History of the Catholic Church from the Renaissance to the French Revolution Volume I Part 16

Various arguments were put forward to weaken the force of the papal condemnation until at last Gregory XIII. was forced to issue a new Bull, /Provisionis nostrae/ (1579), and to send the learned Jesuit, Francisco Toledo, to demand that Baius should abjure his errors, and that the teaching of Pius V. should be accepted at Louvain. The papal letter was read in a formal meeting of the university, whereupon Baius signed a form of abjuration, by which he acknowledged that the condemnation of the propositions was just and reasonable, and that he would never again advocate such views. This submission relieved the tension of the situation, but it was a long time before the evil influence of Baianism disappeared, and before peace was restored finally to Louvain.

The system propounded by Baius had much in common with the teaching of Pelagius, Luther, and Calvin. His failure to recognise the clear distinction between the natural and the supernatural was the source of most of his errors. According to him the state of innocence in which our first parents were created, their destination to the enjoyment of the Beatific Vision, and all the gifts bestowed upon them for the attainment of this end were due to them, so that had they persevered during life they should have merited eternal happiness as a reward for their good works. When, however, man sinned by disobedience he not merely lost gratuitous or supernatural endowments, but his whole nature was weakened and corrupted by Original Sin which, in the system of Baius, was to be identified with concupiscence, and which was transmitted from father to son according to the ordinary laws of heredity. This concupiscence, he contended, was in itself sinful, as was also every work which proceeds from it. This was true even in case of children, because that an act be meritorious or demeritorious Free- will was not required. So long as the act was done voluntarily even though necessarily, it was to be deemed worthy of reward or punishment, since freedom from external compulsion was alone required for moral responsibility.

From the miserable condition into which man had fallen he was rescued by the Redemption of Christ, on account of which much that had been forfeited was restored. These graces procured for man by Christ may be called supernatural, not because they were not due to human nature, but because human nature had been rendered positively unworthy of them by Original Sin. The justice, however, by which a man is justified, consisted not in any supernatural quality infused into the soul, by which the individual was made a partic.i.p.ator of the divine nature, but implied merely a condition in which the moral law was observed strictly. Hence justification, according to Baius, could be separated from the forgiveness of guilt, so that though the guilt of the sinner may not have been remitted still he may be justified. In sin two things were to be distinguished, the act and the liability to punishment. The act could never be effaced, but the temporal punishment was remitted by the actual reception of the sacraments, which were introduced by Christ solely for that purpose. The Ma.s.s possessed, he held, any efficacy that it had only because it was a good moral act and helped to draw us more closely to G.o.d.

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

(b) The Molonist Controversy.

See bibliography VI. (a). Molina, /Liberi arbitrii c.u.m 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 followed generally, not merely by the Dominicans, but by most of the theologians belonging to the secular clergy and to the other religious orders. When, however, the systems of Calvin and Luther began to take root some of those who were brought into close contact with the new doctrines arrived at the conclusion that the arguments of their opponents could be overcome more effectually by introducing some modifications of the theories of St. Thomas concerning the operation of Grace and Free-will. The Jesuits particularly were of this opinion, and in 1584 the general, Aquaviva, allowed his subjects to depart in some measure from the teaching of the /Summa/. This step was regarded with disfavour in many influential quarters, and induced scholars to be much more critical about Jesuit theology than otherwise they might have been. In their College at Louvain there were two Jesuit theologians Lessius (1584-1623) and Hamel, who both in their lectures and theses advanced certain theories on man's co-operation with Grace and on Predestination, that were deemed by many to be dangerously akin to the doctrine of the Semi-Pelagians (1587). The fact that the Jesuits had been the consistent opponents of Baianism induced Baius and his friends to cast the whole weight of their influence against Lessius. A sharp controversy broke out once more in the Netherlands.

The Universities of Louvain and Douay censured thirty-four propositions of Lessius as Semi-Pelagian, while the Universities of Ingolstadt and Mainz declared in favour of their orthodoxy. The matter having been referred to Rome, Sixtus V. imposed silence on both parties, without p.r.o.nouncing any formal condemnation or approval of the propositions that had been denounced (1588).

