Chapter II: Part 2

§ 155.1. =The First Two Stuarts.=--=James I.=, dominated by
the idea of the royal supremacy, and so estranged from the
Presbyterianism in which he was brought up (§ 139, 11), as
king of England, A.D. 1603-1625, attached himself to the
national Episcopal church, persecuted the English Puritans,
so that many of them again fled to Holland (§ 143, 4), and
forced Episcopacy upon the Scotch. =Charles I.=, A.D. 1625-1649,
went beyond his father in theory and practice, and thus incurred
the hatred of his Protestant subjects. William Laud, from
A.D. 1633 Archbishop of Canterbury, was the recklessly zealous
promoter of his despotic ideas, representing the Episcopacy,
by reason of its Divine institution and apostolic succession,
as the foundation of the church and the pillar of an absolute
monarchy. Laud used his position as primate to secure the
introduction of his own theory into the public church services,
among other things making the communion office an imitation
as near as possible of the Romish mass. But when he attempted
to force upon the Scotch such “Baal-worship” by the command of
the king, they formed a league in A.D. 1638 for the defence of
Presbyterianism, the so called Great Covenant, and emphasised
their demand by sending an army into England. The king, who had
ruled for eleven years without a Parliament, was obliged now
to call together the representatives of the people. Scarcely
had the Long Parliament, A.D. 1640-1653, in which the Puritan
element was supreme, pacified the Scotch, than oil was anew
poured on the flames by the Irish massacre of A.D. 1641
(§ 153, 6). The Lower House, in spite of the persistent
opposition of the court, resolved on excluding the bishops
from the Upper House and formally abolishing Episcopacy;
and in A.D. 1643, summoned the Westminster Assembly to
remodel the organization of the English church, at which
Scotch representatives were to have a seat. After long
and violent debates with an Independent minority, till
A.D. 1648, the Assembly drew up a Presbyterian constitution
with a Puritan service, and in the Westminster Confession
a strictly Calvinistic creed. But only in Scotland were these
decisions heartily accepted. In England, notwithstanding their
confirmation by the Parliament, they received only partial and
occasional acceptance, owing to the prevalence of Independent
opinions among the people.--Since A.D. 1642, the tension between
court and Parliament had brought about the Civil War between
Cavaliers and Roundheads. In A.D. 1645, the royal troops were
cut to pieces at Naseby by the parliamentary army under Fairfax
and Cromwell. The king fled to the Scotch, by whom he was
surrendered to the English Parliament in A.D. 1647. But when
now the fanatical Independents, who formed a majority in the
army, began to terrorise the Parliament, it opened negotiations
for peace with the king. He was now ready to make almost
any sacrifice, only on religious and conscientious grounds he
could not agree to the unconditional abandonment of Episcopacy.
Even the Scotch, whose Presbyterianism was now threatened by
the Independents, as before it had been by the Episcopalians,
longed for the restoration of royalty, and to aid in this
sent an army into England in A.D. 1648. But they were defeated
by Cromwell, who then dismissed the Parliament and had all
its Presbyterian members either imprisoned or driven into
retirement. The Independent remnant, known as the Rump
Parliament, A.D. 1648-1653, tried the king for high treason
and sentenced him to death. On January 30th, A.D. 1649, he
mounted the scaffold, on which Archbishop Laud had preceded
him in A.D. 1645, and fell under the executioner’s axe.[454]

§ 155.2. =The Commonwealth and the Protector.=--Ireland had
never yet atoned for its crime of A.D. 1641 (§ 153, 6), and
as it refused to acknowledge the Commonwealth, Cromwell took
terrible revenge in A.D. 1649. In A.D. 1650 at Dunbar, and in
A.D. 1651 at Worcester, he completely destroyed the army of the
Scots, who had crowned Charles II., son of the executed king,
drove out, in April A.D. 1653, the Rump of the Long Parliament,
which had come to regard itself as a permanent institution,
and in July opened, with a powerful speech, two hours in length,
on God’s ways and judgments, the Short or Barebones’ Parliament,
composed of “pious and God-fearing men” selected by himself.
In this new Parliament which, with prayer and psalm-singing,
wrought hard at the re-organization of the executive, the
bench, and the church, the two parties of Independents were
represented, the fanatical enthusiasts indeed predominating,
and so victorious in all matters of debate. To this party
Cromwell himself belonged. His attachment to it, however,
was considerably cooled in consequence of the excesses of
the Levellers (§ 161, 2), and the fantastic policy of the
parliamentarian Saints disgusted him more and more. When
therefore, on December 12th, A.D. 1653, after five months’
fruitless opposition to the radical demands of the extravagant
majority, all the most moderate members of the Parliament
had resigned their seats and returned their mandates into
Cromwell’s hands, he burst in upon the psalm-singing remnant
with his soldiers, and entered upon his life-long office of
the Protector of the Commonwealth with a new constitution. He
proclaimed toleration of all religious sects, Catholics only
being excepted on political grounds (§ 153, 6), giving equal
rights to Presbyterians, and offering no hindrance to the
revival of Episcopacy. He yet remained firmly attached to
his early convictions. He believed in a kingdom of the saints
embracing the whole earth, and looked on England as destined
for the protection and spread of Protestantism. Zürich greeted
him as the great Protestant champion, and he showed himself
in this _rôle_ in the valleys of Piedmont (§ 153, 5), in
France, in Poland, and in Silesia. He joined with all Protestant
governments into a league, offensive and defensive, against
fanatical attempts of Papists to recover their lost ground. When
Spain and France sued for his alliance, he made it a condition
with the former that, besides allowing free trade with the West
Indies, it should abolish the Inquisition; and of France he
required an assurance that the rights of Huguenots should be
respected. And when in Germany a new election of emperor was
to take place, he urged the great electors that they should by
no means allow the imperial throne to continue with the Catholic
house of Austria. Meanwhile his path at home was a thorny one.
He was obliged to suppress fifteen open rebellions during five
years of his reign, countless secret plots threatened his life
every day, and his bitterest foes were his former comrades in
the camp of the the saints. After refusing the crown offered
him in A.D. 1657, without being able thereby to quell the
discontents of parties, he died on September 3rd, A.D. 1658,
the anniversary of his glorious victories of Dunbar and
Worcester.[455]

