; they
had moreover abandoned that temporal policy by which they had
formerly involved Italy and all Europe in confusion. They
attached themselves to Spain with perfect confidence and
without any reservations, fully returning the devotion evinced
by that kingdom to the Roman church. The Italian principality,
the enlarged dominions of the pontiff, contributed eminently
to the success of his ecclesiastical enterprises; while the
interests of the universal Catholic church were for some time
essentially promoted by the overplus of its revenues. Thus
strengthened internally, thus supported by powerful adherents,
and by the idea of which they were the representatives, the
popes exchanged the defensive position, with which they had
hitherto been forced to content themselves, for that of
assailants."
L. von Ranke,
History of the Popes,
book 5, section 2 (volume 1).
PAPACY: A. D. 1559.
Election of Pius IV.
PAPACY: A. D. 1559-1595.
The institution of the Index.
"The first 'Index' of prohibited books published by Papal
authority, and therefore, unlike the 'catalogi' previously
issued by royal, princely, or ecclesiastical authorities,
valid for the whole Church, was that authorised by a bull of
Paul IV. in 1559. In 1564 followed the Index published by Pius
IV., as drawn up in harmony with the decrees of the Council of
Trent, which, after all, appears to be a merely superficial
revision of its predecessor. Other Indices followed, for which
various authorities were responsible, the most important among
them being the Index Expurgatorius, sanctioned by a bull of
Clement VIII. in 1595, which proved so disastrous to the great
printing trade of Venice."
A. W. Ward,
The Counter-Reformation,
chapter 2.
PAPACY: A. D. 1566.
Election of Pius V.
PAPACY: A. D. 1570-1571.
Holy League with Venice and Spain against the Turks.
Great battle and victory of Lepanto.
See TURKS: A. D. 1566-1571.
PAPACY: A. D. 1572 (May).
Election of Gregory XIII.
PAPACY: A. D. 1572.
Reception of the news of the Massacre of St. Bartholomew's Day.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1572 (AUGUST-OCTOBER).
PAPACY: A. D. 1585.
Election of Sixtus V.
PAPACY: A. D. 1585.
The Bull against Henry of Navarre, called "Brutum Fulmen."
See FRANCE: A. D. 1584-1589.
PAPACY: A. D. 1590 (September).
Election of Urban VII.
PAPACY: A. D. 1590 (December).
Election of Gregory XIV.
PAPACY: A. D. 1591.
Election of Innocent IX.
PAPACY: A. D. 1591.
Election of Clement VIII.
{2461}
PAPACY: A. D. 1597.
Annexation of Ferrara to the States of the Church.
"The loss which the papal states sustained by the alienation
of Parma and Placentia was repaired, before the end of the
16th century, by the acquisition of a duchy little inferior in
extent to those territories:—that of Ferrara." With the death,
in 1597, of Alfonso II., the persecutor of Tasso, "terminated
the legitimate Italian branch of the ancient and illustrious
line of Este. But there remained an illegitimate
representative of his house, whom he designed for his
successor; don Cesare da Este, the grandson of Alfonso I. by a
natural son of that duke. The inheritance of Ferrara and
Modena had passed in the preceding century to bastards,
without opposition from the popes, the feudal superiors of the
former duchy. But the imbecile character of don Cesare now
encouraged the reigning pontiff, Clement VIII., to declare
that all the ecclesiastical fiefs of the house of Este
reverted, of right, to the holy see on the extinction of the
legitimate line. The papal troops, on the death of Alfonso
II., invaded the Ferrarese state; and Cesare suffered himself
to be terrified by their approach into an ignominious and
formal surrender of that duchy to the holy see. By the
indifference of the Emperor Rodolph II., he was permitted to
retain the investiture of the remaining possessions of his
ancestors: the duchies of Modena and Reggio, over which, as
imperial and not papal fiefs, the pope could not decently
assert any right. In passing beneath the papal yoke, the duchy
of Ferrara, which, under the government of the house of Este,
had been one of the most fertile provinces of Italy, soon
became a desert and marshy waste. The capital itself lost its
industrious population and commercial riches; its
architectural magnificence crumbled into ruins, and its modern
aspect retains no trace of that splendid court in which
literature and art repaid the fostering protection of its
sovereigns, by reflecting lustre on their heads."
G. Procter,
History of Italy,
chapter 9.
PAPACY: A. D. 1605 (April).
Election of Leo XI.
PAPACY: A. D. 1605 (May).
Election of Paul V.
PAPACY: A. D. 1605-1700.
The conflict with Venice.
Opposition of Urban VIII. to the Emperor.
Annexation of Urbino to the States of the Church.
Half a century of unimportant history.
"Paul V. (1605-1621) was imbued with mediæval ideas as to the
papal authority and the validity of the canon-law. These
speedily brought him into collision with the secular power,
especially in Venice, which had always maintained an attitude
of independence towards the papacy. Ecclesiastical disputes
[growing out of a Venetian decree forbidding alienations of
secular property in favor of the churches] were aggravated by
the fact that the acquisition of Ferrara had extended the
papal states to the frontiers of Venice, and that frequent
differences arose as to the boundary line between them. The
defence of the republic and of the secular authority in church
affairs was undertaken with great zeal and ability by Fra
Paoli Sarpi, the famous historian of the Council of Trent.
