Chapter XVI

THE JANSENIST CONTROVERSY AND THE BULL
UNIGENITUS

1. The Jansenist Controversy 1641–1649.
2. Quesnel and the Bull _Unigenitus_ 1671–1755.
3. Controversial Writings on Theological Morality 1667–1730.

=1. The Jansenist Controversy, 1641–1649.=--In 1641, was condemned by the Inquisition the _Augustinus_ of Cornelius Jansen, Bishop of Yprés, which had been published in the same year, three years after the death of its author. The treatise was, it seems, classed among the writings having to do with the prohibited subject _de auxiliis_.

The _Augustinus seu doctrina S. Augustini de humanae naturae sanitate, aegritudine et medicina, adversus Pelagianas et Massilienses_, was published in 1640, in three volumes folio. The first is devoted to a historical exposition of the Pelagian and Massilian (semi-Pelagian) heresies; the second sets forth the Augustinian doctrine as to the state of innocence and the fallen state; while the third treats, in ten books, of the grace of Christ. The sting of the work is to be found in the epilogue, which draws a parallel in various particulars between the errors of the Massilians and those _recentiorum quorumdam_, the reference being to the Jesuits. In 1641, the book was prohibited by the Inquisition, but no opinion was pronounced as to its doctrine, and the answering treatises of the Jesuits were also condemned.

In March, 1642, a Bull of Urban VIII confirms this decree of the Inquisition in spite of the continued pressure on the part of the divines of Louvain to secure a modification of the original judgment.

In 1643, Urban VIII published the Bull _In eminenti_, renewing and confirming the constitutions of Pius V and Gregory XIII and the decree of Paul V, and forbidding the reading of the _Augustinus_. The publication of this Bull resulted in the production by Arnauld, in 1644 and in 1645, of _Apologies for Jansen_, and was also the text for the famous _Provincial Letters_ of Pascal, which appeared in 1656.

In 1651, eighty-five French bishops made representations in Rome calling for the specific condemnation of five propositions contained in the treatise of Jansen. A statement was made a little later by certain other bishops pointing out that the propositions in question were open to a different interpretation from that named in the original complaint. The matter was referred to a special congregation of four cardinals, by whom it was again referred to a commission of thirteen theologians selected by the Inquisition. This second commission gave permission to the two parties to submit, in writing or in person, further arguments in regard to the matter at issue. In May, 1653, Innocent X condemned, in a Bull, the five propositions.

The text of the five propositions is as follows:

1. There are some commandments of God which just men, although willing and anxious to obey them, are unable with the strength they have to fulfil, and the grace by which they might fulfil them is also wanting.

2. In the state of fallen nature, inward grace is never resisted.

3. In the fallen state, merit and demerit do not depend on a liberty which excludes necessity, but on a liberty which excludes constraint.

4. The semi-Pelagians admitted the necessity of an inward prevenient grace for the performance of each particular act, and also for the first act of faith, and yet were heretical inasmuch as they maintained that this grace was of such a nature that the will of man was able either to resist or to obey it.

5. It is semi-Pelagian to say that Christ died or shed his blood for all men without exception.

In the Bull of May, 1653, _Cum occasione impressionis libri_, Innocent X pronounced the first four propositions to be heretical, while the fifth was declared to be false, with the addition that if it was intended to convey the meaning that Christ died only for the elect, it was impious and blasphemous as well as heretical.

The Jansenists expressed themselves as willing to accept the authority of the Pope in condemning the five propositions in their heretical sense, but contended that these propositions had not been identified with the teachings of Jansen. In September, 1654, the Pope declared that the propositions were found in the _Augustinus_ of Jansen, and that their condemnation as doctrines of Jansen was imperative. Arnauld and his associates in Port Royal contended that, while the Holy See had authority to decide with respect to doctrine, and every good Catholic owed submission to such papal decisions, yet the See might be mistaken on a question of fact, such for instance as to whether a given book contained certain statements. The fullest account of the condemnation of the Jansenist doctrines is given by De Placette.[227]

In a decree of the Inquisition, issued in April, 1654, and cited in a brief of Innocent of the same year, all writings are specifically condemned which present and defend the doctrine contained in the _Augustinus_ of Jansen.