§ 155.3. =The Restoration and the Act of Toleration.=--The
Restoration of royalty under =Charles II.=, A.D. 1660-1685,
began with the reinstating of the Episcopal church in all the
privileges granted to it under Elizabeth. The Corporation Act
of December, A.D. 1661, was the first of a series of enactments
for this purpose. It required of all magistrates and civil
officers that they should take an oath acknowledging the royal
supremacy and communicate in the Episcopal church. The Act
of Uniformity of May, A.D. 1662, was still more oppressive.
It prohibited any clergyman entering the English pulpit or
discharging any ministerial function, unless he had been
ordained by a bishop, had signed the Thirty-nine Articles,
and undertook to conduct worship exactly in accordance with
the newly revised Book of Common Prayer. More than 2,000 Puritan
ministers, who could not conscientiously submit to those terms,
were driven out of their churches. Then in June, A.D. 1664,
the Conventicle Act was renewed, enforcing attendance at the
Episcopal church, and threatening with imprisonment or exile
all found in any private religious meeting of more than five
persons. In the following year the Five Mile Act inflicted
heavy fines on all nonconformist ministers who should approach
within five miles of their former congregation or indeed of any
city. All these laws, although primarily directed against all
Protestant dissenters, told equally against the Catholics, whom
the king’s Catholic sympathies would willingly have spared.
When now his league with Catholic France against the Protestant
Netherlands made it necessary for him to appease his Protestant
subjects, he hoped to accomplish this and save the Catholics
by his “Declaration of Indulgence” of A.D. 1672, issued with
the consent of Parliament, which suspended all penal laws
hitherto in force against dissenters. But the Protestant
nonconformists saw through this scheme, and the Parliament
of A.D. 1673 passed the anti-Catholic Test Act (§ 153, 6).
Equally vain were all later attempts to secure greater liberties
and privileges to the Catholics. They only served to develop
the powers of Parliament and to bring the Episcopalians and
nonconformists more closely together. After spending his
whole life oscillating between frivolous unbelief and Catholic
superstition, Charles II., on his death-bed, formally went over
to the Romish church, and had the communion and extreme unction
administered by a Catholic priest. His brother and successor
=James II.=, A.D. 1685-1688, who was from A.D. 1672 an avowed
Catholic, sent a declaration of obedience to Rome, received
a papal nuncio in London, and in the exercise of despotic power
issued, in A.D. 1687, a “Declaration of Freedom of Conscience,”
which, under the fair colour of universal toleration and by the
setting aside of the test oath, enabled him to fill all civil
and military offices with Catholics. This act proved equally
oppressive to the Episcopalians and to Protestant dissenters.
This intrigue cost him his throne. He had, as he himself
said, staked three kingdoms on a mass, and lost all the three.
=William III.= of Orange, A.D. 1689-1702, grandson of Charles I.
and son-in-law of James II., gave a final decision to the rights
of the national Episcopal church and the position of dissenters
in the =Act of Toleration= of A.D. 1689, which he passed with
consent of the Parliament. All penal laws against the latter
were abrogated, and religious liberty was extended to all with
the exception of Catholics and Socinians. The retention of the
Corporation and Test Acts, however, still excluded them from the
exercise of all political rights. They were also still obliged
to pay tithes and other church dues to the Episcopal clergy
of their dioceses, and their marriages and baptisms had to be
administered in the parish churches. Their ministers were also
obliged to subscribe the Thirty-nine Articles, with reservation
of those points opposed to their principles. The Act of Union
of A.D. 1707, passed under Queen Anne, a daughter of James II.,
which united England and Scotland into the one kingdom of Great
Britain, gave legitimate sanction to a separate ecclesiastical
establishment for each country. In Scotland the Presbyterian
churches continued the established church, while the Episcopal
was tolerated as a dissenting body. Congregationalism, however,
has been practically limited to England and North
America.[456]--Continuation, § 202, 5.

II. The Roman Catholic Church.

§ 156. THE PAPACY, MONKERY, AND FOREIGN MISSIONS.

Notwithstanding the regeneration of papal Catholicism since the middle of the sixteenth century, Hildebrand’s politico-theocratic ideal was not realized. Even Catholic princes would not be dictated to on political matters by the vicar of Christ. The most powerful of them, France, Austria, and Spain, during the sixteenth century, and subsequently also Portugal, had succeeded in the claim to the right of excluding objectionable candidates in papal elections. Ban and interdict had lost their power. The popes, however, still clung to the idea after they had been obliged to surrender the reality, and issued from time to time powerless protestations against disagreeable facts of history. Several new monkish orders were instituted during this century, mostly for teaching the young and tending the sick, but some also expressly for the promoting of theological science. Of all the orders, new and old, the Jesuits were by far the most powerful. They were regarded with jealousy and suspicion by the other orders. In respect of doctrine the Dominicans were as far removed from them as possible within the limits of the Tridentine Creed. But notwithstanding any such mutual jealousies, they were all animated by one yearning desire to oppose, restrict, and, where that was possible, to uproot Protestantism. With similar zeal they devoted themselves with wonderful success to the work of foreign missions.