Paul V. did not hesitate to excommunicate the Venetians
[1606], but the government compelled the clergy to disregard
the pope's edict. The Jesuits, Theatines, and Capuchins were
the only orders that adhered to the papacy, and they had to
leave the city. If Spain had not been under the rule of the
pacific Lerma, it would probably have seized the opportunity
to punish Venice for its French alliance. But France and Spain
were both averse to war, and Paul V. had to learn that the
papacy was powerless without secular support. By the mediation
of the two great powers, a compromise was arranged in 1607.
The Jesuits, however, remained excluded from Venetian
territory for another half-century. This was the first serious
reverse encountered by the Catholic reaction. …
See VENICE: A. D. 1606-1607.
The attention of the Catholic world was now absorbed in the
Austrian schemes for the repression of Protestantism in
Germany, which received the unhesitating support both of Paul
and of his successor, Gregory XV. [1621-1623]. The latter was
a great patron of the Jesuits. Under him the Propaganda was
first set on foot. … The pontificate of Urban VIII.
(1623-1644) was a period of great importance. He regarded
himself rather as a temporal prince than as head of the
Church. He fortified Rome and filled his states with troops.
The example of Julius II. seemed to find an imitator. Urban
was imbued with the old Italian jealousy of the imperial
power, and allied himself closely with France. … At the moment
when Ferdinand II. had gained his greatest success in Germany
he was confronted with the hostility of the pope. Gustavus
Adolphus landed in Germany, and by a strange coincidence
Protestantism found support in the temporal interests of the
papacy. The Catholics were astounded and dismayed by Urban's
attitude. … Urban VIII. succeeded in making an important
addition to the papal states by the annexation of Urbino, in
1631, on the death of Francesco Maria, the last duke of the
Della Rovere family. But in the government of the states he
met with great difficulties. … Urban VIII.'s relatives, the
Barberini, quarreled with the Farnesi, who had held Parma and
Piacenza since the pontificate of Paul III. The pope was
induced to claim the district of Castro, and this claim
aroused a civil war (1641-1644) in which the papacy was
completely worsted. Urban was forced to conclude a humiliating
treaty and directly afterwards died. His successors [Innocent
X., 1644-1655; Alexander VII., 1655-1667; Clement IX.,
1667-1669; Clement X., 1670-1676; Innocent XI., 1676-1689;
Alexander VIII., 1689-1691; Innocent XII., 1691-1700] are of
very slight importance to the history of Europe. … The only
important questions in which the papacy was involved in the
latter half of the century were the schism of the Jansenists
and the relations with Louis XIV."
R. Lodge,
History of Modern Europe,
chapter 12.
ALSO IN:
J. E. Darras,
General History of the Catholic Church,
period 7, chapter 7;
period 8, chapters 1-3 (volume 4).
T. A. Trollope,
Paul the Pope and Paul the Friar.
A. Robertson,
Fra Paolo Sarpi.
PAPACY: A. D. 1621.
Election of Gregory XV.
PAPACY: A. D. 1622.
Founding of the College of the Propaganda.
[Transcriber's note:
2022: "Congregation for the Evangelization of Peoples.">[
Cardinal Alexander Ludovisio, elected pope on the 9th of
February, 1621, taking the name of Gregory XV., "had always
shown the greatest zeal for the conversion of infidels and
heretics; this zeal inspired the design of founding the
College of the Propaganda (1622). The origin of the Propaganda
is properly to be traced to an edict of Gregory XIII., in
virtue of which a certain number of cardinals were charged
with the direction of missions to the East, and catechisms
were ordered to be printed in the less-known languages. But
the institution was neither firmly established nor provided
with the requisite funds. Gregory XV. gave it a constitution,
contributed the necessary funds from his private purse, and as
it met a want the existence of which was really felt and
acknowledged, its success was daily more and more brilliant.
{2462}
Who does not know what the Propaganda has done for
philological learning? But it chiefly labored, with admirable
grandeur of conception and energy, to fulfil its great
mission—the propagation of the Catholic faith—with the most
splendid results. Urban VIII., the immediate successor of
Gregory XV., completed the work by the addition of the
'Collegium de Propaganda Fide,' where youth are trained in the
study of all the foreign languages, to bear the name of Christ
to every nation on the globe."
J. E. Darras,
General History of the Catholic Church,
period 7, chapter 7, section. 10 (volume 4).
PAPACY: A. D. 1623.
Election of Urban VIII.
PAPACY: A. D. 1623-1626.
The Valtelline War.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1624-1626.
PAPACY: A. D. 1644-1667.
Pontificates of Innocent X. and Alexander VII.
Growth of Nepotism.
