CHAPTER VI

THEOLOGICAL CONTROVERSIES AND STUDIES

(a) Baianism.

Schwane, /Dogmengeschichte der neuren zeit/, 1890. Turmel, /Histoire de la theologie positive du concile de Trente au concile du Vatican/, 1906. Denzinger-Bannwart, /Enchiridion Symbolorum/, 11th edition, 1911. Duchesne, /Histoire du Baianisme/, 1731. Linsenmann, /Michael Baius/, 1863.

The Catholic doctrine on Grace, round which such fierce controversieshad been waged in the fifth and sixth centuries, loomed again intospecial prominence during the days of the Reformation. The views ofLuther and Calvin on Grace and Justification were in a sense the veryfoundation of their systems, and hence it was of vital importance thatthese questions should be submitted to a searching examination, andthat the doctrine of the Catholic Church should be formulated in sucha way as to make cavilling and misunderstanding impossible. This workwas done with admirable lucidity and directness in the fifth and sixthsessions of the Council of Trent, but nevertheless these decrees ofthe Council did not prevent the theories of Luther and Calvin beingpropagated vigorously, and from exercising a certain amount ofinfluence even on some Catholic theologians who had no sympathy withthe religious revolt.

Amongst these might be reckoned Michael Baius (De Bay, 1513-89) aprofessor at the University of Louvain and John Hessels, one of hissupporters in the theological controversies of the day. They believedthat Catholic apologists were handicapped seriously by their slavishregard for the authority and methods of the Scholastics, and that ifinstead of appealing to the writings of St. Thomas as the ultimatecriterion of truth they were to insist more on the authority of theBible and of the works of the Early Fathers, such as St. Cyprian, St.Jerome, and St. Augustine, they would find themselves on much saferground, and their arguments would be more likely to command therespect of their opponents. Hence at Louvain, in their own lectures,in their pamphlets, and in private discussions, they insisted stronglythat Scholasticism should make way for positive theology, and that theScriptures and patristic literature should take the place of the/Summa/. Not content, however, with a mere change of method they beganto show their contempt for traditional opinions, and in a short timealarming rumours were in circulation both inside and outside theuniversity that their teaching on Original Sin, Grace, and Free-will,was not in harmony with the doctrine of the Church. The Franciscanssubmitted to the judgment of the Sorbonne a number of propositions(18) selected from the writings or lectures of Baius and his friends,and the opinion of the Sorbonne was distinctly unfavourable. As thedispute grew more heated and threatened to have serious consequencesfor the university and the country, Cardinal Granvelle, believing thatthe absence of the two professors might lead to peace, induced both toproceed to the Council of Trent as the theologians of the King ofSpain (1563). Though the opinions of Baius found little sympathy withthe Fathers of Trent, yet since the subjects of Original Sin and Gracehad been discussed and defined already, nothing was done. On hisreturn (1564) from the Council of Trent Baius published severalpamphlets in explanation and defence of his views, all of which wereattacked by his opponents, so that in a short time the university wassplit into two opposing camps.

To put an end to the trouble the rector determined to seek theintervention of Rome. In October 1567 Pius V. issued the Bull, /Exomnibus afflictionibus/, in which he condemned seventy-ninepropositions selected from the writings or lectures of Baius withoutmentioning the author's name.[1] The friends of Baius raised manydifficulties regarding the reception and the interpretation of thepapal document, and though Baius himself professed his entiresubmission to the decision, the tone of his letter to the Pope waslittle short of offensive. The Pope replied that the case having beenexamined fully and adjudged acceptance of the decision was imperative.Once more Baius announced his intention of submitting (1569), and soconfident were his colleagues of his orthodoxy that he was appointeddean of the theological faculty, and later on chancellor of theuniversity. But his actions did not correspond with his professions.Various arguments were put forward to weaken the force of the papalcondemnation until at last Gregory XIII. was forced to issue a newBull, /Provisionis nostrae/ (1579), and to send the learned Jesuit,Francisco Toledo, to demand that Baius should abjure his errors, andthat the teaching of Pius V. should be accepted at Louvain. The papalletter was read in a formal meeting of the university, whereupon Baiussigned a form of abjuration, by which he acknowledged that thecondemnation of the propositions was just and reasonable, and that hewould never again advocate such views. This submission relieved thetension of the situation, but it was a long time before the evilinfluence of Baianism disappeared, and before peace was restoredfinally to Louvain.

The system propounded by Baius had much in common with the teaching ofPelagius, Luther, and Calvin. His failure to recognise the cleardistinction between the natural and the supernatural was the source ofmost of his errors. According to him the state of innocence in whichour first parents were created, their destination to the enjoyment ofthe Beatific Vision, and all the gifts bestowed upon them for theattainment of this end were due to them, so that had they perseveredduring life they should have merited eternal happiness as a reward fortheir good works. When, however, man sinned by disobedience he notmerely lost gratuitous or supernatural endowments, but his wholenature was weakened and corrupted by Original Sin which, in the systemof Baius, was to be identified with concupiscence, and which wastransmitted from father to son according to the ordinary laws ofheredity. This concupiscence, he contended, was in itself sinful, aswas also every work which proceeds from it. This was true even in caseof children, because that an act be meritorious or demeritorious Free-will was not required. So long as the act was done voluntarily eventhough necessarily, it was to be deemed worthy of reward orpunishment, since freedom from external compulsion was alone requiredfor moral responsibility.

From the miserable condition into which man had fallen he was rescuedby the Redemption of Christ, on account of which much that had beenforfeited was restored. These graces procured for man by Christ may becalled supernatural, not because they were not due to human nature,but because human nature had been rendered positively unworthy of themby Original Sin. The justice, however, by which a man is justified,consisted not in any supernatural quality infused into the soul, bywhich the individual was made a participator of the divine nature, butimplied merely a condition in which the moral law was observedstrictly. Hence justification, according to Baius, could be separatedfrom the forgiveness of guilt, so that though the guilt of the sinnermay not have been remitted still he may be justified. In sin twothings were to be distinguished, the act and the liability topunishment. The act could never be effaced, but the temporalpunishment was remitted by the actual reception of the sacraments,which were introduced by Christ solely for that purpose. The Masspossessed, he held, any efficacy that it had only because it was agood moral act and helped to draw us more closely to God. ----------

[1] Denzinger, op. cit., nos. 1001-1080.

(b) The Molonist Controversy.

See bibliography VI. (a). Molina, /Liberi arbitrii cum gratiae donis ... concordia/, 1588. Augustin Le Blanc, /Historia congregationis de auxiliis/, etc., 1699, 1709. Elutherius, /Historia controversiarum de auxiliis/, etc., 1705-15. Schneeman, /Enstehung und Entwicklung der thomistich-molinistischen Kontroverse/, 1880. Gayraud, /Thomisme et Molinisme/, 1890. Dummermuth, /S. Thomas et doctrina praemotionis physicae/, 1886. Frins (S.J.), /S. Thomas Aquin, doctrina de cooperatione Dei/, etc., 1892. Dummermuth, /Defensio doctrinae S. Thomae/, etc., /Responsio ad P. Frins/, 1895.