§ 156.1. =The Papacy.=--=Paul V.=, A.D. 1605-1621,
equally energetic in his civil and in his ecclesiastical
policy, in a struggle with Venice, was obliged to behold
the powerlessness of the papal interdict. His successor,
=Gregory XV.=, A.D. 1621-1623, founded the Propaganda,
prescribed a secret scrutiny in papal elections, and canonized
Loyola, Xavier, and Neri. He enriched the Vatican Library
by the addition of the valuable treasures of the Heidelberg
Library, which Maximilian I. of Bavaria sent him on his
conquest of the Palatinate. =Urban VIII.=, A.D. 1623-1644,
increased the Propaganda, improved the Roman “Breviary”
(§ 56, 2), condemned Jansen’s _Augustinus_ (§ 156, 5), and
compelled Galileo to recant. But on the other hand, through
his onesided ecclesiastical policy he was led into sacrificing
the interests of the imperial house of Austria. Not only did
he fail to give support to the emperor, but quite openly hailed
Gustavus Adolphus, the saviour of German Protestantism, as the
God-sent saviour from the Spanish-Austrian tyranny. For this he
was pronounced a heretic at the imperial court, and threatened
with a second edition of the sack of Rome (§ 132, 2). At the
same time his soul was so filled with fanatical hatred against
Protestantism, that in a letter of 1631 he congratulated the
Emperor Ferdinand II. on the destruction of Magdeburg as an
act most pleasing to heaven and reflecting the highest credit
upon Germany, and expressed the hope that the glory of so great
a victory should not be restricted to the ruins of a single
city. On receiving the news of the death of Gustavus Adolphus
in 1632 he broke out into loud jubilation, saying that now “the
serpent was slain which with its poison had sought to destroy
the whole world.” His successor, =Innocent X.=, A.D. 1644-1655,
though vigorously protesting against the Peace of Westphalia
(§ 153, 2), was, owing to his abject subserviency to a woman,
his own sister-in-law, reproached with the title of a new
_Johanna Papissa_. =Alexander VII.=, A.D. 1655-1667, had the
expensive guardianship of his godchild Christina of Sweden
(§ 153, 1), and fanned into a flame the spark kindled by his
predecessor in the Jansenist controversy (§ 156, 5), so that his
successor, =Clement IX.=, A.D. 1667-1670, could only gradually
extinguish it. =Clement X.=, A.D. 1670-1676, by his preference
for Spain roused the French king Louis XIV., who avenged himself
by various encroachments on the ecclesiastical administration
in his dominions. =Innocent XI.=, A.D. 1676-1689, was a powerful
pope, zealously promoting the weal of the church and the Papal
States by introducing discipline among the clergy and attacking
the immorality that prevailed among all classes of society.
He unhesitatingly condemned sixty-five propositions from the
lax Jesuit code of morals. Against the arrogant ambassador
of Louis XIV. he energetically maintained his sovereign
rights in his own domains, while he unreservedly refused
the claims of the French clergy, urged by the king on the
ground of the exceptional constitution of the Gallican church.
=Alexander VIII.=, A.D. 1689-1691, continued the fight against
Gallicanism, and condemned the Jesuit distinction between
theological and philosophical sin (§ 149, 10). =Innocent XII.=,
A.D. 1691-1700, could boast of having secured the complete
subjugation of the Gallican clergy after a hard struggle. He
too wrought earnestly for the reform of abuses in the curia.
Specially creditable to him is the stringent bull “_Romanum
decet pontificem_” against nepotism, which extirpated the
evil disease, so that it was never again openly practised as
an acknowledged right.--Continuation, § 165, 1.

§ 156.2. =The Jesuits and the Republic of Venice.=--Venice was
one of the first of the Italian cities to receive the Jesuits
with open arms, A.D. 1530. But the influence obtained by them
over public affairs through school and confessional, and their
vast wealth accumulated from bequests and donations, led the
government, in A.D. 1605, to forbid their receiving legacies
or erecting new cloisters. In vain did Paul V. remonstrate.
He then put Venice under an interdict. The Jesuits sought to
excite the people against the government, and for this were
banished in A.D. 1606. The pious and learned historian of the
Council of Trent and adviser of the State, Paul Sarpi, proved
a vigorous supporter of civil rights against the assumptions
of the curia and the Jesuits. When in A.D. 1607 he refused a
citation of Inquisition, he was dangerously wounded by three
dagger stabs, inflicted by hired bandits, in whose stilettos
he recognised the _stilum curiæ_. He died in A.D. 1623.
After a ten months’ vain endeavour to enforce the interdict,
the pope at last, through French mediation, concluded a peace
with the republic, without, however, being able to obtain either
the abolition of the objectionable ecclesiastico-political laws
or permission for the return of the Jesuits. Only after the
republic had been weakened through the unfortunate Turkish war
of A.D. 1645 was it found willing to submit. Even in A.D. 1653
it refused the offer of 150,000 ducats from the Jesuit general
for the Turkish campaign; but when Alexander VII. suppressed
several rich cloisters, their revenues were thankfully accepted
for this purpose. In A.D. 1657, on the pope’s promise of further
pecuniary aid, the decree of banishment was withdrawn. The
Jesuit fathers now returned in crowds, and soon regained much
of their former influence and wealth. No pope has ever since
issued an interdict against any country.[457]

§ 156.3. =The Gallican Liberties.=--Although =Louis XIV.=
of France, A.D. 1643-1715, as a good Catholic king, powerfully
supported the claims of papal dogmatics against the Jansenists
(§§ 156, 5; 165, 7), he was by no means unfaithful to the
traditional ecclesiastical polity of his house (§§ 96, 21;
110, 1, 9, 13, 14), and was often irritated to the utmost
pitch by the pope’s opposition to his political interests.
He rigorously insisted upon the old customary right of
the Crown to the income of certain vacant ecclesiastical
offices, the _jus regaliæ_, and extended it to all bishoprics,
burdened church revenues with military pensions, confiscated
ecclesiastical property, etc. Innocent XI. energetically
protested against such exactions. The king then had an assembly
of the French called together in Paris on March 19th, A.D. 1682,
which issued the famous =Four Propositions of the Gallican
Clergy=, drawn up by Bishop Bossuet of Meaux. These set forth
the fundamental rights of the French church:

1. In secular affairs the pope has no jurisdiction over
princes and kings, and cannot release their subjects
from their allegiance;

2. The spiritual power of the pope is subject to the higher
authority of the general councils;

3. For France it is further limited by the old French
ecclesiastical laws; and,

4. Even in matters of faith the judgment of the pope without
the approval of a general assembly of the church is not
unalterable.