Sixtus V. had "invented a system of nepotism which was so
actively followed up by his successors, that even a short
reign provided the means of accumulating a brilliant fortune.
That pontiff raised one nephew to the rank of cardinal, with a
share of the public business and an ecclesiastical income of a
hundred thousand crowns. Another he created a marquess, with
large estates in the Neapolitan territory. The house of
Ferretti thus founded, long maintained a high position, and
was frequently represented in the College of Cardinals. The
Aldobrandini, founded in like manner by Clement VIII., the
Borghesi by Paul V., the Ludovisi by Gregory XV., and the
Barberini by Urban VIII., now vied in rank and opulence with
the ancient Roman houses of Colonna and Orsini, who boasted
that for centuries no peace had been concluded in Christendom
in which they were not expressly included. On the death of
Urban VIII. (29th July 1644) the Barberini commanded the votes
of eight-and-forty cardinals, the most powerful faction ever
seen in the conclave. Still, the other papal families were
able to resist their dictation, and the struggle terminated in
the election of Cardinal Pamfili, who took the name of
Innocent X. During the interval of three months, the city was
abandoned to complete lawlessness; assassinations in the
streets were frequent; no private house was safe without a
military guard, and a whole army of soldiers found occupation
in protecting the property of their employers. This was then
the usual state of things during an interregnum. Innocent X.,
though seventy-two years of age at his election, was full of
energy. He restrained the disorders in the city. … Innocent
brought the Barberini to strict account for malpractices under
his predecessor, and wrested from them large portions of their
ill-gotten gain. So far, however, from reforming the system
out of which these abuses sprung, his nepotism exhibited
itself in a form which scandalised even the Roman courtiers.
The pope brought his sister-in-law, Donna Olimpia Maidalchina,
from Viterbo to Rome, and established her in a palace, where
she received the first visits of foreign ambassadors on their
arrival, gave magnificent entertainments, and dispensed for
her own benefit the public offices of the government. … Her
daughters were married into the noblest families. Her son,
having first been appointed the cardinal-nephew, soon after
renounced his orders, married, and became the secular-nephew.
The struggle for power between his mother and his wife divided
Rome into new factions, and the feud was enlarged by the
ambition of a more distant kinsman, whom Innocent appointed to
the vacant post of cardinal-nephew. The pontiff sank under a
deep cloud from the disorders in his family and the palace,
and when he died (5th January, 1655) the corpse laid three
days uncared for, till an old canon, who had been long
dismissed from his household, expended half-a-crown on its
interment. … Fabio Chigi, who came next as Alexander VIII.
[VII.] brought to the tottering chair a spotless reputation,
and abilities long proved in the service of the church. His
first act was to banish the scandalous widow; her son was
allowed to retain her palace and fortune. Beginning with the
loudest protestations against nepotism, now the best
established institution at Rome, in the phrase of the time,
the pope soon 'became a man.' The courtiers remonstrated on
his leaving his family to live a plain citizen's life at
Siena: it might involve the Holy See in a misunderstanding
with Tuscany. … The question was gravely proposed in
consistory, and the flood-gates being there authoritatively
unclosed, the waters of preferment flowed abundantly on all
who had the merit to be allied with Fabio Chigi. After
discharging this arduous duty, the pope relieved himself of
further attention to business, and spent his days in literary
leisure. His nephews, however, had less power than formerly,
from the growth of the constitutional principle. The
cardinals, in their different congregations, with the official
secretaries, aspired to the functions of responsible
advisers."
G. Trevor,
Rome, from the Fall of the Western Empire,
pages 416-418.
PAPACY: A. D. 1646.
The Hostility of Mazarin and France.
See ITALY: A. D. 1646-1654.
PAPACY: A. D. 1653.
The first condemnation of Jansenism.
See PORT ROYAL AND THE JANSENISTS: A. D. 1602-1660.
PAPACY: A. D. 1667.
Election of Clement IX.
PAPACY: A. D. 1670.
Election of Clement X.
PAPACY: A. D. 1676.
Election of Innocent XI.
PAPACY: A. D. 1682-1693.
Successful contest with Louis XIV. and the Gallican Church.
"It has always been the maxim of the French court, that the
papal power is to be restricted by means of the French clergy,
and that the clergy, on the other hand, are to be kept in due
limits by means of the papal power. But never did a prince
hold his clergy in more absolute command than Louis XIV. … The
prince of Condé declared it to be his opinion, that if it
pleased the king to go over to the Protestant church, the
clergy would be the first to follow him. And certainly the
clergy of France did support their king without scruple
against the pope. The declarations they published were from
year to year increasingly decisive in favour of the royal
authority. At length there assembled the convocation of 1682.
'It was summoned and dissolved,' remarks a Venetian
ambassador, 'at the convenience of the king's ministers, and
was guided by their suggestions.' The four articles drawn up
by this assembly have from that time been regarded as the
manifesto of the Gallican immunities. The first three repeat
assertions of principles laid down in earlier times; as, for
example, the independence of the secular power, as regarded
the spiritual authority; the superiority of councils over the
pope; and the inviolable character of the Gallican usages.