The controversy in the Spanish Netherlands was only the prelude to a much more serious conflict in Spain itself. In 1588 the well-known Jesuit, Luis de Molina (1535-1600) published at Lisbon his celebrated work, /Concordia liberi arbitrii c.u.m gratiae donis etc./ with the approbation of the Dominican, Bartholomew Ferreira, and the permission of the Inquisition. Hardly had the work left the printing press than it was attacked warmly by Domingo Banez (1528-1604), the friend and spiritual director of St. Teresa, and one of the ablest Dominicans of his time. He had been engaged already in a controversy with the Jesuit, Montemaior, on the same subject of Grace, but the publication of Molina's book added new fuel to the flame, and in a short time the dispute a.s.sumed 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 the Jesuits with some few exceptions rallied to the side of Molina. The latter's book was denounced to the Inquisition, but as a counterblast to this Banez also was accused of very serious errors. If Molina was blamed for being a Semi-Pelagian, Banez was charged with having steered too closely to Calvinism. In the hope of restoring peace to the Church in Spain Clement VIII. reserved the decision of the case to his own tribunal (1596).

To get a grasp of the meaning of the controversy, it should be borne in mind that in all theories concerning the operation of Grace three points must be safeguarded by all Catholic theologians, namely, man's dependence upon G.o.d as the First Cause of all his actions natural as well as supernatural, human liberty, and G.o.d's omniscience or foreknowledge of man's conduct. Following in the footsteps of St.

Thomas, the Dominicans maintained that when G.o.d wishes man to perform a good act He not only gives a.s.sistance, but He actually moves or predetermines the will so that it must infallibly act. In this way the entire act comes from G.o.d as the First Cause, and at the same time it is the free act of the creature, because the human will though moved and predetermined by G.o.d acts according to its own nature, that is to say, it acts freely. In His eternal decrees by which G.o.d ordained to give this premotion or predetermination He sees infallibly the actions and conduct of men, and acting on this knowledge He predestines the just 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 been elevated by what might be called prevenient Grace, so as to make them capable of producing a supernatural act, the act itself is performed by the will co-operating with the impulse given by G.o.d. Man is, therefore, free, and at the same time dependent upon G.o.d in the performance of every good act. He is free, because the human will may or may not co-operate with the divine a.s.sistance, and he is dependent upon G.o.d, because it is only by being elevated by prevenient Grace freely given by G.o.d that the human will is capable of co-operating in the production of a supernatural act. It follows, too, that the efficaciousness of Grace arises not from the Grace itself but from the free co-operation of the will, and that a Grace in itself truly sufficient might not be efficacious through the failure of the will to co-operate with it. The omniscience of G.o.d is safeguarded, because, according to Molina, G.o.d sees infallibly man's conduct by means of the /scientia media/ or knowledge of future conditional events (so called because it stands midway between the knowledge of possibles and the knowledge of actuals). That is to say He sees infallibly what man would do freely in all possible circ.u.mstances were he given this or that particular Grace, and acting upon this knowledge He predestines the just to glory /post praevisa merita/. The main difficulty urged against Molina was, that by conceding too much to human liberty he was but renewing in another form the errors of Pelagius; while the princ.i.p.al objection brought forward against the Dominicans was, that by conceding too much to Grace they were destroying human liberty, and approaching too closely to Calvin's teaching on Predestination.

Needless to say, however much they differed on the points, both the followers of St. Thomas and the friends of Molina were at one in repudiating the doctrines of Calvin and Pelagius.

A special commission (/Congregatio de Auxiliis/), presided over by Cardinals Madrucci and Arrigone, was appointed to examine the questions at issue. The first session was held in January 1598, and in February of the same year the majority of the members reported in favour of condemning Molina's book. Clement VIII. requested the commission to consider the evidence more fully, but in a comparatively short time the majority presented a second report unfavourable to Molina. Representatives of the Dominicans and Jesuits were invited to attend in the hope that by means of friendly discussion an agreement satisfactory to both parties might be secured. In 1601 the majority were in favour of condemning twenty propositions taken from Molina's work, but the Pope refused to confirm the decision. From 1602 till 1605 the sessions were held in the presence of the Pope and of many of the cardinals. Among the consultors was Peter Lombard, Archbishop of Armagh. The death of Clement VIII. in March 1605 led to an adjournment. In September 1605 the sessions were resumed and continued till March 1606, when the votes of the consultors were handed in. In July 1607 these were placed before the cardinals for their opinions, but a little later it was announced that the decision of the Holy See would be made public at the proper time, and that meanwhile both parties were at liberty to teach their opinions. Neither side was, however, to accuse the other of heresy. Since that time no definite decision has been given, and, so far as the dogmas of faith are concerned, theologians are at full liberty to accept Thomism or Molinism.