In 1657, this general prohibition was renewed and it stands in the later Indexes under the term _libri_, and, since Benedict XIV, in the _Decreta Gen._, ii, 5. During the rule of Alexander VII (1655–1667) the question again arose whether on the ground of the Bull of 1653 it was necessary to conclude that Jansen really had taught the five propositions in the sense in which they had been condemned. Arnauld, writing in 1655, took the ground that the Bull in no way decided this matter of the actual interpretation of the propositions, but decided simply that certain doctrine said to be contained in these propositions was itself to be condemned. It was Arnauld’s contention, therefore, that for devout believers a respectful silence (_silence respectueux_) concerning the issue ought to be observed. One result of Arnauld’s statement was his expulsion from the Sorbonne, which was followed by the publication of the famous _Letters_ of Pascal. In October, 1656, Alexander VII issued a Bull declaring that the five propositions had been correctly cited from the book of Jansen, and that the sense in which they had been condemned was the sense that the author had in his mind at the time of their writing. In this Bull, the Pope appears to make the claim, in regard to matters of dogma, of being able to determine the motives and the absolute purpose by which an author has been actuated in putting a statement into words.

From this time on, the main question turns upon the range or extent of the authority of the Church and particularly of the infallibility (in this matter of interpretation) of the pope. In a Bull of 1656, issued by Alexander VII as a result of an understanding with Louis XIV, it is ordered that all bishops, priests, monks, and nuns shall subscribe to a formula of which the following is the substance:

“I accept in full the authority of the Bull of Innocent X of May
31, 1653, and the Bull of Alexander VII of October, 1656, and
I reject and condemn without reservation the five propositions
referred to in these Bulls cited from the _Augustinus_ of
Jansen, in the sense which the author intended should be given
to said propositions, in which sense said propositions have been
condemned by the Holy See. I solemnly swear to abide by this
statement, so help me God and the holy Apostles.”

Four French bishops gave out in June, 1665, statements in which they declared that this formula was to be subscribed to with reservation in regard to the actual facts of doctrine contained in the series of papal bulls. These diocesan letters were themselves, in January, 1667, prohibited by the Congregation of the Index. The negotiations of the pope with the French Government in regard to further action against the four bishops was interrupted by the death in May, 1667, of Alexander VII. Under Alexander’s successor, Clement IX, an agreement was arrived at, the so-called “Peace of Clement,” by which the four bishops gave their signatures to the formula and addressed a memorial to the pope, stating that they were now prepared to condemn the five propositions without reservation of any kind in the sense in which these propositions had already been condemned by the Holy See. During the next ten years, the subscription to the formula was very generally made throughout France, with the same specific statement as that given by the four bishops to the pope. In this manner was finally brought to a close the Jansenist issue. In connection with this controversy, were placed upon the Index the titles of some hundred books, monographs, and pamphlets, chiefly by French authors. The list includes no less than twenty writings of Arnauld. The Spanish Index of 1707 contains the condemnation of the original work of Jansen, and of the five propositions, together with a general prohibition of all writings supporting these propositions. These hundred titles constituted but a very small fragment of the enormous mass of literature that was brought into print in France, in Holland, and in North Germany as a result of the controversy. One work, especially characteristic of the spirit of the time, may deserve more specific mention; the calendar for 1654, issued by certain Jesuits under the title of _La Déroute et la confusion des Jansénistes_, contains a frontispiece on copper; giving on the one side a view of the pope surrounded by cardinals and prelates and a flash of lightning striking in front of the group at a hydra with five heads (the five propositions); on the other side of the plate is seated on a throne Louis XIV, to whom Justice tenders the sword. Below is a representation of Jansen with the wings of a bat, flying into the arms of Calvin and other heresiarchs who stand surrounded by monstrosities representing error, ignorance, and dissipation. This group has, like the hydra, been struck by the flash of lightning emanating from the pope. The calendar was placed upon the Index, which did not prevent it from securing a wide circulation. Reusch speaks of a distribution during the first year of fourteen thousand copies.