Innocent consequently refused to institute any of the newly
appointed bishops. He was not even appeased by the Revocation
of the Edict of Nantes in A.D. 1685. He was pleased indeed, and
praised the deed, and celebrated it by a _Te Deum_, but objected
to the violent measures for the conversion of Protestants as
contrary to the teaching of Christ. Then also there arose a
keen struggle against the mischievous extension of the right
of asylum on the part of foreign embassies at Rome. On the
pope’s representation all the powers but France agreed to
a restriction of the custom. The pope tolerated the nuisance
till the death of the French ambassador in A.D. 1687, but
then insisted on its abolition under pain of the ban. In
consequence of this Louis sent his new ambassador into Rome
with two companies of cavaliers, threw the papal nuntio in
France into prison, and laid siege to the papal state of
Avignon (§ 110, 4). But Innocent was not thus to be terrorized,
and the French ambassador was obliged, after eighteen months’
vain demonstrations, to quit Rome. Alexander VIII. repeated the
condemnation of the Four Propositions, and Innocent XIII. also
stood firm. The French episcopate, on the pope’s persistent
refusal to install bishops nominated by the king, was at last
constrained to submit. “Lying at the feet of his holiness,”
the bishops declared that everything concluded in that assembly
was null and void; and even Louis XIV., under the influence of
Madame de Maintenon (§ 157, 3), wrote to the pope in A.D. 1693,
saying that he recalled the order that the Four Propositions
should be taught in all the schools. There still, however,
survived among the French clergy a firm conviction of the
Gallican Liberties, and the _droit de régale_ continued to
have the force of law.[458]--Continuation, § 197, 1.

§ 156.4. =Galileo and the Inquisition.=--Galileo Galilei,
professor of mathematics at Pisa and Padua, who died in
A.D. 1642, among his many distinguished services to the
physical, mathematical, and astronomical sciences, has the
honour of being the pioneer champion of the Copernican system.
On this account he was charged by the monks with contradicting
Scripture. In A.D. 1616 Paul V., through Cardinal Bellarmine,
threatened him with the Inquisition and prison unless he agreed
to cease from vindicating and lecturing upon his heretical
doctrine. He gave the required promise. But in A.D. 1632
he published a dialogue, in which three friends discussed
the Ptolemaic and Copernican systems, without any formal
conclusion, but giving overwhelming reasons in favour of the
latter. Urban VIII., in A.D. 1636, called upon the Inquisition
to institute a process against him. He was forced to recant,
was condemned to prison for an indefinite period, but was soon
liberated through powerful influence. How far the old man of
seventy-two years of age was compelled by torture to retract
is still a matter of controversy. It is, however, quite evident
that it was forced from him by threats. But that Galileo went
out after his recantation, gnashing his teeth and stamping
his feet, muttering, “Nevertheless it moves!” is a legend
of a romancing age. This, however, is the fact, that the
Congregation of the Index declared the Copernican theory to
be false, irrational, and directly contrary to Scripture; and
that even in A.D. 1660 Alexander VII., with apostolic authority,
formally confirmed this decree and pronounced it _ex cathedrâ_
(§ 149, 4) irrevocable. It was only in A.D. 1822 that the curia
set it aside, and in a new edition of the Index (§ 149, 14)
in A.D. 1835 omitted the works of Galileo as well as those
of Copernicus.[459]

§ 156.5. =The Controversy on the Immaculate Conception=
(§ 112, 4) received a new impulse from the nun =Mary of Jesus,
died 1665, of Agreda=, in Old Castile, superior of the cloister
there of the Immaculate Conception, writer of the “Mystical
City of God.” This book professed to give an inspired account
of the life of the Virgin, full of the strangest absurdities
about the immaculate conception. The Sorbonne pronounced it
offensive and silly; the Inquisition in Spain, Portugal, and
Rome forbad the reading of it; but the Franciscans defended
it as a divine revelation. A violent controversy ensued, which
Alexander VII. silenced in A.D. 1661 by expressing approval
of the doctrine of the immaculate conception set forth in the
book.--Continuation, § 185, 2.

§ 156.6. =The Devotion of the Sacred Heart of Jesus.=--The
nun =Margaret Alacoque=, in the Burgundian cloister of _Paray
le Monial_, born A.D. 1647, recovering from a painful illness
when but three years old, vowed to the mother of God, who
frequently appeared to her, perpetual chastity, and in gratitude
for her recovery adopted the name of Mary, and when grown up
resisted temptations by inflicting on herself the severest
discipline, such as long fasts, sharp flagellations, lying
on thorns, etc. Visions of the Virgin no longer satisfied her.
She longed to lavish her affections on the Redeemer himself,
which she expressed in the most extravagant terms. She took the
Jesuit =La Colombière= as her spiritual adviser in A.D. 1675.
In a new vision she beheld the side of her Beloved opened,
and saw his heart glowing like a sun, into which her own was
absorbed. Down to her death in A.D. 1690 she felt the most
violent burning pains in her side. In a second vision she saw
her Beloved’s heart burning like a furnace, into which were
taken her own heart and that of her spiritual adviser. In a
third vision he enjoined the observance of a special “Devotion
of the Sacred Heart” by all Christendom on the Friday after the
octave of the _Corpus Christi_ festival and on the first Friday
of every month. La Colombière, being made director, put forth
every effort to get this celebration introduced throughout the
church, and on his death the idea was taken up by the whole
Jesuit order. Their efforts, however, for fully a century proved
unavailing. At this point, too, their most bitter opponents were
the Dominicans. But even without papal authority the Jesuits
so far succeeded in introducing the absurdities of this cult,
and giving expression to it in word and by images, that by the
beginning of the eighteenth century there were more than 300
male and female societies engaged in this devotion, and at last,
in A.D. 1765, =Clement XIII.=, the great friend of the Jesuits,
gave formal sanction to this special celebration.--Continuation,
§ 188, 12.

§ 156.7. =New Congregations and Orders.=

1. At the head of the new orders of this century stands
the =Benedictine Congregation of St. Banne= at Verdun,
founded by Didier de la Cour. Elected Abbot of St. Banne
in A.D. 1596, he gave his whole strength to the reforming
of this cloister, which had fallen into luxurious and
immoral habits. By a papal bull of A.D. 1604 all cloisters
combining with St. Banne into a congregation were endowed
with rich privileges. Gradually all the Benedictine
monasteries of Lorraine and Alsace joined the union.
Didier’s reforms were mostly in the direction of moral
discipline and asceticism; but in the new congregation
scholarship was represented by Calmet, Ceillier, etc., and
many gave themselves to work as teachers in the schools.