The teaching of St. Thomas on Grace was the teaching followedgenerally, not merely by the Dominicans, but by most of thetheologians belonging to the secular clergy and to the other religiousorders. When, however, the systems of Calvin and Luther began to takeroot some of those who were brought into close contact with the newdoctrines arrived at the conclusion that the arguments of theiropponents could be overcome more effectually by introducing somemodifications of the theories of St. Thomas concerning the operationof Grace and Free-will. The Jesuits particularly were of this opinion,and in 1584 the general, Aquaviva, allowed his subjects to depart insome measure from the teaching of the /Summa/. This step was regardedwith disfavour in many influential quarters, and induced scholars tobe much more critical about Jesuit theology than otherwise they mighthave been. In their College at Louvain there were two Jesuittheologians Lessius (1584-1623) and Hamel, who both in their lecturesand theses advanced certain theories on man's co-operation with Graceand on Predestination, that were deemed by many to be dangerously akinto the doctrine of the Semi-Pelagians (1587). The fact that theJesuits had been the consistent opponents of Baianism induced Baiusand his friends to cast the whole weight of their influence againstLessius. A sharp controversy broke out once more in the Netherlands.The Universities of Louvain and Douay censured thirty-fourpropositions of Lessius as Semi-Pelagian, while the Universities ofIngolstadt and Mainz declared in favour of their orthodoxy. The matterhaving been referred to Rome, Sixtus V. imposed silence on bothparties, without pronouncing any formal condemnation or approval ofthe propositions that had been denounced (1588).

The controversy in the Spanish Netherlands was only the prelude to amuch more serious conflict in Spain itself. In 1588 the well-knownJesuit, Luis de Molina (1535-1600) published at Lisbon his celebratedwork, /Concordia liberi arbitrii cum gratiae donis etc./ with theapprobation of the Dominican, Bartholomew Ferreira, and the permissionof the Inquisition. Hardly had the work left the printing press thanit was attacked warmly by Domingo Banez (1528-1604), the friend andspiritual director of St. Teresa, and one of the ablest Dominicans ofhis time. He had been engaged already in a controversy with theJesuit, Montemaior, on the same subject of Grace, but the publicationof Molina's book added new fuel to the flame, and in a short time thedispute assumed such serious proportions that bishops, theologians,universities, students, and even the leading officials of the state,were obliged to take sides. The Dominicans supported Banez, while theJesuits with some few exceptions rallied to the side of Molina. Thelatter's book was denounced to the Inquisition, but as a counterblastto this Banez also was accused of very serious errors. If Molina wasblamed for being a Semi-Pelagian, Banez was charged with havingsteered too closely to Calvinism. In the hope of restoring peace tothe Church in Spain Clement VIII. reserved the decision of the case tohis own tribunal (1596).

To get a grasp of the meaning of the controversy, it should be bornein mind that in all theories concerning the operation of Grace threepoints must be safeguarded by all Catholic theologians, namely, man'sdependence upon God as the First Cause of all his actions natural aswell as supernatural, human liberty, and God's omniscience orforeknowledge of man's conduct. Following in the footsteps of St.Thomas, the Dominicans maintained that when God wishes man to performa good act He not only gives assistance, but He actually moves orpredetermines the will so that it must infallibly act. In this way theentire act comes from God as the First Cause, and at the same time itis the free act of the creature, because the human will though movedand predetermined by God acts according to its own nature, that is tosay, it acts freely. In His eternal decrees by which God ordained togive this premotion or predetermination He sees infallibly the actionsand conduct of men, and acting on this knowledge He predestines thejust to glory /ante praevisa merita/. According to this system,therefore, the efficaciousness of Grace comes from the Grace itself,and is not dependent upon the co-operation of the human will.

Against this Molina maintained that the human faculties having beenelevated by what might be called prevenient Grace, so as to make themcapable of producing a supernatural act, the act itself is performedby the will co-operating with the impulse given by God. Man is,therefore, free, and at the same time dependent upon God in theperformance of every good act. He is free, because the human will mayor may not co-operate with the divine assistance, and he is dependentupon God, because it is only by being elevated by prevenient Gracefreely given by God that the human will is capable of co-operating inthe production of a supernatural act. It follows, too, that theefficaciousness of Grace arises not from the Grace itself but from thefree co-operation of the will, and that a Grace in itself trulysufficient might not be efficacious through the failure of the will toco-operate with it. The omniscience of God is safeguarded, because,according to Molina, God sees infallibly man's conduct by means of the/scientia media/ or knowledge of future conditional events (so calledbecause it stands midway between the knowledge of possibles and theknowledge of actuals). That is to say He sees infallibly what manwould do freely in all possible circumstances were he given this orthat particular Grace, and acting upon this knowledge He predestinesthe just to glory /post praevisa merita/. The main difficulty urgedagainst Molina was, that by conceding too much to human liberty he wasbut renewing in another form the errors of Pelagius; while theprincipal objection brought forward against the Dominicans was, thatby conceding too much to Grace they were destroying human liberty, andapproaching too closely to Calvin's teaching on Predestination.Needless to say, however much they differed on the points, both thefollowers of St. Thomas and the friends of Molina were at one inrepudiating the doctrines of Calvin and Pelagius.

A special commission (/Congregatio de Auxiliis/), presided over byCardinals Madrucci and Arrigone, was appointed to examine thequestions at issue. The first session was held in January 1598, and inFebruary of the same year the majority of the members reported infavour of condemning Molina's book. Clement VIII. requested thecommission to consider the evidence more fully, but in a comparativelyshort time the majority presented a second report unfavourable toMolina. Representatives of the Dominicans and Jesuits were invited toattend in the hope that by means of friendly discussion an agreementsatisfactory to both parties might be secured. In 1601 the majoritywere in favour of condemning twenty propositions taken from Molina'swork, but the Pope refused to confirm the decision. From 1602 till1605 the sessions were held in the presence of the Pope and of many ofthe cardinals. Among the consultors was Peter Lombard, Archbishop ofArmagh. The death of Clement VIII. in March 1605 led to anadjournment. In September 1605 the sessions were resumed and continuedtill March 1606, when the votes of the consultors were handed in. InJuly 1607 these were placed before the cardinals for their opinions,but a little later it was announced that the decision of the Holy Seewould be made public at the proper time, and that meanwhile bothparties were at liberty to teach their opinions. Neither side was,however, to accuse the other of heresy. Since that time no definitedecision has been given, and, so far as the dogmas of faith areconcerned, theologians are at full liberty to accept Thomism orMolinism.

(c) Jansenism.