_Writings of the Jansenists. 1571–1711._ In 1571, Pius V condemned in a separate prohibition a French version of the _Officium pavum B. M. V._ that had been prepared by one of the theologians of Port-Royal. In 1661, Alexander VII issued a brief condemning in very sharp terms a French version of the Book of the Mass, prohibiting also in general terms all editions in the vernacular of the Book of the Mass. In 1695, was prohibited a volume by Le Tourneaux, _L’Année Chrétienne_, because its text included a French version of the prayers of the Mass. A later prohibition of translations of the prayers of the Mass which had been accepted by the Jansenists, although evoking protests from the French bishops, was recalled. Benedict XIV recalled also the prohibition of Alexander VII which had been issued in 1661, with the general wording _Missale Romanum e Latino idiomate ad Gallicam vulgarem linguam conversum et typis evulgatum_. In 1668, a brief of Clement IX prohibits a translation of the New Testament which had been prepared by one of the divines of Port-Royal and which was known as the New Testament of Mons. This prohibition was, however, expressly limited to the edition in question, probably on the ground of certain of the notes contained in it. Clement does not undertake any general prohibition of editions in the vernacular of the Bible. In 1674, was prohibited a treatise issued under the title of _Monita Salutaria D. M. V._ This contains an argument against certain abuses that had arisen in the worship of Mary. It was sharply assailed by the Jesuits and was defended by most of the opponents of Jesuitism. There also found their way into the Index a series of later publications written to maintain the views of the _Monita_, including a treatise by Bailliet. A volume by Bailliet, presenting a study of the Saints, was prohibited on the express ground that it was hypocritical in character. Bailliet had undertaken in his biographies of the Saints to distinguish between the miracles and stories which were to be accepted, and others of which in his judgment the records were untrustworthy. Benedict XIV presents the conclusion that Bailliet had gone too far with his criticisms. He says[228]: _Homo vel certissimarum rerum veritatum, ut intemporenti ingenio est, sollicitans_. The Bishop Gapi, in 1711, prohibits the entire work on the ground that a number of dogmas and disciplinary articles were considered in it in a Jansenist or even a Protestant sense. The prohibitions had the effect, as was usually the case, of increasing the repute and the circulation of the work, which was repeatedly reprinted.

A treatise by Antoine Arnauld on frequent communion, published in 1643, was promptly denounced by the Inquisition although it had secured the approval of the French bishops. In 1645, the Abbé Bourgois succeeded in securing a cancellation of the judgment of the Inquisition. A century later, a Jesuit reply to Arnauld’s treatise, written by Pichon, came into the Index. In 1647, the Inquisition prohibited a volume by Martin de Bircos written in support of the doctrines presented by Arnauld. Martin speaks of the Apostles Peter and Paul as the “two leaders” of the early Church, which constituted the chief ground for the condemnation of the book, the authorities maintaining that the subordination of Paul to Peter was the only sound doctrine. Since the time of Benedict XIV, a general prohibition stands in the _Decreta Gen._ under the term _libri_, of all writings maintaining any opinion adverse to the supremacy of Peter.

_Controversies Connected with the Jansenist Contests._ During the 17th century, were prohibited a number of writings appearing outside of France and the Netherlands, which, while not classed directly as Jansenist, were concerned with the doctrine of Grace. In 1673, a treatise by the Augustine Noris (who was made a cardinal in 1695, and who died in 1704) on Pelagianism and the doctrine of Grace, was repeatedly condemned by the Jesuits and the Franciscans as containing Jansenist heresies. The volume was brought to Rome for investigation three times, and each time was declared to be sound in its orthodoxy. A number of other works which were denounced before the Roman authorities by the Jesuit leaders, on the ground of containing Jansenist heresies, the Congregation refused to condemn. The authors were in large part Dominicans and Augustinians who had brought into print the traditionary doctrine of Grace as taught in their own schools. Cardinal Bona complained that during these years every one who was not a Molinist was denounced by the Jesuits as a Jansenist. The Spanish Dominican, Gonzalez de Rosende, and the French Oratorian Jeunin, are the only theologians of note who come into the Roman Index during this period. The Congregation condemned, in 1722, a censure of the faculty of Douay in which the Dominicans, Contenso and Massoulié, had been accused of being Jansenists. The edition of the work of St. Augustine, edited by the Benedictines of St. Maur, was accused of being tainted with Jansenism, but the work succeeded in securing the approval of the Roman authorities. In 1704, a brief of Clement XI condemned a volume by Launoy, printed after the author’s death, in which the Augustinian doctrine of Grace was sharply opposed. A brief of Clement IX, in 1668, condemned the edition of the New Testament printed in Mons, the editors of which were charged with Jansenism.