{2463}
But the fourth is more particularly remarkable, since it
imposes new limits even to the spiritual authority of the
pontiff. 'Even in questions of faith, the decision of the pope
is not incapable of amendment, so long as it is without the
assent of the church.' We see that the temporal power of the
kingdom received support from the spiritual authority, which
was in its turn upheld by the secular arm. The king is
declared free from the interference of the pope's temporal
authority; the clergy are exempted from submission to the
unlimited exercise of his spiritual power. It was the opinion
of contemporaries, that although France might remain within
the pale of the Catholic church, it yet stood on the
threshold, in readiness for stepping beyond it. The king
exalted the propositions above named into a kind of 'Articles
of Faith,' a symbolical book. All schools were to be regulated
in conformity with these precepts; and no man could attain to
a degree, either in the juridical or theological faculties,
who did not swear to maintain them. But the pope also was
still possessed of a weapon. The authors of this
declaration—the members of this assembly—were promoted and
preferred by the king before all other candidates for
episcopal offices; but Innocent refused to grant them
spiritual institution. They might enjoy the revenues of those
sees, but ordination they did not receive; nor could they
venture to exercise one spiritual act of the episcopate. These
complications were still further perplexed by the fact that
Louis XIV. at that moment resolved on that relentless
extirpation of the Huguenots, but too well known, and to which
he proceeded chiefly for the purpose of proving his own
perfect orthodoxy. He believed himself to be rendering a great
service to the church. It has indeed been also affirmed that
Innocent XI. was aware of his purpose and had approved it, but
this was not the fact. The Roman court would not now hear of
conversions effected by armed apostles. 'It was not of such
methods that Christ availed himself: men must be led to the
temple, not dragged into it.' New dissensions continually
arose. In the year 1687, the French ambassador entered Rome
with so imposing a retinue, certain squadrons of cavalry
forming part of it, that the right of asylum, which the
ambassadors claimed at that time, not only for their palace,
but also for the adjacent streets, could by no means have been
easily disputed with him, although the popes had solemnly
abolished the usage. With an armed force the ambassador braved
the pontiff in his own capital. 'They come with horses and
chariots,' said Innocent, 'but we will walk in the name of the
Lord.' He pronounced the censures of the church on the
ambassador; and the church of St. Louis, in which the latter
had attended a solemn high mass, was laid under interdict. The
king also then proceeded to extreme measures. He appealed to a
general council, took possession of Avignon, and caused the
nuncio to be shut up in St. Olon: it was even believed that he
had formed the design of creating for Harlai, archbishop of
Paris, who, if he had not suggested these proceedings, had
approved them, the appointment of patriarch of France. So far
had matters proceeded: the French ambassador in Rome
excommunicated; the papal nuncio in France detained by force;
thirty-five French bishops deprived of canonical institution;
a territory of the Holy See occupied by the king: it was, in
fact, the actual breaking out of schism; yet did Pope Innocent
refuse to yield a single step. If we ask to what he trusted
for support on this occasion, we perceive that it was not to
the effect of the ecclesiastical censures in France, nor to
the influence of his apostolic dignity, but rather, and above
all, to that universal resistance which had been aroused in
Europe against those enterprises of Louis XIV. that were
menacing the existence of its liberties. To this general
opposition the pope now also attached himself. … If the pope
had promoted the interests of Protestantism by his policy, the
Protestants on their side, by maintaining the balance of
Europe against the 'exorbitant Power,' also contributed to
compel the latter into compliance with the spiritual claims of
the papacy. It is true that when this result ensued, Innocent
XI. was no longer in existence; but the first French
ambassador who appeared in Rome after his death (10th of
August, 1689) renounced the right of asylum: the deportment of
the king was altered; he restored Avignon, and entered into
negotiations. … After the early death of Alexander VIII., the
French made all possible efforts to secure the choice of a
pontiff disposed to measures of peace and conciliation; a
purpose that was indeed effected by the elevation of Antonio
Pignatelli, who assumed the tiara with the name of Innocent
XII., on the 12th of July, 1691. … The negotiations continued
for two years. Innocent more than once rejected the formulas
proposed to him by the clergy of France, and they were, in
fact, compelled at length to declare that all measures
discussed and resolved on in the assembly of 1682 should be
considered as not having been discussed or resolved on:
'casting ourselves at the feet of your holiness, we profess
our unspeakable grief for what has been done.' It was not
until they had made this unreserved recantation that Innocent
accorded them canonical institution. Under these conditions
only was peace restored. Louis XIV. wrote to the pope that he
retracted his edict relating to the four articles. Thus we
perceive that the Roman see once more maintained its
prerogatives, even though opposed by the most powerful of
monarchs."
L. Ranke,
History of the Popes,
book 8, section 16 (volume 2).
PAPACY:A. D. 1689.
Election of Alexander VIII.
PAPACY:A. D. 1691.
Election of Innocent XII.
PAPACY:A. D. 1700.