Rapin, /Histoire du Jansenisme depuis son origine jusqu' en 1644/, 1861. Paquier, /Le Jansenisme, etude doctrinale d'apres les sources/, 1909. Dechamps, /De haeresi jansemiana ab Apostolica Sede proscripta/, 1654. Du Mas, /Histoire des cinque propositions de Jansenius/, 1699. Saint-Beuve, /Port Royal/, 3rd edition, 1867- 71. Seche, /Les derniers Jansenistes/, 1891. Van den Peereboom, /Cornelius Jansensius septieme eveque d'Ypres/, 1882. Schill, /Die Constitution, Unigenitus/, 1876. Fuzet, /Les Jansenistes du XVIIe siecle/, 1876.

The influence exercised by Baius, and the ideas that he implanted inthe minds of his students had a very disturbing effect on theUniversity of Louvain. Amongst those who fell under the sway ofBaianism at this period the best known if not the ablest was CorneliusJansen (1585-1638). He studied at Utrecht, Paris, and Louvain. Whilein this latter place he formed a resolve to join the Society of Jesus,but for some reason or another he was refused admission, a slightwhich accounts in some measure for the continued antipathy hedisplayed during his life towards the Jesuits. At Louvain, too, he wasassociated very closely with a brilliant young French student, John duVerger de Hauranne (1581-1643), better known as the Abbot of St.Cyran, whom he accompanied to Paris and afterwards to Bayonne, whereboth lived for almost twelve years. During these years of intimatefriendship they had many opportunities of discussing the condition andprospects of the Catholic Church, the prevalence of what theyconsidered Pelagian views amongst theologians, the neglect of thestudy of the Fathers, above all of St. Augustine, the laxity ofconfessors in imparting absolution and allowing their penitents toreceive Holy Communion, and the absolute necessity of returning to thestrict discipline of the early Church. In 1617 the two friendsseparated, Jansen returning to Louvain, where he was appointed to achair of scriptural exegesis, and du Verger to Paris, where he took uphis residence though he held at the same time the commendatory abbacyof St. Cyran. As professor of Scripture Jansen showed himself bothindustrious and orthodox, so that in 1636 on the nomination of PhilipIV. of Spain he was appointed Bishop of Ypres. From that time till1639, when he passed away, he administered the affairs of his diocesewith commendable prudence and zeal.

During the greater portion of his life he had devoted all his sparemoments to the study of the works of St. Augustine, especially thosedirected against the Pelagians, and he had prepared a treatise onGrace, in which treatise he claimed to have reproduced exactly theteaching of St. Augustine. This work was finished but not publishedwhen he took seriously ill, and the manuscript was handed over by himto some friends for publication. Before his death, however, hedeclared in presence of witnesses that "if the Holy See wishes anychange I am an obedient son and I submit to that Church in which Ihave lived to my dying hour."[1] Notwithstanding various efforts thatwere made to prevent publication Jansen's book /Augustinus/ was givento the world in 1640.

Like Baius Jansen refused to recognise that in the condition ofinnocence, in which man was constituted before the Fall, he wasendowed with numerous gifts and graces, that were pure gifts of God inno way due to human nature. Hence he maintained that by the sin of ourFirst Parents human nature was essentially corrupted, and man fellhelplessly under the control of concupiscence, so that, do what hewould, he must of necessity sin. There was therefore in man anirresistible inclination impelling him towards evil, to counteractwhich Grace was given as a force impelling him towards good, with theresult that he was drawn necessarily towards good or evil according tothe relative strength of these two conflicting delectations. Itfollowed from this that merely sufficient grace was never given. Ifthe Grace was stronger than the tendency towards evil it wasefficacious; if it was weaker it was not sufficient. Yet, whether heacted under the impulse of Grace or of concupiscence, man actedfreely, because, according to Jansen, absence of all external pressurewas all that was required to make an act free and worthy of praise orblame.

The book /Augustinus/ created a profound sensation among theologians.It was hailed as a marvel of learning and ability by those who werestill attached secretly to the school of Baius as well as by theenemies of the Jesuits. A new edition appeared in Paris only to becondemned by the Holy Office (1641) and by Urban VIII. in the Bull,/In Eminenti/ (1642). Various difficulties were raised against theacceptance of the papal decision in Louvain and in the Netherlands,and it was only after a long delay and by threats of extreme measuresthat the Archbishop of Mechlin and those who followed him were obligedto submit (1653).

The real struggle regarding /Augustinus/ was to be waged, however, inParis and France. There, the Abbot of St. Cyran had been busily atwork preparing the way for Jansen's doctrine, by attacking the modernlaxity of the Church, and advocating the necessity of a completereturn to the rigorous discipline of the early centuries. He had madethe acquaintance of the family of the celebrated lawyer, AntoineArnauld, six of whose family had entered the convent of Port Royal, ofwhich one of them, Angelique,[2] was then superioress, while hisyoungest son, Antoine, a pupil of St. Cyran, was destined to be theleader of the French Jansenists. St. Cyran insisted on such rigorousconditions for the worthy reception of the Eucharist, that peoplefeared to receive Holy Communion lest they should be guilty ofsacrilege, and for a similar reason many priests abstained from thecelebration of Mass. He attacked the Jesuits for their laxity ofdoctrine and practice in regard to the Sacrament of Penance. Hehimself insisted on the absolute necessity of perfect contrition andcomplete satisfaction as an essential condition for absolution. Theseviews were accepted by the nuns at Port Royal and by many clergy inParis. On account of certain writings likely to lead to religioustrouble St. Cyran was arrested by order of Cardinal Richelieu (1638)and died in 1643. His place was taken by his brilliant pupil, AntoineArnauld, who had been ordained priest in 1641, and who like his masterwas the determined opponent of the Jesuits. In 1643 he published abook entitled /De la frequente Communion/, in which he put forwardsuch strict theories about the conditions required for the worthyreception of the Eucharist that many people were frightened intoabstaining even from fulfilling their Easter Communion. Despite theefforts of St. Vincent de Paul and others the book was read freely andproduced widespread and alarming results.

The condemnation pronounced by Urban VIII. (1642) against/Augustinus/, though accepted by the king, the Archbishop of Paris,and the Sorbonne, found many staunch opponents. It was contended thatthe condemnation was the work of the Jesuits rather than of the Pope,that it was based on the groundless supposition that the system ofJansen was identical with that of Baius, and that as no individualproposition in /Augustinus/ had been condemned people were perfectlyfree to discuss the views it contained. To put an end to allpossibility of misunderstanding Cornet, syndic of Paris University,selected from /Augustinus/ five propositions, which he believedcontained the whole essence of Jansen's system, and submitted them tothe Sorbonne for examination (1649). Owing to the intervention of theParliament of Paris in favour of the Jansenists the propositions werereferred to the Assembly of the Clergy (1650), but the vast body ofthe bishops considered that it was a question on which a decisionshould be sought from Rome. Accordingly eighty-five of the bishopsaddressed a petition to Innocent X. (1651) requesting him to pronouncea definitive sentence on the orthodoxy or unorthodoxy of the fivepropositions, while a minority of their body objected to such anappeal as an infringement of the liberties of the Gallican Church. Acommission, some of the members of which were recognised supporters ofthe Jansenists, was appointed by the Pope to examine the question, andafter prolonged discussions extending over two years Innocent X.issued the Bull, /Cum occasione/ (1653), by which the fivepropositions were condemned. The Bull was received so favourably bythe king, the bishops, and the Sorbonne that it was hoped the end ofthe controversy was in sight.