_La Bibliothèque Janséniste._ In 1722, the Jesuit Dominique de Colonia, published under the title _Bibliothèque Janséniste_ a schedule of writings which the Jesuits classed as Jansenist in doctrine. The list includes the titles of a number of works which had not been prohibited in the Roman Indexes. In the Spanish Index of 1747, is included as an appendix this schedule of De Colonia reprinted from the second edition of his work. In both lists is included the title of a treatise by Cardinal Noris which, while more than once denounced in Rome, had, after repeated examinations, secured from the authorities a final approval. Application was made in 1748 by Benedict XIV to the inquisitor-general of Spain to cancel the condemnation of the treatise by Noris. This request received at the outset no consideration, but in connection with a later personal appeal from the Pope to the King of Spain, the condemnation was rescinded in 1758.

The _Bibliothèque Janséniste_ was, in 1749, prohibited by the Congregation of the Index. In 1750, were prohibited the _Pasquille_ written by the Jesuit, Ricchini, secretary of the Congregation. In 1752, Patouillet published a largely extended edition of the Bibliothèque under the title _Dictionnaire des Livres Jansénistes_. In this edition, the name of Noris was omitted, but there were included a number of works which, after examination had been approved in Rome, such as for instance the treatises by the Augustinians, Bellelli and Berti. This _Dictionnaire_ was prohibited in 1754.

_Pascal and Arnauld concerning the Morality of the Jesuits._ The famous _Letters_ of Pascal, which were issued in 1656 without the name of the author, were promptly prohibited by the Inquisition in 1657. The title of the book has been continued in later Indexes in the class of anonymous writings. Certain defences of their doctrines against the assaults of Pascal published by the Jesuits, were themselves prohibited. The most noteworthy of this group of Jesuit replies were the treatises by Pirot and Daniel. A Latin edition of the Pascal _Letters_, published a year or two later under the name of Wendrockius, was not prohibited, while a reply to the same, published under the name of Stubockius, was placed on the Index. The essay by Arnauld, printed in 1643 under the title of _Théologie Morale du Jesuit_, can be considered as a precursor of the Pascal _Letters_. In 1669 and 1683, were printed the first two volumes of a work entitled _Le Morale pratique des Jesuits_, which was written by the Abbé de Pont Château. During the years 1689–1695, five additional volumes were issued under the same title, which were the work of Arnauld. The first two were prohibited but the last five escaped condemnation. In 1700, was prohibited the _Teatro Jesuitico_, a monograph written against the Jesuits by Le Tellier, which had been published forty-six years earlier. One matter which receives in these volumes of Arnauld a large measure of attention, the contest between the Jesuits and Bishop Palafox, was the subject during both the 17th and 18th centuries of a large amount of controversial writing, and plays an important part in the Spanish Index. A decree in the Roman Index of 1656 orders eliminated from one volume of the Lyons edition of the Bellarmin six pages which give the Jesuitical view of the decision presented in the brief of Innocent X concerning this matter of Palafox. Palafox, who was a Dominican, had been a bishop in Mexico, but in 1653, became Bishop of Osma where he died in 1659. It was in Osma that he came into issue with the Spanish Jesuits and, in 1649, he presented to Innocent X a formidable brief or complaint against Jesuit theory and practice. In 1648, the Pope gave a decision in favour of the Bishop.