2. Much more important for the promotion of theological
science, especially for patristics and church history,
was another Benedictine congregation founded in France
in A.D. 1618 by Laurence Bernard, that of =St. Maur=,
named after a disciple of St. Benedict. The members of
this order devoted themselves exclusively to science and
literary pursuits. To them belonged the distinguished
names, Mabillon, Montfaucon, Reinart, Martène, D’Achery,
Le Nourry, Durand, Surius, etc. They showed unwearied
diligence in research and a noble liberality of judgment.
The editions of the most celebrated Fathers issued by
them are the best of the kind, and this may also be said
of the great historical collections which we owe to their
diligence.

3. =The Fathers of the Oratory of Jesus= are an imitation
of the Priests of the Oratory founded by Philip Neri
(§ 149, 7). Peter of Barylla, son of a member of parliament,
founded it in A.D. 1611 by building an oratory at Paris.
He was more of a mystic than of a scholar, but his order
sent out many distinguished and brilliant theologians;
_e.g._ Malebranche, Morinus, Thomassinus, Rich, Simon,
Houbigant.

4. =The Piarists=, _Patres scholarum piarum_, were founded
in Rome in A.D. 1607 by the Spaniard Joseph Calasanza. The
order adopted as a fourth vow the obligation of gratuitous
tuition. They were hated by the Obscurantist Jesuits for
their successful labours for the improvement of Catholic
education, especially in Poland and Austria, and also
because they objected to all participation in political
schemes.

5. =The Order of the Visitation of Mary=, or _Salesian Nuns_,
instituted in A.D. 1610 by the mystic Francis de Sales
and Francisca Chantal (§ 157, 1). They visited the poor
and sick in imitation of Elizabeth’s visit to the Virgin
(Luke i. 39); but the papal rescript of A.D. 1618 gave
prominence to the education of children.

§ 156.8.

6. =The Priests of the Missions and Sisters of Charity= were
both founded by Vincent de Paul. Born of poor parents,
he was, after completing his education, captured by
pirates, and as a slave converted his renegade master
to Christianity. As domestic chaplain to the noble family
of Gondy he was characterized in a remarkable degree
for unassuming humility, and he wrought earnestly and
successfully as a home missionary. In A.D. 1618 he founded
the order of Sisters of Mercy, who became devoted nurses
of the sick throughout all France, and in A.D. 1627 that
of the Priests of the Missions, or Lazarists, who travelled
the country attending to the spiritual and bodily wants
of men. After the death of the Countess Gondy in A.D. 1625,
he placed at the head of the Sisters of Mercy the widow
Louise le Gras, distinguished equally for qualities of head
and heart. Vincent died in A.D. 1660, and was subsequently
canonized.[460]

7. =The Trappists=, founded by De Rancé, a distinguished canon,
who in A.D. 1664 passed from the extreme of worldliness
to the extreme of fanatical asceticism. The order got its
name from the Cistercian abbey La Trappe in Normandy, of
which Rancé was commendatory abbot. Amid many difficulties
he succeeded, in A.D. 1665, in thoroughly reforming the
wild monks, who were called “the bandits of La Trappe.”
His rule enjoined on the monks perpetual silence, only
broken in public prayer and singing and in uttering
the greeting as they met, _Memento mori_. Their bed
was a hard board with some straw; their only food was
bread and water, roots, herbs, some fruit and vegetables,
without butter, fat, or oil. Study was forbidden, and they
occupied themselves with hard field labour. Their clothing
was a dark-brown cloak worn on the naked body, with wooden
shoes. Very few cloisters besides La Trappe submitted to
such severities (§ 185, 2).

8. =The English Nuns=, founded at St. Omer, in France, by
Mary Ward, the daughter of an English Catholic nobleman,
for the education of girls. Originally composed of English
maidens, it was afterwards enlarged by receiving those of
other nationalities, with establishments in Germany, Italy,
and the Netherlands. It did not obtain papal confirmation,
and in A.D. 1630 Urban VIII., giving heed to the calumnies
of enemies, formally dissolved it on account of arrogance,
insubordination, and heresy. All its institutions and
schools were then closed, while Mary herself was imprisoned
and given over to the Inquisition in Rome. Urban was
soon convinced of her innocence and set her free. Her
scattered nuns were now collected again, but succeeded only
in A.D. 1703 in obtaining confirmation from Clement XI.
Their chief tasks were the education of youth and care
of the sick. They were arranged in three classes, according
to their rank in life, and were bound by their vows for
a year or at the most three years, after which they might
return to the world and marry. Their chief centre was
Bavaria with the mother cloister in Munich.--Continuation,
§ 165, 2.

§ 156.9. =The Propaganda.=--Gregory XV. gave unity and strength
to the efforts for conversion of heretics and heathens by
instituting, in A.D. 1662, the _Congregatio de Propaganda
Fide_. Urban VIII. in A.D. 1627 attached to it a missionary
training school, recruited as far as possible from natives of
the respective countries, like Loyola’s _Collegium Germanicum_
founded in A.D. 1552 (§ 151, 1). He was thus able every Epiphany
to astonish Romans and foreigners by what seemed a repetition of
the pentecostal miracle of tongues. At this institute training
in all languages was given, and breviaries, mass and devotional
books, and handbooks were printed for the use of the missions.
It was also the centre from which all missionary enterprises
originated.--Continuation, § 204, 2.

§ 156.10. =Foreign Missions.=--Even during this century the
Jesuits excelled all others in missionary zeal. In A.D. 1608
they sent out from Madrid mission colonies among the wandering
Indians of South America, and no Spaniard could settle there
without their permission. The most thoroughly organized of
these was that of =Paraguay=, in which, according to their
own reports, over 100,000 converted savages lived happily
and contented under the mild, patriarchal rule of the Jesuits
for 140 years, A.D. 1610-1750; but according to another well
informed, though perhaps not altogether impartial, account,
that of Ibagnez, a member of the mission, expelled for advising
submission to the decree depriving it of political independence,
the paternal government was flavoured by a liberal dose of
slave-driver despotism. It was at least an undoubted fact,
notwithstanding the boasted patriarchal idyllic character of
the Jesuit state, that the order amassed great wealth from the
proceeds of the industry of their _protégés_.--Continuation,
§ 165, 3.