The Jansenists, however, soon discovered a new method of evading thecondemnation and of rendering the papal letters null and void. Theyadmitted that the five propositions were justly censured, but theydenied that these propositions were to be found in /Augustinus/, or,if they were in /Augustinus/, they contended they were there in asense quite different from that which had been condemned by the Pope.To justify this position they introduced the celebrated distinctionbetween law and fact; that is to say, while admitting the authority ofthe Church to issue definite and binding decisions on doctrinalmatters, they denied that she was infallible in regard to questions offact, as for example, whether a certain proposition was contained in acertain book or what might be the meaning which the author intended toconvey. On matters of fact such as these the Church might err, and themost that could be demanded of the faithful in case of such decisionswas respectful silence. At the same time by means of sermons,pamphlets, and letters, by advice given to priests, and by theinfluence of several religious houses, notably Port Royal, the sectwas gaining ground rapidly in Paris, and feeling began to run highagainst the Jesuits. The antipathy to the Jesuits was increased andbecame much more general after the appearance of the /LettresProvinciales/ (1656-57) written by Pascal (1623-62). The writer was anexceedingly able controversialist, and in many respects a deeplyreligious man. From the point of view of literature the /ProvincialLetters/ were in a sense a masterpiece, but they were grossly unfairto those whom they attacked.[3]

The Sorbonne offered a strong opposition to the Jansenists, as didalso the bishops (1656). In the same year Alexander VII. issued theBull, /Ad Sanctam Petri Sedem/, by which he condemned the distinctiondrawn between law and fact, and declared that the five propositionswere to be found in /Augustinus/ and were condemned in the sense inwhich they were understood by the Jansenists. The Assembly of theClergy having accepted this Bull drew up a formulary of faith based onthe teaching it contained. The greater part of the Jansenists eitherrefused entirely to subscribe to this formulary, or else subscribedonly with certain reservations and restrictions. The nuns at PortRoyal were most obstinate in their refusal. As they persisted in theirattitude notwithstanding the prayers and entreaties of the Archbishopof Paris he was obliged reluctantly to exclude them from thesacraments. One of the principal objections urged against theacceptance of the formulary being that the Assembly of the Clergy hadno authority to prescribe any such profession of faith, Alexander VII.at the request of many of the bishops issued a new constitution,/Regiminus Apostolici/ (1664), in which he insisted that all priestssecular and regular and all members of religious communities shouldsubscribe to the anti-Jansenist formulary that he forwarded.

Most of the Jansenists refused to yield obedience even to the commandsof the Pope. They were strengthened in their refusal by the fact thatfour of the French bishops set them a bad example by approvingpublicly in their pastorals the Jansenist distinction between law andfact. The Council of State promptly suppressed these pastorals (1665),and at the request of Louis XIV. Alexander VII. appointed a commissionfor the trial of the disobedient bishops. In the meantime, before thecommission could proceed with the trial, Alexander VII. died, and wassucceeded by Clement IX. (1667). Several of the French bishopsaddressed a joint letter to the new Pope, in which by a rather unfairuse of extracts from the works of theologians they sought to excusethe attitude of their brother bishops, and at the same time theyhinted to the king that the controversy was taking a course likely tobe fraught with great danger to the liberties of the Gallican Church.Louis XIV., who had been hitherto most determined in his effortsagainst the Jansenists, began to grow lukewarm, and the wholesituation in France was fast becoming decidedly critical. Some of theFrench bishops offered their services as mediators. Through theirintervention it was agreed that without expressly retracting theirpastorals the bishops should consent to sign the formulary drawn up bythe Pope, and induce the clergy to do likewise. The bishops signed theformulary, and held synods in which they secured the signatures oftheir clergy, but at the same time in their conversations and in theiraddresses they made it perfectly clear that they had done so only withthe Jansenist restrictions and reservations. The announcement of theirsubmission pure and simple was forwarded to the Pope without anyreference to any conditions or qualifications, and the Pope informedthe king that he was about to issue letters of reconciliation to thefour bishops. Before the letters were forwarded, however, rumoursbegan to reach Rome that all was not well, and a new investigation wasordered. Finally, in view of the very critical state of affairs it wasdecided that the Pope might proceed safely on the documents receivedfrom the nuncio and the mediators without reference to the informationacquired from other sources. In January 1669 the letters ofreconciliation were issued. The Jansenists hailed the /ClementinePeace/ as a great triumph for their party, and boasted publicly thatClement IX. had receded from the position taken up by his predecessor,by accepting the Jansenist distinction between law and fact. Thattheir boasting was without foundation is sufficiently clear from amere cursory examination of the papal letters. The Pope makes itperfectly evident that the letters were issued on the assumption thatthe bishops had subscribed without any reservation or restriction. Hestates expressly that he was firmly resolved to uphold theconstitutions of his predecessors, and that he would never admit anyrestriction or reservation. ----------

[1] Calleawert, /Cornelius Jansenius d'Ypres, ses derniers moments, sa soumission/, 1893.

[2] Montlaur, /Angelique Arnauld/, 1902.

[3] Giraud, /Pascal, l'homme, l'ouevre, l'influence/, 1905.

(d) The Immaculate Conception.

Passaglia, /De Immaculat. Concept. B.V.M./, 3 vols., 1855. Strozzi, /Controversia dell' Immacolata Concezione/, 1700. Roskovany, /De Beata Virgine in suo conceptu immaculata/, 1873-92. Le Bachelet, /L'Immac. Conc./, 1903. Bishop, /The Origins of the Feast of the Conception of B.V.M./, 1904. Ullathorne, /The Immaculate Conception of the Mother of God/, 1904.