_Contests in the Netherlands, 1690–1712._ The contest in the Netherlands between the Jansenist and the Jesuit parties in the Church became active after Precipiano, heretofore Bishop of Bruges, had, in 1690, become Archbishop of Mechlin. In 1690, he attempted in union with the other bishops, to put into shape a formula or declaration which went far in advance of that issued by Alexander VII. Innocent XII, in a brief issued in February, 1695, ordered that subscriptions should be required only for the formula of Alexander VII and that demand should be made, on the part of those giving this subscription, for the condemnation of the famous propositions taken from the book of Jansen in their obvious or essential meaning (_in sensu obvio_) without reference to the sense that may have been intended by the author (_in sensu ab auctore intento_). At the same time, the Pope ordered that no further references should be made in regard to the interpretation of the formula or the matter of the five propositions, and the bishops were prohibited from making such question or requirement of interpretation a ground for the exclusion from office or from functions of any ecclesiastics, or that on the same ground any ecclesiastic should be classed as a Jansenist. This decision may be considered as a confirmation of the “Peace of Clement IX.” At this time were prohibited a number of writings containing denunciations of Belgian Jansenists, and a number of other controversial writings, including a treatise by the Jesuit, Jacques de la Fontaine, who was the confessor of Archbishop Precipiano. Precipiano on his part, in a decree of January, 1695, undertook to prohibit Jansenist writings, and he secured in this year orders from the King of Spain (Charles II) under which all those suspected of Jansenist doctrines were to be ruled out of office whether ecclesiastical or civil. As a result of fresh complaints presented in Rome, Innocent XII issues in July, 1696, a second brief confirming the earlier one and declaring specifically that no modifications should be made in the terms of the Bull or of the formula of Alexander VII. In the years succeeding, there continued to be placed in the Index, apparently for the purpose of checking the controversy, a number of writings against the Jansenists. The list of writers includes Palazol and Desirant. In 1703, Precipiano took fresh action against the Jansenists--Gerberon and Quesnel who, since the death of Arnauld (in August, 1694) were held as the leaders among the French Jansenists in Belgium, were arrested under the authority of the Roman Inquisition and of the Spanish Government, were tried and were declared to have fallen under excommunication. There came into the Index lists, in connection with this later outbreak, controversial writings by Opstraet, Henricus a. S., Ignatio, and Fr. Martin. In January, 1695, Bishop Precipiano published, in the form of a diocesan decree, a small Index of his own which was devoted entirely to Jansenist writings. The sixty titles in the lists include various treatises of Arnauld, Huygens, Quesnel, Gilles de Witte, and a number of anonymous controversial monographs. In Rome, no attention was paid to this Index, and a remonstrance printed by Quesnel was not even prohibited. Precipiano prohibits the reading, copying, or distribution of a letter addressed to him in February, 1694, by Hennevel, which letter concerned itself with the matter of the formula. The Inquisition condemned this letter on the ground of the disobedience of the instructions of the pope for silence in regard to the subject and also because of certain ill-advised expressions, and Hennevel was a few months later compelled to retract his utterance. A letter of Precipiano, addressed to the court at Madrid, and written in 1695, says:

“It is impossible to rout out Jansenists from the Netherlands
unless the King accomplishes this through his own authority.
From Rome under the present Pope nothing is to be hoped. He
himself will do nothing and he leaves the responsibility to
the Congregations which were demanded by Cardinal Casanoti and
Bernini who are protectors of the Jansenist heresies.”[229]

Arnauld, who may be classed as among the most important of the defenders of Jansenism, died in 1694. Very few of his writings had escaped the prohibition of the Index but the Memoirs of him written by Quesnel, _Histoire de la vie et des ouvrages de Monsieur Arnauld_, printed in 1695, escaped condemnation. As late as 1704, however, was prohibited the treatise by Arnauld entitled _Instructions sur la Grâce selon l’écriture et les pères, avec l’exposition de la foire de l’Eglise Romaine touchant la Grâce et la predestination_.