Election of Clement XI.
PAPACY:A. D. 1700-1790.
Effects of the War of the Spanish Succession.
Declining Powers.
The issue of the War of the Spanish Succession "will serve to
show us that when the Pope was not, as in his contest with
Louis XIV., favoured by political events, he could no longer
laugh to scorn the edicts of European potentates. Charles II.
of Spain, that wretched specimen of humanity, weak in body,
and still weaker in mind, haunted by superstitious terrors
which almost unsettled his reason, was now, in the year 1700,
about to descend to a premature grave. He was without male
issue, and was uncertain to whom he should bequeath the
splendid inheritance transmitted to him by his ancestors. The
Pope, Innocent XII., who was wholly in the interests of
France, urged him to bequeath Spain, with its dependencies, to
Philip, Duke of Anjou, the grandson of Louis XIV., who claimed
through his grandmother, the eldest sister of Charles.
{2464}
He would thus prevent the execution of the partition treaty
concluded between France, England, and Holland, according to
which the Archduke Charles … was to have Spain, the Indies,
and the Netherlands, while France took the Milanese, or the
Province of Lorraine. The Archbishop of Toledo seconded the
exhortation of the Pope, and so worked on the superstitious
terrors of the dying monarch that he signed a will in favour
of the Duke of Anjou, which was the cause of lamentation, and
mourning, and woe, for twelve years, throughout Europe, from
the Vistula to the Atlantic Ocean. …
See SPAIN: A. D. 1701-1702;
and ENGLAND: A. D. 1701-1702.
The Duke of Marlborough's splendid victories of Blenheim and
Ramillies … placed the Emperor Joseph (1705-11), the brother
of the Archduke Charles, in possession of Germany and the
Spanish Netherlands and the victory of Prince Eugene before
Turin made him supreme in the north of Italy and the kingdom
of Naples
See
GERMANY: A. D. 1704;
NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1706-1707;
ITALY: A. D. 1701-1713.
The Pope, Clement XI., was now reduced to a most humiliating
position. Political events had occurred … which served to show
very plainly that the Pope, without a protector, could not, as
in former days, bid defiance to the monarchs of Europe. His
undutiful son, the Emperor, compelled him to resign part of
his territories as a security for his peaceful demeanour, and
to acknowledge the Archduke Charles, the Austrian claimant to
the Spanish throne. The peace of Utrecht, concluded in 1713
[see UTRECHT: A. D. 1712-1714], which produced the
dismemberment of the monarchy, but left Philip in the peaceful
occupation of the throne of Spain, did indeed release him from
that obligation; but it did not restore him to the 'high and
palmy state' which he occupied before he was obliged to submit
to the Imperial arms. It inflicted a degradation upon him, for
it transferred to other sovereigns, without his consent, his
fiefs of Sicily and Sardinia. Now, also, it became manifest
that the Pope could no longer assert an indirect sovereignty
over the Italian States; for, notwithstanding his opposition,
it conferred a large extent of territory on the Duke of Savoy,
which has, in our day, been expanded into a kingdom under the
sceptre of Victor Emmanuel and his successor. We have a
further evidence of the decline of the Papacy in the change in
the relative position of the States of Europe as Papal and
anti-Papal during the eighteenth century, after the death of
Louis XIV. The Papal powers of Spain in the sixteenth century,
and of France, Spain, and Austria, in the latter half of the
seventeenth century, determined the policy of Europe. … On the
other hand, England, Prussia, and Russia became, in the
eighteenth century, the great leading powers in the world. …
The Pope, then, no longer stood at the head of those powers
which swayed the destinies of Europe. … The Papacy, from the
death of Louis XIV. till the time of the French Revolution,
led a very quiet and obscure life. It had no part in any of
the great events which during the eighteenth century were
agitating Europe, and gained no spiritual or political
victories."
A. R. Pennington,
Epochs of the Papacy,
chapter 10.
PAPACY: A. D. 1713.
The Bull Unigenitus and the Christian doctrines it condemned.
See PORT ROYAL AND THE JANSENISTS: A. D. 1702-1715.
PAPACY: A. D. 1721.
Election of Innocent XIII.
PAPACY: A. D. 1724.
Election of Benedict XIII.
PAPACY: A. D. 1730.
Election of Clement XII.
PAPACY: A. D. 1740.
Election of Benedict XIV.
PAPACY: A. D. 1758.
Election of Clement XIII.
PAPACY: A. D. 1765-1769.
Defense of the Jesuits, on their expulsion from France,
Spain, Parma, Venice, Modena and Bavaria.
See JESUITS: A. D. 1761-1769.
PAPACY: A. D. 1769.
Election of Clement XIV.
PAPACY: A. D. 1773.
Suppression of the Jesuits.
See JESUITS: A. D. 1769-1871.
PAPACY: A. D. 1775.
Election of Pius VI.
PAPACY: A. D. 1789-1810.
Founding of the Roman Episcopate
in the United States of America.