§ 156.11. =In the East Indies= (§ 150, 1) the Jesuits had
uninterrupted success. In A.D. 1606, in order to make way
among the Brahmans, the Jesuit Rob. Nobili assumed their
dress, avoided all contact with even the converts of low
caste, giving them the communion elements not directly, but
by an instrument, or laying them down for them outside the
door, and as a Christian Brahman made a considerable impression
upon the most exclusive classes.--In =Japan= the mission
prospects were dark (§ 150, 2). Mendicants and Jesuits opposed
and mutually excommunicated one another. The Catholic Spaniards
and Portuguese were at feud among themselves, and only agreed
in intriguing against Dutch and English Protestants. When the
land was opened to foreign trade, it became the gathering point
of the moral scum of all European countries, and the traffic in
Japanese slaves, especially by the Portuguese, brought discredit
on the Christian cause. The idea gained ground that the efforts
at Christianization were but a prelude to conquest by the
Spaniards and Portuguese. In the new organization of the country
by the _shiogun_ Ijejasu all governors were to vow hostility to
Christians and foreigners. In A.D. 1606 he forbad the observance
of the Christian religion anywhere in the land. When the
conspiracy of a Christian daimio was discovered, he caused,
in A.D. 1614, whole shiploads of Jesuits, mendicants, and
native priests to be sent out of the country. But as many
of the banished returned, death was threatened against all
who might be found, and in A.D. 1624 all foreigners, with the
exception of Chinese and Dutch, were rigorously driven out.
And now a bloody persecution of native Christians began. Many
thousands fled to China and the neighbouring islands; crowds
of those remaining were buried alive or burnt on piles made up
of the wood of Christian crosses. The victims displayed a martyr
spirit like those of the early days. Those who escaped organized
in A.D. 1637 an armed resistance, and held the fortress of Arima
in face of the _shiogun’s_ army sent against them. After a three
months’ siege the fortress was conquered by the help of Dutch
cannon; 37,000 were massacred in the fort, and the rest were
hurled down from high rocks. The most severe enactments were
passed against Christians, and the edicts filled with fearful
curses against “the wicked sect” and “the vile God” of the
Christians were posted on all the bridges, street corners, and
squares. Christianity now seemed to be completely stamped out.
The recollection of this work, however, was still retained down
to the nineteenth century. For when French missionaries went
in A.D. 1860 to Nagasaki, they found to their surprise in the
villages around thousands (?) who greeted them joyfully as the
successors of the first Christian missionaries.

§ 156.12. =In China=, after Ricci’s death (§ 150, 1), the
success of the mission continued uninterrupted. In A.D. 1628
a German Jesuit, Adam Schell, went out from Cologne, who gained
great fame at court for his mathematical skill. Louis XIV.
founded at Paris a missionary college, which sent out Jesuits
thoroughly trained in mathematics. But Dominicans and Franciscans
over and over again complained to Rome of the Jesuits. They
never allowed missionaries of other orders to come near their
own establishments, and actually drove them away from places
where they had begun to work. They even opposed priests,
bishops, and vicars-apostolic sent by the Propaganda, declared
their papal briefs forgeries, forbad their congregations to have
any intercourse with those “heretics,” and under suspicion of
Jansenism brought them before the Inquisition of Goa. Clement X.
issued a firm-toned bull against such proceedings; but the
Jesuits gave no heed to it, and attended only to their own
general. The papal condemnation a century later of the Jesuits’
accommodation scheme, and their permission of heathen rites
and beliefs to the new converts, complained against by the
Dominicans, was equally fruitless. In A.D. 1645 Innocent X.
forbad this practice on pain of excommunication; but still
they continued it till the decree was modified by Alexander VII.
in A.D. 1656. After persistent complaints by the Dominicans,
Innocent XII. appointed a new congregation in Rome to
investigate the question, but their deliberations yielded no
result for ten years. At last Clement XI. confirmed the first
decree of Innocent X., condemned anew the so called Chinese
rites, and sent the legate Thomas of Tournon in A.D. 1703 to
enforce his decision. Tournon, received at first by the emperor
at Pekin with great consideration, fell into disfavour through
Jesuit intrigues, was banished from the capital, and returned
to Nankin. But as he continued his efforts from this point,
and an attempt to poison him failed in A.D. 1707, he went to
Macao, where he was put in prison by the Portuguese, in which
he died in A.D. 1710. Clement XI., in A.D. 1715, issued his
decree against the Chinese rites in a yet severer form; but
the Franciscan who proclaimed the papal bull was put in prison
as an offender against the laws of the country, and, after
being maltreated for seventeen months, was banished. So proudly
confident had the Jesuits become, that in A.D. 1720 they treated
with scorn and contempt the papal legate Mezzabarba, Patriarch
of Alexandria, who tried by certain concessions to move them
to submit. A more severe decree of Clement XII. of A.D. 1735
was scoffed at by being proclaimed only in the Latin original.
Benedict XIV. succeeded for the first time, in A.D. 1742, in
breaking down their opposition, after the charges had been
renewed by the Capuchin Norbert. All the Jesuit missionaries
were now obliged by oath to exclude all pagan customs and rites;
but with this all the glory and wonderful success of their
Asiatic missions came to an end.--Continuation, § 165, 3.