(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 Const.i.tution, Unigenitus/, 1876. Fuzet, /Les Jansenistes du XVIIe siecle/, 1876.

The influence exercised by Baius, and the ideas that he implanted in the minds of his students had a very disturbing effect on the University of Louvain. Amongst those who fell under the sway of Baianism at this period the best known if not the ablest was Cornelius Jansen (1585-1638). He studied at Utrecht, Paris, and Louvain. While in this latter place he formed a resolve to join the Society of Jesus, but for some reason or another he was refused admission, a slight which accounts in some measure for the continued antipathy he displayed during his life towards the Jesuits. At Louvain, too, he was a.s.sociated very closely with a brilliant young French student, John du Verger de Hauranne (1581-1643), better known as the Abbot of St.

Cyran, whom he accompanied to Paris and afterwards to Bayonne, where both lived for almost twelve years. During these years of intimate friendship they had many opportunities of discussing the condition and prospects of the Catholic Church, the prevalence of what they considered Pelagian views amongst theologians, the neglect of the study of the Fathers, above all of St. Augustine, the laxity of confessors in imparting absolution and allowing their penitents to receive Holy Communion, and the absolute necessity of returning to the strict discipline of the early Church. In 1617 the two friends separated, Jansen returning to Louvain, where he was appointed to a chair of scriptural exegesis, and du Verger to Paris, where he took up his residence though he held at the same time the commendatory abbacy of St. Cyran. As professor of Scripture Jansen showed himself both industrious and orthodox, so that in 1636 on the nomination of Philip IV. of Spain he was appointed Bishop of Ypres. From that time till 1639, when he pa.s.sed away, he administered the affairs of his diocese with commendable prudence and zeal.

During the greater portion of his life he had devoted all his spare moments to the study of the works of St. Augustine, especially those directed against the Pelagians, and he had prepared a treatise on Grace, in which treatise he claimed to have reproduced exactly the teaching of St. Augustine. This work was finished but not published when he took seriously ill, and the ma.n.u.script was handed over by him to some friends for publication. Before his death, however, he declared in presence of witnesses that "if the Holy See wishes any change I am an obedient son and I submit to that Church in which I have lived to my dying hour."[1] Notwithstanding various efforts that were made to prevent publication Jansen's book /Augustinus/ was given to the world in 1640.

Like Baius Jansen refused to recognise that in the condition of innocence, in which man was const.i.tuted before the Fall, he was endowed with numerous gifts and graces, that were pure gifts of G.o.d in no way due to human nature. Hence he maintained that by the sin of our First Parents human nature was essentially corrupted, and man fell helplessly under the control of concupiscence, so that, do what he would, he must of necessity sin. There was therefore in man an irresistible inclination impelling him towards evil, to counteract which Grace was given as a force impelling him towards good, with the result that he was drawn necessarily towards good or evil according to the relative strength of these two conflicting delectations. It followed from this that merely sufficient grace was never given. If the Grace was stronger than the tendency towards evil it was efficacious; if it was weaker it was not sufficient. Yet, whether he acted under the impulse of Grace or of concupiscence, man acted freely, because, according to Jansen, absence of all external pressure was all that was required to make an act free and worthy of praise or blame.

The book /Augustinus/ created a profound sensation among theologians.

It was hailed as a marvel of learning and ability by those who were still attached secretly to the school of Baius as well as by the enemies of the Jesuits. A new edition appeared in Paris only to be condemned by the Holy Office (1641) and by Urban VIII. in the Bull, /In Eminenti/ (1642). Various difficulties were raised against the acceptance of the papal decision in Louvain and in the Netherlands, and it was only after a long delay and by threats of extreme measures that the Archbishop of Mechlin and those who followed him were obliged to submit (1653).