From the days of Dons Scotus the doctrine of the Immaculate Conceptionwas received very generally by the universities and theologians. TheDominicans, feeling themselves called upon to support the views of St.Thomas, who argued against the Immaculate Conception as understood inhis own time, opposed the common teaching. The question was broughtbefore the schismatical assembly at Basle (1439), where it was definedthat the Immaculate Conception of the Blessed Virgin was in harmonywith reason and Scripture, and should be approved and accepted by allChristians. This teaching was confirmed by several provincial synodsin France and Germany, as well as by many of the universities. Parisand Cologne, for example, obliged all their members to swear to defendthe doctrine. Sixtus IV. bestowed indulgences on those who wouldobserve the Feast of the Immaculate Conception (1476), but althoughfavouring the doctrine he forbade the defenders or opponents to chargeeach other with heresy (1483). When in the discussions on Original Sinat the Council of Trent the subject was raised, no formal decision wasgiven because the Fathers were determined to direct all theirattention to the doctrines that had been rejected by the Reformers. Atthe same time the opinion of the Fathers was expressed clearly enough,since they declared that in their decrees regarding the universalityof Original Sin they did not mean to include the Immaculate VirginMary (V. Sess. 1546). Pius V. condemned a proposition of Baius, inwhich it was laid down that Christ alone escaped the guilt of OriginalSin, and that the Blessed Virgin suffered death on account of theguilt she contracted by her descent from Adam (1567). A SpanishFranciscan, Francis of Santiago, having claimed that he had a visionin support of the doctrine, a sharp controversy broke out in Spain, toend which Philip III. besought the Pope to give a definitive decision.Paul V. contented himself, however, with renewing the decrees of hispredecessors Sixtus IV. and Pius V. forbidding charges of heresy to bebandied about by the disputants (1616), but in the following year heforbade any public defence of the theses directed against the doctrineof the Immaculate Conception. Gregory XV. though unwilling to yield tothe request of the Spanish Court for a formal definition, prohibitedeither public or private opposition to the doctrine unless in case ofthose who had received special authorisation from the Holy See.Finally in 1661 Alexander VII. in the constitution, /Sollicitudoomnium Ecclesiarum/, explained the true meaning of the doctrine, andforbade any further opposition to what he declared to be the commonand pious belief of the Church.

(e) Tyrannicide.

Hergenrother, /Katholische Kirche u. Christl. Staat/, 1872. Parkinson, /Catholic Writers on Tyrannicide/ (/Month/, March- April, 1873). Duhr. /Jesuiten-Fabeln/, 3 auf., pp. 659 sqq.

Whether Tyrannicide is lawful or unlawful was a question on whichdifferent views were held by theologians. The murder of the Duke ofOrleans by orders of the Duke of Burgundy (1407) helped to stir up thecontroversy. Amongst the dependants of the Duke of Burgundy was apriest, John Parvus (Petit or Le Petit), who accompanied the Duke toParis, and in a public assembly defended the Duke of Burgundy on theground that it was lawful to murder a tyrant (1408). Nine propositionsselected from this speech were condemned by the Bishop of Paris, bythe Inquisition, and by the university (1414). The Duke of Burgundyappealed to Pope John XXIII., while the representatives of France atthe Council of Constance were instructed to seek the opinion of theassembly. The discussion of the subject was complicated by politicalissues. As the Council of Constance was anxious to avoid all quarrelswith the King of France, the Duke of Burgundy, or the Emperor, itcontented itself with issuing a very general condemnation ofTyrannicide. Before the council closed, however, the question wasraised once more in connexion with a book published by the Dominican,John of Falkenberg, who was a strong partisan of the Teutonic Knightsin their struggle against the King of Poland, and who maintained thatit was lawful to kill the King of Poland. He undertook the defence ofPetit's work, and wrote strongly against the representatives of theUniversity of Paris. The Poles demanded his condemnation, but thoughhe was arrested and detained in prison his book was not condemned bythe council. A Dominican chapter held in 1417 repudiated Falkenberg'steaching.

For a long time the subject was not discussed by Catholic theologiansthough Tyrannicide was defended by the leading Reformers, includingLuther and Melanchthon, but during the religious wars in France and inScotland it was advocated in theory by some of the French Calvinistssuch as Languet and Boucher as well as by the Scotch leader, JohnKnox, and put into practice by their followers against the Duke ofGuise and Cardinal Beaton.[1] The Jesuits in France were accused ofsympathising with this doctrine during the reign of Henry IV., butthere was not sufficient evidence to support such a charge. Some oftheir theologians may have defended the legality of rebellion incertain circumstances, but this was a doctrine in no way peculiar tothe Jesuits. The only serious argument brought forward by theopponents of the Jesuits was drawn from a work published by a SpanishJesuit, Mariana (1536-1624). It was written for the instruction ofsome of the princes of Spain, and was dedicated to Philip III. In manyrespects it was an exceedingly praiseworthy work, but the author'sreference to the murder of Henry III. of France and his defence ofTyrannicide, hedged round though it was by many restrictions andreservations, gave great offence in France, and provided the enemiesof the Society with a splendid weapon for a general attack upon theentire body. As a matter of fact Mariana's book did not represent theviews of the Jesuits. In 1610 the general, Aquaviva, forbade any ofhis subjects to defend the teaching on Tyrannicide it contained. ----------

[1] Lecky, /The History of the Rise and Influence of Rationalism in Europe/, 1913, p. 164.

(f) The Copernican System. Galileo Galilei.

Muller, /Nicolaus Copernicus/ (/Stimmen aus M.-Laach/, 1898, /Supp./ 72). Hipler, /Nicolaus Copernicus u. Martin Luther/, 1868. Muller, /Galileo Galilei/, 1908. Von Gebler, /Galileo Galilei und die Romische Curie/ (Eng. Trans., 1879). L'Epinois, /La question de Galilee/, 1878, /The Month/ (Sept., 1867; March-April, 1868).

Nicolaus Copernicus (Koppernick or Koppernigk, 1473-1543) was born atThorn, and was educated principally at Cracow, Bologna, Padua, andFerrara. He was a canon of the chapter of Frauenberg, and mostprobably a priest. During his stay in Italy he was brought intocontact with the new views put forward by Cardinal Nicholas of Cusaand others regarding the position of the earth in the system of theuniverse. His own studies let him to the conclusion that the sun wasthe centre round which the earth and all the heavenly bodies moved intheir course. He communicated his conclusions to some of his specialfriends in 1531, but he hesitated to publish them on account of theridicule that such a novel opinion was sure to excite. One of hispupils lectured at Rome on the subject, and explained the theories ofCopernicus to Clement VII. (1533).

Yielding at last to the entreaties of Cardinal Schonberg, Archbishopof Capua, and Bishop Giese of Culm he entrusted his work forpublication to one of his pupils, Rheticus, professor at Wittenberg,but the opposition of the Lutheran professors made it impossible tobring out the book in that city. It was finally published under theeditorship of Osiander at Nurnberg in 1543. In the preface to the workOsiander made considerable changes out of deference to the views ofLuther and Melanchthon, the most important of which was that hereferred to the system of Copernicus as an hypothesis that might ormight not be true. The work, /De Revolutionibus Orbium Coelestium/ wasdedicated to Pope Paul III. The principal opposition to the novelviews of Copernicus came from the side of the Lutheran theologians,and it was only years later, when feeling was aroused by thecontroversy regarding Galileo, that any suspicion of unorthodoxy wasdirected against Copernicus by Catholic writers. Needless to sayCopernicus died as he had lived, a devoted Catholic, fully convincedthat he had done good service for religion as well as for science.