§ 156.13. =Trade and Industry of the Jesuits.=--As Christian
missions generally deserve credit, not only for introducing
civilization and culture along with the preaching of the gospel
into far distant heathen lands, but also for having greatly
promoted the knowledge of countries, peoples, and languages
among their fellow countrymen at home, opening up new fields
for colonization and trade, these ends were also served by
the world-wide missionary enterprises of the Jesuits, and
were in perfect accordance with the character and intention of
this order, which aimed at universal dominion. In carrying out
these schemes the Jesuits abandoned the ascetical principles
of their founder and their vow of poverty, amassing enormous
wealth by securing in many parts a practical monopoly of
trade. Their fifth general, Aquaviva (§ 149, 8), secured from
Gregory XIII., avowedly in favour of the mission, exclusive
right to trade with both Indies. They soon erected great
factories in all parts of the world, and had ships laden
with valuable merchandise on all seas. They had mines, farms,
sugar plantations, apothecary shops, bakeries, etc., founded
banks, sold relics, miracle-working amulets, rosaries, healing
Ignatius- and Xavier-water (§ 149, 11), etc., and in successful
legacy-hunting excelled all other orders. Urban VIII. and
Clement XI. issued severe bulls against such abuses, but only
succeeded in restricting them to some extent.--Continuation,
§ 165, 9.

§ 156.14. =An Apostate to Judaism.=--Gabriel, or as he was
called after circumcision, =Uriel Acosta=, was sprung from
a noble Portuguese family, originally Jewish. Doubting
Christianity in consequence of the traffic in indulgences,
he at last repudiated the New Testament in favour of the Old.
He refused rich ecclesiastical appointments, fled to Amsterdam,
and there formally went over to Judaism. Instead of the biblical
Mosaism, however, he was disappointed to find only Pharisaic
pride and Talmudic traditionalism, against which he wrote
a treatise in A.D. 1623. The Jews now denounced him to the
civil authorities as a denier of God and immortality. The whole
issue of his book was burnt. Twice the synagogue thundered its
ban against him. The first was withdrawn on his recantation,
and the second, seven years after, upon his submitting to a
severe flagellation. In spite of all he held to his Sadducean
standpoint to his end in A.D. 1647, when he died by his own
hand from a pistol shot, driven to despair by the unceasing
persecution of the Jews.

§ 157. QUIETISM AND JANSENISM.

Down to the last quarter of the seventeenth century the Spanish Mystics (§ 149, 16), and especially those attached to Francis de Sales, were recognised as thoroughly orthodox. But now the Jesuits appeared as the determined opponents of all mysticism that savoured of enthusiasm. By means of vile intrigues they succeeded in getting Molinos, Guyon, and Fénelon condemned, as “Quietist” heretics, although the founder of their party had been canonized and his doctrine solemnly sanctioned by the pope. Yet more objectionable to the Jesuits was that reaction toward Augustinianism which, hitherto limited to the Dominicans (§ 149, 13), and treated by them as a theological theory, was now spreading among other orders in the form of French Jansenism, accompanied by deep moral earnestness and a revival of the whole Christian life.

§ 157.1. =Francis de Sales and Madame Chantal.=--Francis Count
de Sales, from A.D. 1602 Bishop of Geneva, _i.e._ _in partibus_,
with Annecy as his residence, had shown himself a good Catholic
by his zeal in rooting out Protestantism in Chablais, on the
south of the Genevan lake. In A.D. 1604 meeting the young
widowed Baroness de Chantal, along with whom at a later period
he founded the Order of the Visitation of Mary (§ 156, 7),
he proved a good physician to her amid her sorrow, doubts,
and temptations. He sought to qualify himself for this task
by reading the writings of St. Theresa. Teacher and scholar
so profited by their mystical studies, that in A.D. 1665
Alexander VII. deemed the one worthy of canonization and the
other of beatification. In A.D. 1877 Pius IX. raised Francis
to the dignity of _doctor ecclesiæ_. His “Introduction to
the Devout Life” affords a guide to laymen to the life of
the soul, amid all the disturbances of the world resting in
calm contemplation and unselfish love of God. In the Catholic
Church, next to À Kempis’ “Imitation of Christ,” it is the
most appreciated and most widely used book of devotion. In
his “_Theotime_” he leads the reader deeper into the yearnings
of the soul after fellowship with God, and describes the perfect
peace which the soul reaches in God.[461]

§ 157.2. =Michael Molinos.=--After Francis de Sales a great
multitude of male and female apostles of the new mystical
gospel sprang up, and were favourably received by all the
more moderate church leaders. The reactionaries, headed by the
Jesuits, sought therefore all the more eagerly to deal severely
with the Spaniard Michael Molinos. Having settled in Rome in
A.D. 1669, he soon became the most popular of father confessors.
His “Spiritual Guide” in A.D. 1675 received the approval of the
Holy Office, and was introduced into Protestant Germany through
a Latin translation by Francke in A.D. 1687, and a German
translation in A.D. 1699 by Arnold. In it he taught those who
came to the confessional that the way to the perfection of
the Christian life, which consists in peaceful rest in the
most intimate communion with God, is to be found in spiritual
conference, secret prayer, active and passive contemplation,
in rigorous destruction of all self-will, and in disinterested
love of God, fortified, wherever that is possible, by daily
communion. The success of the book was astonishing. It promptly
influenced all ranks and classes, both men and women, lay and
clerical, not only in Italy, but also by means of translations
in France and Spain. But soon a reaction set in. As early
as A.D. 1681 the famous Jesuit =Segneri= issued a treatise,
in which he charged Molinos’ contemplative mysticism with
onesidedness and exaggeration. He was answered by the pious
and learned Oratorian =Petrucci=. A commission, appointed
by the Inquisition to examine the writings of both parties,
pronounced the views of Molinos and Petrucci to be in accordance
with church doctrine and Segneri’s objections to be unfounded.
All that Jesuitism reckoned as foundation, means, and end of
piety was characterized as purely elementary. No hope could
be entertained of winning over Innocent XI., the bitter enemy
of the Jesuits. But Louis XIV. of France, at the instigation
of his Jesuit father confessor, Lachaise, expressed through
his ambassador his surprise that his holiness should, not only
tolerate, but even encourage and support so dangerous a heretic,
who taught all Christendom to undervalue the public services
of the Church. In A.D. 1685 Innocent referred the matter to
the tribunal of the Inquisition. Throughout the two years
during which the investigation proceeded all arts were used to
secure condemnation. Extreme statements of fanatical adherents
of Molinos were not rarely met with, depreciating the public
ordinances and ceremonies, confession, hearing of mass, church
prayers, rosaries, etc. The pope, facile with age, amid groans
and lamentations, allowed things to take their course, and at
last confirmed the decree of the Inquisition of August 28th,
A.D. 1687, by which Molinos was found guilty of spreading
godless doctrine, and sixty-eight propositions, partly from
his own writings, partly from the utterances of his adherents,
were condemned as heretical and blasphemous. The heretic was
to abjure his heresies publicly, clad in penitential garments,
and was then consigned to lifelong solitary confinement in a
Dominican cloister, where he died in A.D. 1697.[462]