The real struggle regarding /Augustinus/ was to be waged, however, in Paris and France. There, the Abbot of St. Cyran had been busily at work preparing the way for Jansen's doctrine, by attacking the modern laxity of the Church, and advocating the necessity of a complete return to the rigorous discipline of the early centuries. He had made the acquaintance of the family of the celebrated lawyer, Antoine Arnauld, six of whose family had entered the convent of Port Royal, of which one of them, Angelique,[2] was then superioress, while his youngest son, Antoine, a pupil of St. Cyran, was destined to be the leader of the French Jansenists. St. Cyran insisted on such rigorous conditions for the worthy reception of the Eucharist, that people feared to receive Holy Communion lest they should be guilty of sacrilege, and for a similar reason many priests abstained from the celebration of Ma.s.s. He attacked the Jesuits for their laxity of doctrine and practice in regard to the Sacrament of Penance. He himself insisted on the absolute necessity of perfect contrition and complete satisfaction as an essential condition for absolution. These views were accepted by the nuns at Port Royal and by many clergy in Paris. On account of certain writings likely to lead to religious trouble St. Cyran was arrested by order of Cardinal Richelieu (1638) and died in 1643. His place was taken by his brilliant pupil, Antoine Arnauld, who had been ordained priest in 1641, and who like his master was the determined opponent of the Jesuits. In 1643 he published a book ent.i.tled /De la frequente Communion/, in which he put forward such strict theories about the conditions required for the worthy reception of the Eucharist that many people were frightened into abstaining even from fulfilling their Easter Communion. Despite the efforts of St. Vincent de Paul and others the book was read freely and produced widespread and alarming results.

The condemnation p.r.o.nounced 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 that the condemnation was the work of the Jesuits rather than of the Pope, that it was based on the groundless supposition that the system of Jansen was identical with that of Baius, and that as no individual proposition in /Augustinus/ had been condemned people were perfectly free to discuss the views it contained. To put an end to all possibility of misunderstanding Cornet, syndic of Paris University, selected from /Augustinus/ five propositions, which he believed contained the whole essence of Jansen's system, and submitted them to the Sorbonne for examination (1649). Owing to the intervention of the Parliament of Paris in favour of the Jansenists the propositions were referred to the a.s.sembly of the Clergy (1650), but the vast body of the bishops considered that it was a question on which a decision should be sought from Rome. Accordingly eighty-five of the bishops addressed a pet.i.tion to Innocent X. (1651) requesting him to p.r.o.nounce a definitive sentence on the orthodoxy or unorthodoxy of the five propositions, while a minority of their body objected to such an appeal as an infringement of the liberties of the Gallican Church. A commission, some of the members of which were recognised supporters of the Jansenists, was appointed by the Pope to examine the question, and after prolonged discussions extending over two years Innocent X.

issued the Bull, /c.u.m occasione/ (1653), by which the five propositions were condemned. The Bull was received so favourably by the king, the bishops, and the Sorbonne that it was hoped the end of the controversy was in sight.

The Jansenists, however, soon discovered a new method of evading the condemnation and of rendering the papal letters null and void. They admitted that the five propositions were justly censured, but they denied that these propositions were to be found in /Augustinus/, or, if they were in /Augustinus/, they contended they were there in a sense quite different from that which had been condemned by the Pope.

To justify this position they introduced the celebrated distinction between law and fact; that is to say, while admitting the authority of the Church to issue definite and binding decisions on doctrinal matters, they denied that she was infallible in regard to questions of fact, as for example, whether a certain proposition was contained in a certain book or what might be the meaning which the author intended to convey. On matters of fact such as these the Church might err, and the most that could be demanded of the faithful in case of such decisions was respectful silence. At the same time by means of sermons, pamphlets, and letters, by advice given to priests, and by the influence of several religious houses, notably Port Royal, the sect was gaining ground rapidly in Paris, and feeling began to run high against the Jesuits. The antipathy to the Jesuits was increased and became much more general after the appearance of the /Lettres Provinciales/ (1656-57) written by Pascal (1623-62). The writer was an exceedingly able controversialist, and in many respects a deeply religious man. From the point of view of literature the /Provincial Letters/ were in a sense a masterpiece, but they were grossly unfair to those whom they attacked.[3]

The Sorbonne offered a strong opposition to the Jansenists, as did also the bishops (1656). In the same year Alexander VII. issued the Bull, /Ad Sanctam Petri Sedem/, by which he condemned the distinction drawn between law and fact, and declared that the five propositions were to be found in /Augustinus/ and were condemned in the sense in which they were understood by the Jansenists. The a.s.sembly of the Clergy having accepted this Bull drew up a formulary of faith based on the teaching it contained. The greater part of the Jansenists either refused entirely to subscribe to this formulary, or else subscribed only with certain reservations and restrictions. The nuns at Port Royal were most obstinate in their refusal. As they persisted in their att.i.tude notwithstanding the prayers and entreaties of the Archbishop of Paris he was obliged reluctantly to exclude them from the sacraments. One of the princ.i.p.al objections urged against the acceptance of the formulary being that the a.s.sembly of the Clergy had no authority to prescribe any such profession of faith, Alexander VII.

at the request of many of the bishops issued a new const.i.tution, /Regiminus Apostolici/ (1664), in which he insisted that all priests secular and regular and all members of religious communities should subscribe to the anti-Jansenist formulary that he forwarded.