In 1789, the first episcopal see of the Roman Catholic Church
in the United States was founded, at Baltimore, by a bull of
Pope Pius VI., which appointed Father John Carroll to be its
bishop. In 1810, Bishop Carroll "was raised to the dignity of
Archbishop, and four suffragan dioceses were created, with
their respective sees at Philadelphia, Boston, New York, and
Bardstown, in Kentucky."
J. A. Russell,
The Catholic Church in the United States
(History of the Third Plenary Council of Baltimore,
pages 16-18).
PAPACY: A. D. 1790-1791.
Revolution at Avignon.
Reunion of the Province with France.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1790-1791.
PAPACY: A. D. 1796.
First extortions of Bonaparte from the Pope.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1796 (APRIL-OCTOBER).
PAPACY: A. D. 1797.
Treaty of Tolentino.
Papal territory taken by Bonaparte to add to the
Cispadane and Cisalpine Republics.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1796-1797 (OCTOBER-APRIL).
PAPACY: A. D. 1797-1798.
French occupation of Rome.
Formation of the Roman Republic.
Removal of the Pope.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1797-1798 (DECEMBER-MAY).
PAPACY: A. D. 1800.
Election of Pius VII.
PAPACY: A. D. 1802.
The Concordat with Napoleon.
Its Ultramontane influence.
See FRANCE A. D. 1801-1804.
PAPACY: A. D. 1804.
Journey of the Pope to Paris for the coronation of Napoleon.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1804-1805.
PAPACY: A. D. 1808-1814.
Conflict of Pius VII. with Napoleon.
French seizure of Rome and the Papal States.
Captivity of the Pope at Savona and Fontainebleau.
The Concordat of 1813 and its retraction.
Napoleon "had long been quarrelling with Pius VII., to make a
tool of whom he had imposed the concordat on France. The Pope
resisted, as the Emperor might have expected, and, not
obtaining the price of his compliance, hindered the latter's
plans in every way that he could. He resisted as head of the
Church and as temporal sovereign of Rome, refusing to close
his dominions either to the English or to Neapolitan refugees
of the Bourbon party. Napoleon would not allow the Pope to act
as a monarch independent of the Empire, but insisted that he
was amenable to the Emperor, as temporal prince, just as his
predecessors were amenable to Charlemagne. They could not
agree, and Napoleon, losing patience, took military possession
of Rome and the Roman State."
H. Martin,
Popular History of France, since 1789,
volume 2, chapter 12.
{2465}
In February, 1808, "the French troops, who had already taken
possession of the whole of Tuscany, in virtue of the
resignation forced upon the Queen of Etruria, invaded the
Roman territories, and made themselves masters of the ancient
capital of the world. They immediately occupied the castle of
St. Angelo, and the gates of the city, and entirely
dispossessed the papal troops. Two months afterwards, an
imperial decree of Napoleon severed the provinces of Ancona,
Urbino, Macerata, and Camerino, which had formed part of the
ecclesiastical estates, under the gift of Charlemagne, for
nearly a thousand years, and annexed them to the kingdom of
Italy. The reason assigned for this spoliation was, 'That the
actual sovereign of Rome has constantly declined to declare
war against the English, and to coalesce with the Kings of
Italy and Naples for the defence of the Italian peninsula. The
interests of these two kingdoms, as well as of the armies of
Naples and Italy, require that their communications should not
be interrupted by a hostile power.'"
Sir A. Alison,
History of Europe, 1789-1815,
chapter 51 (volume 11).
"The pope protested in vain against such violence. Napoleon
paid no attention. … He confiscated the wealth of the
cardinals who did not return to the place of their birth. He
disarmed nearly all the guards of the Holy Father—the nobles
of this guard were imprisoned. Finally, Miollis [the French
commander] had Cardinal Gabrielle, pro-Secretary of State,
carried off, and put seals upon his papers. On May 17, 1809, a
decree was issued by Napoleon, dated from Vienna, proclaiming
the union (in his quality of successor to Charlemagne) of the
States of the pope with the French Empire, ordaining that the
city of Rome should be a free and imperial city; that the pope
should continue to have his seat there, and that he should
enjoy a revenue of 2,000,000 francs. On June 10, he had this
decree promulgated at Rome. On this same June 10, the pope
protested against all these spoliations, refused all pensions,
and recapitulating all the outrages of which he had cause to
complain, issued the famous and imprudent bull of
excommunication against the authors, favourers, and executors
of the acts of violence against him and the Holy See, but
without naming anyone. Napoleon was incensed at it, and on the
first impulse he wrote to the bishops of France a letter in
which he spoke in almost revolutionary terms 'of him who
wished,' said he, 'to make dependent upon a perishable