Galileo Galilei (1564-1642) was remarkable from a very early age forhis abilities as a student of mathematics and mechanics. Indeed it wasin these subjects and not in astronomy that he achieved his mostbrilliant and most lasting successes. He taught at Pisa and Padua, andwas afterwards employed at the court of the Grand Duke of Tuscany. In1609 he perfected the telescope by means of which he was enabled tomake observations of the heavenly bodies, and from these observationsand discoveries he was led to the conclusion that the heliocentricsystem as advocated by Copernicus was the only one scientificallytenable. He came to Rome, where he was welcomed by the Pope and thecardinals, and set up his telescope in the Vatican gardens (1611). Atfirst Galileo's views excited no great opposition, but owing to theimprudent propaganda carried on by some of his own friends, notably bythe Carmelite, Foscarini, a violent controversy broke out in which thescientific side of the theory was almost completely forgotten. AgainstGalileo it was contended that his system contradicted the Scripture,which spoke of the sun standing still in its course at the prayers ofJosue, and that it was, therefore, inadmissible. At the time in Italythe ecclesiastical authorities were markedly conservative and hostileto innovations, particularly as there was then a strong party inItaly, of whom Paul Sarpi may be taken as a typical example, who wereliberal and Lutheran in their tendencies and sympathies. Had thediscussion been confined to learned circles no notice might have beentaken of it, but once an appeal was made to the masses of the peopleit was almost inevitable that Galileo should have been denounced tothe Inquisition.

In the circumstances a decision favourable to Galileo could hardlyhave been expected. The old Ptolemaic system was so closely bound upwith the philosophic and scientific teaching of the age that itsabandonment meant little less than a complete revolution in the worldof learning. As yet the vast body of those who were specially versedin the subject treated the new theory with derision, while thearguments put forward by Galileo in its defence were so weak andinconclusive that most of them have been long since abandoned. Thehostile attitude, too, of the Lutheran divines could hardly fail toexercise some influence on the Roman consultors. In 1615 Galileoappeared before the Inquisition to defend his views, but without anyresult. The heliocentric system was condemned as being opposed toScripture and therefore heretical, and Galileo was obliged to promisenever again to put it forward (1616). The work of Copernicus and thoseof some other writers who advocated the Copernican system werecondemned /donec corrigantur/. The decision of the congregation waswrong, but in the circumstances not unintelligible. Nor can it becontended for a moment that from this mistake any solid argument canbe drawn against the infallibility of the Pope. Paul V. wasundoubtedly present at the session in which the condemnation wasagreed upon and approved of the verdict, but still the decisionremained only the decision of the congregation and not the binding/ex-cathedra/ pronouncement of the Head of the Church. Indeed, itappears from a letter of Cardinal Bellarmine that the congregationregarded its teaching as only provisional, and that if it were provedbeyond doubt that the sun was stationary it would be necessary toadmit that the passages of Scripture urged against this view had beenmisunderstood.

Galileo left Rome with no intention of observing the promise he hadmade. After the election of Urban VIII. who, as Cardinal Barberini,had been his faithful friend and supporter, Galileo returned to Rome(1624) in the hope of procuring a revision of the verdict; but thoughhe was received with all honour, and accorded an annual pension fromthe papal treasury his request was refused. He returned to Florence,where he published eight years later a new book on the subject,couched in the form of a dialogue between supporters of the rivalsystems, the Ptolemaic and the Copernican, in which Simplicissimus,the defender of the old view, was not only routed but covered withridicule. Such a flagrant violation of his promise could not passunnoticed. He was summoned to appear once more before the Inquisition,and arrived in Rome in February 1633. At first he denied that he hadwritten in favour of his views since 1616, then he pleaded guilty,confessed that he was in error, and appealed to the court to dealgently with an old and infirm man. He was found guilty, and wascondemned to recite the seven penitential psalms once a week for threeyears, and to be imprisoned at the pleasure of the Inquisition. It isnot true to say that Galileo was shut up in the dungeons of theInquisition. He was detained only for a few days, and even during thattime he was lodged in the comfortable apartments of one of the higherofficials. Neither is it correct to state that he was tortured orsubjected to any bodily punishment. He was released almost immediatelyon parole, and lived for a time at Rome in the palace of the GrandDuke of Tuscany. Later on he retired to his villa at Arcetri, andfinally he was allowed to return to Florence. In 1642, fortified bythe last sacraments and comforted by the papal benediction, he passedaway. His body was laid to rest within the walls of the Church ofSanta Croce at Florence. Most of his misfortunes were due to his ownrashness and the imprudence of his friends and supporters. Hiscondemnation is the sole scientific blunder that can be laid to thecharge of the Roman Congregation. That his condemnation was not due toany hatred of science or to any desire of the Roman ecclesiastics tooppose the progress of knowledge is evident enough from the favoursand honours lavished upon his predecessors in the same field ofresearch, Cardinal Nicholas of Cusa, Peurbach, Muller (Regiomontanus),and Copernicus.

(g) Progress of Theological Studies.

Hurter, /Nomenclator Literarius Theologiae Catholicae/, 3 auf., 1903. Werner, /Geschichte der apologetischen und polemischen Literatur der Christlichen Theologie/, 1865. Turmel, /Histoire de la theologie positive/, etc., 1906. Slater, /A Short History of Moral Theology/, 1909. Gigot, /General Introduction to the Sacred Scriptures/, 1900. De Smedt, /Introductio Generalis ad Historiam Ecclesiasticam/, 1876. Benigni, /Historiae Ecclesiasticae Repertorium/, 1902. Collins, /The Study of Ecclesiastical History/, 1903.

In the latter half of the fifteenth and the first quarter of thesixteenth centuries theological studies had reached a very low ebb.The great philosophico-theological movement of the thirteenth centuryhad spent its force, and it seemed highly probable that in thestruggle with Humanism theology would be obliged to abandon itsposition of pre-eminence in favour of the classics. Yet as eventsshowed the results of Humanism were far from being so harmful totheology as seemed likely at first. Zeal for the pagan authors ofantiquity helped to stir up zeal for the writings of the Fathers, neweditions of which were published in various centres; while at the sametime the value of the spirit of historical and literary criticism, sohighly prized by the devotees of Humanism, was recognised bytheologians, and availed of largely in defending the authority of thedocuments that they cited. In the controversies with the Reformers,who rejected entirely the authority and the methods of theScholastics, Catholic authors and controversialists were obliged tofix their attention upon the Scriptures and on the historical side oftheology as evidenced in the doctrines and usages of the earlycenturies. The revival, too, at this period of the older religiousorders, particularly the Benedictines and the Dominicans, and theestablishment of new bodies such as the Jesuits and the Oratorianswere in the highest degree providential. It gave to the Church theservices of trained and devoted scholars, who were free to devote alltheir energies to the defence of Catholic interests. In the remarkabletheological movement of the sixteenth century Spain and Italy held theleading place. The University of Salamanca contended with the/Collegium Romanum/ for the supremacy once yielded freely to thetheological faculty of Paris. The founder of the new school oftheology, which had its seat in Salamanca but which exercised a veryconsiderable influence on the Jesuit teachers in Rome, Ingolstadt, andPrague, was the Dominican, Francis of Vittoria (1480-1546). Realisingthe necessities of the age better than most of his contemporaries heput to an end the useless discussions and degenerate style of hisimmediate predecessors, re-introduced the /Summa/ of St. Thomas,insisted on supplementing it by a close study of the Scriptures andthe writings of the Fathers, and inaugurated a new style oftheological Latinity freed both from the barbarisms of the laterScholastics and the pedantry of the classical enthusiasts.