Most of the Jansenists refused to yield obedience even to the commands of the Pope. They were strengthened in their refusal by the fact that four of the French bishops set them a bad example by approving publicly in their pastorals the Jansenist distinction between law and fact. The Council of State promptly suppressed these pastorals (1665), and at the request of Louis XIV. Alexander VII. appointed a commission for the trial of the disobedient bishops. In the meantime, before the commission could proceed with the trial, Alexander VII. died, and was succeeded by Clement IX. (1667). Several of the French bishops addressed a joint letter to the new Pope, in which by a rather unfair use of extracts from the works of theologians they sought to excuse the att.i.tude of their brother bishops, and at the same time they hinted to the king that the controversy was taking a course likely to be fraught with great danger to the liberties of the Gallican Church.

Louis XIV., who had been hitherto most determined in his efforts against the Jansenists, began to grow lukewarm, and the whole situation in France was fast becoming decidedly critical. Some of the French bishops offered their services as mediators. Through their intervention it was agreed that without expressly retracting their pastorals the bishops should consent to sign the formulary drawn up by the Pope, and induce the clergy to do likewise. The bishops signed the formulary, and held synods in which they secured the signatures of their clergy, but at the same time in their conversations and in their addresses they made it perfectly clear that they had done so only with the Jansenist restrictions and reservations. The announcement of their submission pure and simple was forwarded to the Pope without any reference to any conditions or qualifications, and the Pope informed the king that he was about to issue letters of reconciliation to the four bishops. Before the letters were forwarded, however, rumours began to reach Rome that all was not well, and a new investigation was ordered. Finally, in view of the very critical state of affairs it was decided that the Pope might proceed safely on the doc.u.ments received from the nuncio and the mediators without reference to the information acquired from other sources. In January 1669 the letters of reconciliation were issued. The Jansenists hailed the /Clementine Peace/ as a great triumph for their party, and boasted publicly that Clement IX. had receded from the position taken up by his predecessor, by accepting the Jansenist distinction between law and fact. That their boasting was without foundation is sufficiently clear from a mere cursory examination of the papal letters. The Pope makes it perfectly evident that the letters were issued on the a.s.sumption that the bishops had subscribed without any reservation or restriction. He states expressly that he was firmly resolved to uphold the const.i.tutions of his predecessors, and that he would never admit any restriction 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.

Pa.s.saglia, /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 G.o.d/, 1904.

From the days of Dons Scotus the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception was received very generally by the universities and theologians. The Dominicans, feeling themselves called upon to support the views of St.

Thomas, who argued against the Immaculate Conception as understood in his own time, opposed the common teaching. The question was brought before the schismatical a.s.sembly at Basle (1439), where it was defined that the Immaculate Conception of the Blessed Virgin was in harmony with reason and Scripture, and should be approved and accepted by all Christians. This teaching was confirmed by several provincial synods in France and Germany, as well as by many of the universities. Paris and Cologne, for example, obliged all their members to swear to defend the doctrine. Sixtus IV. bestowed indulgences on those who would observe the Feast of the Immaculate Conception (1476), but although favouring the doctrine he forbade the defenders or opponents to charge each other with heresy (1483). When in the discussions on Original Sin at the Council of Trent the subject was raised, no formal decision was given because the Fathers were determined to direct all their attention to the doctrines that had been rejected by the Reformers. At the same time the opinion of the Fathers was expressed clearly enough, since they declared that in their decrees regarding the universality of Original Sin they did not mean to include the Immaculate Virgin Mary (V. Sess. 1546). Pius V. condemned a proposition of Baius, in which it was laid down that Christ alone escaped the guilt of Original Sin, and that the Blessed Virgin suffered death on account of the guilt she contracted by her descent from Adam (1567). A Spanish Franciscan, Francis of Santiago, having claimed that he had a vision in support of the doctrine, a sharp controversy broke out in Spain, to end which Philip III. besought the Pope to give a definitive decision.

Paul V. contented himself, however, with renewing the decrees of his predecessors Sixtus IV. and Pius V. forbidding charges of heresy to be bandied about by the disputants (1616), but in the following year he forbade any public defence of the theses directed against the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception. Gregory XV. though unwilling to yield to the request of the Spanish Court for a formal definition, prohibited either public or private opposition to the doctrine unless in case of those who had received special authorisation from the Holy See.