temporal power the eternal interest of consciences, and that
of all spiritual affairs.' On the 6th of July, 1809, Pius
VII., taken from Rome, after he had been asked if he would
renounce the temporal sovereignty of Rome and of the States of
the Church, was conducted by General Radet as far as Savone,
where he arrived alone, August 10, the cardinals having all
been previously transported to Paris. And to complete the
spoliation of the pope, Napoleon issued on the 17th of
February, 1810, a senatus-consultum which bestowed upon the
eldest son of the emperor the title of King of Rome, and even
ordained that the emperor should be consecrated a second time
at Rome, in the first ten years of his reign. It was while
oppressed, captive and deprived of all council, that the pope
refused the bulls to all the bishops named by the emperor, and
then it was that all the discussions relative to the proper
measures to put an end to the viduity of the churches were
commenced. … The year 1810, far from bringing any alleviation
to the situation of the pope and giving him, according to the
wishes and prayers of the ecclesiastic commission, a little
more liberty, aggravated, on the contrary, this situation, and
rendered his captivity harder. In effect, on February 17, 1810,
appeared the senatus-consultum pronouncing the union of the
Roman States with the French Empire; the independence of the
imperial throne of all authority on earth, and annulling the
temporal existence of the popes. This senatus-consultum
assured a pension to the pope, but it ordained also that the
pope should take oath to do nothing in opposition to the four
articles of 1682. … The pope must have consoled himself, …
even to rejoicing, that they made the insulting pension they
offered him depend upon the taking of such an oath, and it is
that which furnished him with a reply so nobly apostolic: that
he had no need of this pension, and that he would live on the
charity of the faithful. … The rigorous treatment to which the
Holy Father was subjected at Savona was continued during the
winter of 1811-1812, and in the following spring. At this
time, it seems there was some fear, on the appearance of an
English squadron, that it might carry off the pope; and the
emperor gave the order to transfer him to Fontainebleau. This
unhappy old man left Savona, June 10, and was forced to travel
day and night. He fell quite ill at the hospice of Mont Cenis;
but they forced him none the less to continue his journey.
They had compelled him to wear such clothes … as not to betray
who he was on the way they had to follow. They took great care
also to conceal his journey from the public, and the secret
was so profoundly kept, that on arriving at Fontainebleau,
June 19, the concierge, who had not been, advised of his
arrival, and who had made no preparation, was obliged to
receive him in his own lodgings. The Holy Father was a long
time before recovering from the fatigue of this painful
journey, and from the needlessly rigorous treatment to which
they had subjected him. The cardinals not disgraced by
Napoleon, who were in Paris, as well as the Archbishop of
Tours, the Bishop of Nantes, the Bishop of Evreux, and the
Bishop of Treves, were ordered to go and see the pope. … The
Russian campaign, marked by so many disasters, was getting to
a close. The emperor on his return to Paris, December 18,
1812, still cherished chimerical hopes, and was meditating
without doubt, more gigantic projects. Before carrying them
out, he wished to take up again the affairs of the Church,
either because he repented not having finished with them at
Savona, or because he had the fancy to prove that he could do
more in a two hours' tête-à–tête with the pope, than had been
done by the council, its commissions, and its most able
negotiators. He had beforehand, however, taken measures which
were to facilitate his personal negotiation. The Holy Father
had been surrounded for several months by cardinals and
prelates, who, either from conviction or from submission to
the emperor, depicted the Church as having arrived at a state
of anarchy which put its existence in peril. They repeated
incessantly to the pope, that if he did not get reconciled
with the emperor and secure the aid of his power to arrest the
evil, schism would be inevitable. Finally, the Sovereign
pontiff overwhelmed by age, by infirmities, by the anxiety and
cares with which his mind was worried, found himself well
prepared for the scene Napoleon had planned to play, and which
was to assure him what he believed to be a success.
{2466}
On January 19, 1813, the emperor, accompanied by the Empress
Marie Louise, entered the apartment of the Holy Father
unexpectedly, rushed to him and embraced him with effusion.
Pius VII., surprised and affected, allowed himself to be
induced, after a few explanations, to give his approbation to
the propositions that were imposed, rather than submitted to
him. They were drawn up in eleven articles, which were not yet
a compact, but which were to serve as the basis of a new act.