Amongst the Catholic theologians of Germany who defended the Churchagainst the attacks of the Reformers may be mentioned /John Eck/(1486-1543) connected for the greater part of his life with theUniversity of Ingolstadt, who in his publications proved himself theleading champion on the Catholic side against Luther; /John Faber/(1478-1541) the friend of Erasmus and the staunch though moderateopponent of Luther and Zwingli, whose work, /Malleus Haereticorum/(1524), secured for him the title of "the hammer of heretics"; /JohnCochlaeus/ (1479-1552) who published more than two hundred treatisesagainst the Reformers, nearly all of which suffered from the haste andtemper in which they were prepared; /John Gropper/ (1503-59) whoseearly training as a lawyer led him at first to favour proposedcompromises hardly compatible with Catholic doctrine, but who labouredearnestly to save Cologne for the Catholic Church; /John Nas/ (1534-90) the Franciscan Bishop of Brixen, and the /Blessed Peter Canisius,S.J./ (1521-97) who did more than any other man to save the entireGerman nation from falling under the sway of Lutheranism, therebymeriting the title of the second apostle of Germany.

/Tommaso de Vio/ (1469-1534), surnamed /Cajetan/[1] from his place ofbirth, /Gaeta/, joined the Dominicans at an early age, taught at Paduaand Pavia, and was elected general of his order (1508). Seven yearslater he was created cardinal and was entrusted with a mission toGermany (1518), in the course of which he sought vainly to procure thesubmission of Luther. During the closing years of his life he acted asone of the principal advisers of Clement VII. By his example and hisadvice he did much to revive theological studies amongst theDominicans and to recall them to the study of St. Thomas. As atheologian and an exegetist he showed himself to be a man of greatability and judgment sometimes slightly erratic and novel in histheories, while from the point of view of style he was vastly superiorto most of his predecessors. His principal works are the Commentary onSt. Thomas (1507-22) and his explanations of nearly all the books ofthe Old and New Testament. /Ambrosius Catharinus/[2] (1487-1553) wasborn at Siena, graduated a doctor of canon and civil law at the age ofsixteen, pleaded as a lawyer in the consistorial court of Leo X.,joined the Dominicans at an advanced age, took a prominent part in thediscussions at the earlier sessions of the Council of Trent, wasappointed bishop in 1546, and died in 1553 when, as it is said, he wason the point of receiving the cardinal's hat. Catharinus was a keencontroversialist, but as a theologian he was brilliant rather thansolid. His strong leaning towards novelties brought him into conflictwith Cajetan and in fact with the whole Dominican Order, the mostcherished opinions of which he loved to attack. /Dominic Soto/ (1494-1560) was a student of Alcala and Paris, joined the Dominicans in1524, taught theology at Salamanca from 1532 till 1545, when he wentto the Council of Trent, where his services were invaluable especiallyon the question of Grace and Justification, acted for a time asconfessor to Charles V., and returned finally to his chair atSalamanca. He was the last of the great commentators on the/Sentences/ of Peter Lombard. His principal works were /De Natura etGratia/, written for the information of the Fathers of Trent and /DeJustitia et Jure/ (1556). Another of the distinguished SpanishDominicans of this period was /Melchior Cano/ (1509-60), who had ashis professor at Salamanca Francis of Vittoria. He taught at Alcalaand Salamanca, accompanied Soto to the Council of Trent, was appointedbishop but resigned almost immediately, and served for some time asprovincial of the Dominicans. His greatest work was the /De LocisTheologicis/ (1563), in which as a kind of introduction to theology heendeavoured to establish scientifically the foundations of theologicalscience. He discusses the ten /loci/ or sources which he enumerates,namely, Scripture, Tradition, the Catholic Church, the Councils, theFathers, the Roman Church, the Scholastics, Reason, the authority ofphilosophers, and the authority of historians. His style is simple,concise, and elegant.

/Robert Bellarmine/[3] (1542-1621) was born in Tuscany, joined theSociety of Jesus (1560), studied at the /Collegium Romanum/ and atLouvain, where he taught for some time, was recalled to Rome to assumecharge of the new chair of controversy in the /Collegium Romanum/,took a prominent part in the preparation of the Clementine edition ofthe Vulgate, in the /Congregatio de Auxiliis/, and in the trial ofGalileo, engaged in controversy with James I. of England in regard tothe Catholic Oath, was created cardinal (1599), and appointedArchbishop of Capua (1602). Cardinal Bellarmine was a deeply religiousman, severe only with himself, an indefatigable student always anxiousto be just to his opponents, and specially gifted as a lecturer andwriter. His greatest work was undoubtedly the /Disputationes decontroversis Christianae fidei articulis/, in which he displayed amost minute and accurate knowledge of the religious tenets of all thesects of the Reformers. The book created such an enormous sensation inEurope at the time that special lecturers were employed at some of theProtestant universities to undertake its refutation. His commentary onthe Psalms, and the Catechism prepared by him at the request ofClement VIII. also deserve special notice. The last complete editionof his writings was published at Paris in 1870. /Francis Suarez/[4](1548-1617) was born at Granada, joined the Society of Jesus inSalamanca (1564) and taught at Valladolid, Rome, Alcala, Salamanca,and Coimbra. Like Bellarmine Suarez was a man of great personal piety,well versed in the writings of the Fathers and in the literature ofthe Reformers. His works are clear and well arranged but somewhat toodiffuse. The last edition (Vives) of his works was published at Paris(1856-61). /John de Lugo/ (1583-1660) was born at Madrid, went toSalamanca to study law, and there joined the Jesuits. He lecturedfirst at Valladolid, and later on at Rome where he attracted crowds ofstudents, and he was created cardinal in 1643. In his works he hascovered practically the entire field of dogmatic and moral theology.The best known are perhaps /De Justitia et Jure/ and his treatises onthe Incarnation, the Sacraments, the Eucharist, and the Sacrifice ofthe Mass. The last edition of his published works was issued at Paris(1868-9). /Dionysius Petavius/[5] (Petau, 1583-1652) was born atOrleans, studied arts and theology at Paris, entered the Society ofJesus (1605), and taught theology at Paris for twenty-two years. Hewas one of the best known and most respected scholars of his age.Quite apart from his merits as a theologian, his works on chronology,notably the /De doctrina temporum/ and the /Tabulae Chronologicae/would have been sufficient to place him in the first rank of thescholars of his period. In theology he is chiefly remarkable for theintroduction and application of the historical method in hisdiscussion of dogma, and hence he is referred to rightly as the"Father of the History of Dogma." His principal theological work isthe /Dogmata Theologica/ (1644-50).