Finally in 1661 Alexander VII. in the const.i.tution, /Sollicitudo omnium Ecclesiarum/, explained the true meaning of the doctrine, and forbade any further opposition to what he declared to be the common and 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 which different views were held by theologians. The murder of the Duke of Orleans by orders of the Duke of Burgundy (1407) helped to stir up the controversy. Amongst the dependants of the Duke of Burgundy was a priest, John Parvus (Pet.i.t or Le Pet.i.t), who accompanied the Duke to Paris, and in a public a.s.sembly defended the Duke of Burgundy on the ground that it was lawful to murder a tyrant (1408). Nine propositions selected from this speech were condemned by the Bishop of Paris, by the Inquisition, and by the university (1414). The Duke of Burgundy appealed to Pope John XXIII., while the representatives of France at the Council of Constance were instructed to seek the opinion of the a.s.sembly. The discussion of the subject was complicated by political issues. As the Council of Constance was anxious to avoid all quarrels with the King of France, the Duke of Burgundy, or the Emperor, it contented itself with issuing a very general condemnation of Tyrannicide. Before the council closed, however, the question was raised once more in connexion with a book published by the Dominican, John of Falkenberg, who was a strong partisan of the Teutonic Knights in their struggle against the King of Poland, and who maintained that it was lawful to kill the King of Poland. He undertook the defence of Pet.i.t's work, and wrote strongly against the representatives of the University of Paris. The Poles demanded his condemnation, but though he was arrested and detained in prison his book was not condemned by the council. A Dominican chapter held in 1417 repudiated Falkenberg's teaching.

For a long time the subject was not discussed by Catholic theologians though Tyrannicide was defended by the leading Reformers, including Luther and Melanchthon, but during the religious wars in France and in Scotland it was advocated in theory by some of the French Calvinists such as Languet and Boucher as well as by the Scotch leader, John Knox, and put into practice by their followers against the Duke of Guise and Cardinal Beaton.[1] The Jesuits in France were accused of sympathising with this doctrine during the reign of Henry IV., but there was not sufficient evidence to support such a charge. Some of their theologians may have defended the legality of rebellion in certain circ.u.mstances, but this was a doctrine in no way peculiar to the Jesuits. The only serious argument brought forward by the opponents of the Jesuits was drawn from a work published by a Spanish Jesuit, Mariana (1536-1624). It was written for the instruction of some of the princes of Spain, and was dedicated to Philip III. In many respects it was an exceedingly praiseworthy work, but the author's reference to the murder of Henry III. of France and his defence of Tyrannicide, hedged round though it was by many restrictions and reservations, gave great offence in France, and provided the enemies of the Society with a splendid weapon for a general attack upon the entire body. As a matter of fact Mariana's book did not represent the views of the Jesuits. In 1610 the general, Aquaviva, forbade any of his 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 at Thorn, and was educated princ.i.p.ally at Cracow, Bologna, Padua, and Ferrara. He was a canon of the chapter of Frauenberg, and most probably a priest. During his stay in Italy he was brought into contact with the new views put forward by Cardinal Nicholas of Cusa and others regarding the position of the earth in the system of the universe. His own studies let him to the conclusion that the sun was the centre round which the earth and all the heavenly bodies moved in their course. He communicated his conclusions to some of his special friends in 1531, but he hesitated to publish them on account of the ridicule that such a novel opinion was sure to excite. One of his pupils lectured at Rome on the subject, and explained the theories of Copernicus to Clement VII. (1533).

Yielding at last to the entreaties of Cardinal Schonberg, Archbishop of Capua, and Bishop Giese of Culm he entrusted his work for publication to one of his pupils, Rheticus, professor at Wittenberg, but the opposition of the Lutheran professors made it impossible to bring out the book in that city. It was finally published under the editorship of Osiander at Nurnberg in 1543. In the preface to the work Osiander made considerable changes out of deference to the views of Luther and Melanchthon, the most important of which was that he referred to the system of Copernicus as an hypothesis that might or might not be true. The work, /De Revolutionibus...o...b..um Coelestium/ was dedicated to Pope Paul III. The princ.i.p.al opposition to the novel views of Copernicus came from the side of the Lutheran theologians, and it was only years later, when feeling was aroused by the controversy regarding Galileo, that any suspicion of unorthodoxy was directed against Copernicus by Catholic writers. Needless to say Copernicus died as he had lived, a devoted Catholic, fully convinced that he had done good service for religion as well as for science.