§ 157.3. =Madame Guyon and Fénelon.=--After her husband’s
death, =Madame Guyon=, in company with her father confessor,
the Barnabite =Lacombe=, who had been initiated during a long
residence at Rome into the mysteries of Molinist mysticism,
spent five years travelling through France, Switzerland,
Savoy, and Piedmont. Though already much suspected, she won
the hearts of many men and women among the clergy and laity,
and enkindled in them by personal conference, correspondence,
and her literary work, the ardour of mystical love. Her
brilliant writings are indeed disfigured by traces of foolish
exaggeration, fanaticism and spiritual pride. She calls herself
the woman of Revelation xii. 1, and the _mère de la grace_
of her adherents. The following are the main distinguishing
characteristics of her mysticism: The necessity of turning
away from everything creaturely, rejecting all earthly pleasure
and destroying every selfish interest, as well as of turning
to God in passive contemplation, silent devotion, naked faith,
which dispensed with all intellectual evidence, and pure
disinterested love, which loves God for Himself alone, not
for the eternal salvation obtained through Him. On her return
to Paris with Lacombe in A.D. 1686 the proper martyrdom of
her life began. Her chief persecutor was her step-brother,
the Parisian superior of the Barnabites, La Mothe, who spread
the most scandalous reports about his half-sister and Lacombe,
and had them both imprisoned by a royal decree in A.D. 1688.
Lacombe never regained his liberty. Taken from one prison to
another, he lost his reason, and died in an asylum in A.D. 1699.
Madame Guyon, however, by the influence of Madame de Maintenon,
was released after ten months’ confinement. The favour of
this royal dame was not of long continuance. Warned on all
sides of the dangerous heretic, she broke off all intercourse
with her in A.D. 1693, and persuaded the king to appoint a
new commission, in A.D. 1694, with Bishop =Bossuet= of Meaux
at its head, to examine her suspected writings. This commission
meeting at Issy, had already, in February, A.D. 1695, drawn
up thirty test articles, when =Fénelon=, tutor of the king’s
grandson, and now nominated to the archbishopric of Cambray,
was ordered by the king to take part in the proceedings. He
signed the articles, though he objected to much in them, and
had four articles of his own added. Madame Guyon also did so,
and Bossuet at last testified for her that he had found her
moral character stainless and her doctrine free from Molinist
heresy. But the bigot Maintenon was not satisfied with this.
Bossuet demanded the surrender of this certificate that he
might draw up another; and when Madame Guyon refused, on
the basis of a statement by the crazed Lacombe, she was sent
to the Bastile [Bastille] in A.D. 1696. In A.D. 1697 Fénelon
had written in her defence his “_Explication des Maximes des
Saintes sur la Vie Intérieur_,” showing that the condemned
doctrines of passive contemplation, secret prayer, naked
faith, and disinterested love, had all been previously taught
by St. Theresa, John of the Cross, Francis de Sales, and other
saints. He sent this treatise for an opinion to Rome. A violent
controversy then arose between Bossuet and Fénelon. The pious,
well-meaning pope, =Innocent XII.=, endeavoured vainly to
bring about a good understanding. Bossuet and the all-powerful
Maintenon wished no reconciliation, but condemnation, and gave
the king and pope no rest till very reluctantly he prohibited
the objectionable book by a brief in A.D. 1699, and condemned
twenty-three propositions from it as heretical. Fénelon,
strongly attached to the church, and a bitter persecutor
of Protestants, made an unconditional surrender, as guilty
of a defective exposition of the truth. But Madame Guyon
continued in the Bastile [Bastille] till A.D. 1701, when she
retired to Blois, where she died in A.D. 1717. Bossuet had
died in A.D. 1704, and Fénelon in A.D. 1715. She published
only two of her writings: “An Exposition of the Song,” and
the “_Moyen Court et très Facile de faire Oraison_.” Many
others, including her translation and expositions of the
Bible, were during her lifetime edited in twenty volumes by
her friend, the Reformed preacher of the Palatinate, Peter
Poiret.[463]

§ 157.4. =Mysticism Tinged with Theosophy and
Pantheism.=--=Antoinette Bourignon=, the daughter of a rich
merchant of Lille, in France, while matron of a hospital in
her native city, had in A.D. 1662 gathered around her a party
of believers in her theosophic and fantastic revelations.
She was obliged to flee to the Netherlands, and there, by
the force of her eloquence in speech and writing, spread her
views among the Protestants. Among them she attracted the
great scientist Swammerdam. But when she introduced politics,
she escaped imprisonment only by flight. Down to her death
in A.D. 1680 she earnestly and successfully prosecuted
her mission in north-west Germany. Peter Poiret collected
her writings and published them in twenty-one volumes at
Amsterdam, in A.D. 1679.--Quite of another sort was the
pantheistic mysticism of =Angelus Silesius=. Originally
a Protestant physician at Breslau, he went over to the
Romish church in A.D. 1653, and in consequence received from
Vienna the honorary title of physician to the emperor. He
was made priest in A.D. 1661, and till his death in A.D. 1677
maintained a keen polemic against the Protestant church
with all a pervert’s zeal. Most of his hymns belong to his
Protestant period. As a Catholic he wrote his “_Cherubinischer
Wandersmann_,” a collection of rhymes in which, with childish
_naïveté_ and hearty, gushing ardour, he merges self into the
abyss of the universal Deity, and develops a system of the most
pronounced pantheism.