On January 24, the emperor and the pope affixed their
signatures to this strange paper, which was lacking in the
usual diplomatic forms, since they were two sovereigns who had
treated directly together. It was said in these articles, that
the pope would exercise the pontificate in France, and in
Italy;—that his ambassadors and those in authority near him,
should enjoy all diplomatic privileges;—that such of his
domains which were not disposed of should be free from taxes,
and that those which were transferred should be replaced by an
income of 2,000,000 francs;—that the pope should nominate,
whether in France or in Italy, to episcopal sees which should
be subsequently fixed; that the suburban sees should be
re-established, and depend on the nomination of the pope, and
that the unsold lands of these sees should be restored; that
the pope should give bishoprics 'in partibus' to the Roman
bishops absent from their diocese by force of circumstances,
and that he should serve them a pension equal to their former
revenue, until such time as they should be appointed to vacant
sees; that the emperor and the pope should agree in opportune
time as to the reduction to be made if it took place, in the
bishoprics of Tuscany and of the country about Geneva, as well
as to the institution of bishoprics in Holland, and in the
Hanseatic departments; that the propaganda, the confessional,
and the archives should be established in the place of sojourn
of the Holy Father; finally, that His Imperial Majesty
bestowed his good graces upon the cardinals, bishops, priests,
and laymen, who had incurred his displeasure in connection
with actual events. … The news of the signing of the treaty
occasioned great joy among the people, but it appears that
that of the pope was of short duration. The sacrifices he had
been led to make were hardly consummated, than he experienced
bitter grief; this could but be increased in proportion as the
exiled and imprisoned cardinals, Consalvi, Pacca, di Pietro,
on obtaining their liberty, received also the authorization to
repair to Fontainebleau. What passed then between the Holy
Father and these cardinals I do not pretend to know; but it
must be that Napoleon had been warned by some symptoms of what
was about to happen; for, in spite of the agreement he had
made with the pope to consider the eleven articles only as
preliminaries which were not to be published, he decided
nevertheless to make them the object of a message that the
arch-chancellor was charged to submit to the senate. This
premature publicity given to an act which the pope so strongly
regretted having signed must have hastened his retractation
which he addressed to the emperor by a brief, on March 24,
1813. … This time, the emperor, although greatly irritated by
the retractation, believed it was to his interest not to make
any noise about it, and decided to take outwardly no notice of
it. He had two decrees published: one of February 13, and the
other of March 25, 1813. By the first, the new Concordat of
January 25 was declared state law; by the second, he declared
it obligatory upon archbishops, bishops, and chapters, and
ordered, according to Article IV. of this Concordat that the
archbishops should confirm the nominated bishops, and in case
of refusal, ordained that they should be summoned before the
tribunals. He restricted anew the liberty that had been given
momentarily to the Holy Father, and Cardinal di Pietro
returned to exile. Thereupon, Napoleon started, soon after,
for that campaign of 1813 in Germany, the prelude to that
which was to lead to his downfall. The decrees issued 'ab
irato' were not executed, and during the vicissitudes of the
campaign of 1813, the imperial government attempted several
times to renew with the pope negotiations which failed.
Matters dragged along thus, and no one could foresee any issue
when, on January 23, 1814, it was suddenly learned that the
pope had left Fontainebleau that very day, and returned to
Rome. … Murat, who had abandoned the cause of the emperor, and
who … had treated with the coalition, was then occupying the
States of the Church, and it is evident that Napoleon in his
indignation against Murat, preferred to allow the pope to
re-enter his States, to seeing them in the hands of his
brother-in-law. While Pius VII. was en route and the emperor
was fighting in Champagne, a decree of March 10, 1814,
announced that the pope was taking possession again of the
part of his States which formed the departments of Rome and
Trasmania. The lion, although vanquished, would not yet let go
all the prey he hoped surely to retake. … The pope arrived on
April 30, at Cesena, on May 12, at Ancona, and made his solemn
entry into Rome on May 24, 1814."
Talleyrand,
Memoirs,
part 6 (volume 2).
ALSO IN:
D. Silvagni,
Rome: its Princes, Priests and People,
chapters 35-39 (volume 2).
C. Botta,
Italy during the Consulate and Empire of Napoleon,
chapters 5-8.
M. de Bourrienne,
Private Memoirs of Napoleon,
volume 4, chapters 6 and 11-12.
Selections from the Letters and Despatches of Napoleon,
Captain Bingham,
volumes 2-3.
Memoirs of Napoleon dictated at St. Helena,
volume 5 (History Miscellany, volume l).
P. Lanfrey,
History of Napoleon,
volume 3, chapters 13 and 16.
PAPACY: A. D. 1814.
Restoration of the Jesuits.
See JESUITS: A. D. 1761)-1871.
PAPACY: A. D. 1815.
Restoration of the Papal States.
See VIENNA, THE CONGRESS OF.
PAPACY: A. D. 1823.
Election of Leo XII.
PAPACY: A. D. 1829.
Election of Pius VIII.
PAPACY: A. D. 1831.
Election of Gregory XVI.
PAPACY: A. D. 1831-1832.
Revolt of the Papal States, suppressed by Austrian troops.
See ITALY: A. D. 1830-1832.
PAPACY: A. D. 1846-1849.
Election of Pius IX.
His liberal reforms.
Revolution at Rome.
The Pope's flight.
His restoration by the French.
See ITALY: A. D. 1848-1849.
{2467}
PAPACY: A. D. 1850.
Restoration of the Roman Episcopate in England.
"The Reformation had deprived the Church of Rome of an
official home on English soil. … But a few people had remained
faithful to the Church of their forefathers, and a handful of
priests had braved the risks attendant on the discharge of
their duties to it. Rome, moreover, succeeded in maintaining
some sort of organisation in England. In the first instance
her Church was placed under an arch-priest. From 1623 to 1688
it was placed under a Vicar Apostolic, that is a Bishop,
nominally appointed to some foreign see, with a brief enabling
him to discharge episcopal duties in Great Britain. This
policy was not very successful. Smith, the second Vicar