The splendid example of a scientific treatment of moral theology setby St. Thomas produced very little effect during the fourteenth andfifteenth centuries, for the simple reason that the /Sentences/, andnot the /Summa/, was the text-book used generally in the schools.Following along the lines marked out by Raymond of Penafort in his/Summa de poenitentia et matrimonio/ (1235) a large number of /Summae/or manuals for the use of confessors were published during thefourteenth and fifteenth centuries, the last of them being that ofSilvester Prierias, one of the earliest opponents of Luther. One ofthe few writers of this period who undertook to give a scientificexplanation of moral principles is St. Antoninus (1389-1459), theDominican Archbishop of Florence, in his /Summa Theologica Moralis/.

The rejection of the /Sentences/ in favour of the /Summa/, and thereform decrees of the Council of Trent gave a new impetus to the studyof moral theology during the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. Mostof the great writers of this period, Gregory of Valencia (1550-1603),Vasquez (1549-1604), Lessius (1554-1623), Banez (1528-1604), Medina(1527-81), Sanchez (1550-1610), Saurez, and De Logo devoted specialattention to the underlying principles of moral theology, and in somecases to their practical application. The /De Poenitentia/ and the/Responsa Moralia/ of De Lugo served as models of what might be calledmixed treatment, partly scientific and partly casuistical. The/Theologia Moralis/ of the Jesuit writer, Paul Laymann (1574-1635),the /Instructio Sacerdotum/ of Cardinal Toledo and the /MedullaTheologiae Moralis/ of Hermann Busenbaum (1600-68), which went throughforty editions in his own lifetime, may be cited as examples of thismethod.

The controversy regarding Probabilism did not assume a serious aspecttill the rise and condemnation of Jansenism. During this period theenemies of the Jesuits pointed to the approval given to Probabilism bythe Fathers of the Society as a proof of the laxity of view introducedby Jesuit theologians. Whatever may be said of the system, one thingis certain, namely, that the Jesuit theologians were not the first toput it forward. It was followed in practice long before theinstitution of the Society of Jesus, was enunciated clearly enough asa theory by the Spanish Dominican Bartholomew Medina (1527-81) and wasadopted, at least in their solutions of particular cases, by most ofthe great writers during the latter half of the sixteenth and thefirst half of the seventeenth centuries.

Amongst the most notable writers on ascetical theology of this periodwere St. Ignatius of Loyola, the author of the /Spiritual Exercises/,St. Teresa (1515-82) the zealous reformer of the Carmelites, St. Johnof God (1495-1550) the founder of the Brothers of St. John of God, theDominican Louis of Granada (1504-88), St. Francis de Sales (1567-1622), the two Jesuit writers Alphonsus Rodriguez (1526-1616) andLouis de Ponte (1554-1624), and Jean Jacques Olier (1608-57) thefounder of the Sulpicians.

Many causes combined to bring about a great revival in Scripturalstudies. The Humanist movement ensured that commentators would bringto their task a ready knowledge of Greek and a critical appreciationof the age and value of manuscripts. The study of Hebrew was taken upenthusiastically by scholars like Reuchlin, and was renderedcomparatively easy by the grammars and dictionaries published byReuchlin, Santez, Pagnino, Pelikan, and Cardinal Bellarmine. Thecontention of the early Reformers that the Bible was the sole sourceof divine revelation, though never accepted by Catholic scholars,necessitated a close study of the words and literal meaning of thesacred text. In opposition to the private interpretation of theReformers Catholics contended that the teaching authority of theChurch and the interpretation of the Fathers were the only sureguides. The distinction between deutero-canonical and proto-canonicalbooks was ended for Catholics by the decision of the Council of Trentattributing to both equal authority. The question of the extent ofinspiration was left by the Council of Trent practically in theposition in which it stood when the Council of Florence defined thatGod was the author of the sacred books. Many writers were inclined tohold the view that the divine assistance extended to the style and thewords, while others rejected verbal inspiration. A few Catholicscholars, for example Lessius and Hamel, seemed to maintain that abook composed by human industry and without the assistance of the HolyGhost might be regarded as inspired if afterwards the Holy Ghosttestified that it contained no error. Since the Vatican Council such aview is no longer tenable.

The activity in the field of Scriptural studies is witnessed to by theedition of the Greek and Latin text of the New Testament prepared byErasmus, by the Complutensian Polyglot published under the directionof Cardinal Ximenes (1514-17) to be followed by similar publicationsat Antwerp (1569-72) and at Paris (1628-45), by the edition of theSeptuagint at the command of Sixtus V. and the edition of the Vulgateunder Clement VIII. Amongst the great Catholic commentators of the agemay be mentioned Cardinal Cajetan (+1534), the Dominican SantezPagnino (+1541), Cornelius Jansen (1576), the Jesuit, John Maldonatus(+1583), whose commentary on the four Gospels is still unrivalled,William Estius (+1613), professor at Douay, whose views on Grace werenot unaffected by the controversies then raging at Louvain, andCornelius a Lapide, S.J. (+1673), professor at Louvain and Rome, whopublished an excellent commentary on the entire Scriptures.

Ecclesiastical History profited largely from the Humanist movementwhich brought to light many new documents, and tended to awaken aspirit of scholarly criticism. The contention put forward by theReformers, that primitive Christianity had been completely corruptedby semi-Pagan novelties during the Middle Ages, made it imperative onCatholic scholars to direct their attention to the practices andteaching of the early centuries. New editions of the writings of theFathers were prepared by the Dominicans, Jesuits, and by theBenedictines of St. Maur. The attempt made by the MagdeburgCenturiators to justify Lutheranism at the bar of history called forththe /Annales Ecclesiastici/ of Cardinal Baronius (1538-1607). TheseAnnals dealt with the history of the Church from the beginning tillthe year 1198. The work was continued by the Oratorians Raynaldus andLaderchi, by de Sponde, Bzovius and Augustine Theiner. The History ofthe Popes was written by the Augustinian Panvinio (+1568) and by theDominican, Ciacconius (+1599). Hagiographical studies were pursued bySurius (+1578) and by the Jesuit Heribert Rosweyde (1569-1629). It wasthe latter who first conceived the plan of publishing the Lives of theSaints in one series. He died without having done much except tocollect an immense mass of materials. The scheme was, however, takenup by other members of the society, notably, John Van Bolland(Bollandus, 1596-1665), Godfrey Henschen (1601-81) and Daniel vonPapenbroeck (Papebroch, 1628-1714). These were the first of theBollandists, and the first volume of the /Acta Sanctorum/ appeared in1643. ----------

[1] Quetif-Echard, /Scriptores Ordinis Praedicatorum/, ii. 14.

[2] Id., ii. 144-51.

[3] Couderc, /Robert Bellarmin/, 2 vols., 1893.

[4] Werner, /Franz Suarez und die Scholastik der letzten jahrhunderte/, 1861.

[5] Chatellain, /Viz du Pere D. Petavius/, 1884.