_The Church of Utrecht._ The issues between the two great divisions of Church opinion which were classed, speaking briefly, as Jansenist and Jesuit, were active also in Holland, although in that country the Catholic Church had a comparatively small group of followers and the direct Jesuit influence was itself inconsiderable. In Holland as in England, the question arose as to whether Catholics residing in Protestant lands were properly subject to local bishops or to Apostolic vicars. In England, during a series of centuries, Apostolic vicars had exercised the control over the faithful and the larger number of the English Catholics did not come into relations with any local bishops. In Holland, however, the hierarchy of the Church had never been entirely destroyed. There remained, for instance, in active existence chapters by which were elected archbishops of Utrecht who exercised control over the Catholics in the five suffragan bishoprics for which, since the Reformation, no suffragan had been appointed. It was contended on the one hand that these archbishops retained the full authority of the office, even in the cases in which the office was held not by the Archbishop of Utrecht but by an official taking his title from a foreign bishopric or archbishopric; on the other hand, the view was maintained that since the Reformation, Holland possessed the character of a mission land and that the archbishop possessed the functions only of an Apostolic vicar. These issues brought about a formal breach between those holding the two sets of opinions, when, in 1702, Clement XI deposed the Archbishop, Peter Codde, and named as Apostolic-vicar Theodor Cock. The latter was not permitted by the Government of Holland to make his residence in the country and the supervision of the “Dutch Mission” was therefore transferred to the nuncius in Cologne. The chapters in Holland protested against this measure and, after 1724, they elected in unbroken succession archbishops of Utrecht who, between 1742 and 1758, made appointments of bishops for the dioceses of Haarlem and Deventer. The breach was still further widened because the Chapters of Utrecht and Haarlem and the ecclesiastics belonging to these dioceses appealed for a decision of a general council of the Church, not only in regard to the particular papal measures above specified, but also on the ground of the Bull _Unigenitus_. In 1707, were prohibited in a brief of Clement XI a long series of works by Dutch writers having to do with the deposition of Archbishop Codde and, later in the year, came also into the Index a number of further treatises written in defence of the claim of the Church of Utrecht. The most important works of this group were those of the Louvain jurist, van Espen, whose _Jus ecclesiasticum_ was prohibited in 1704 and whose name came into the Index in 1734 connected with his entire series of writings.

=2. The Bull Unigenitus.=--Pasquier Quesnel (1634–1719) published in 1671, the first part of his _Commentary on the New Testament_. The completed work was prohibited in 1708, in a brief of Clement XI. In 1675, Quesnel published an edition of the works of Leo the Great, the notes to which he utilised for a defence of Gallican liberties. This work was placed on the Index in 1676. In 1685, finding himself unable to subscribe to a document in condemnation of Jansenism, Quesnel retired from Orleans to Brussels. There, as a result in part of his association with Arnauld, he completed, in 1695, under the title of _Reflexions Morales sur le Nouveau Testament_, the _Commentary_, the first part of which had been issued in 1671.

At the instance of Louis XIV, Clement issued in September, 1713, the Bull _Unigenitus_ in which the condemnation of the Commentary of Quesnel is confirmed and a hundred and one propositions selected from the Commentary are specifically condemned. In the case of a number of these propositions, no specification is given in the Bull for the ground of their disapproval, and it was contended by the supporters of Quesnel that it was not possible to point out in these any utterance of heresy or of unsound doctrine.

The following propositions may be cited as representing the character of the series:

_79. Utile, et necessarium est omni tempore, omni loco, et omni personarum generi studere, et cognoscere spiritum, pietatem, et mysteria Sacrae Scripturae_ (It is useful and necessary at all times, in every place, and for every sort of person, to study and know the spirit, the piety, and the mysteries of Holy Scripture).

_80. Lectis Sacrae Scripturae est pro omnibus_ (The reading of Holy Scripture is for all).

_81. Obscuritas sancta Verbi Dei non est laicis ratio dispensandi se ipsos ab ejus lectione_ (The sacred obscurity of the Word of God is no reason for the laity to absolve themselves from the reading of it).

_82. Dies Dominicus a Christianis debet sanctificari lectionibus pietatis, et super omnia Sanctarum Scripturarum. Damnosum est velle Christianum ab hac lectione retrahere._ (The Lord’s day should be kept holy by Christians by pious reading, and above all by the reading of Holy Scripture. It is hurtful for a Christian to wish to withdraw from such readings).

_83. Est illusio, sibi persuadere, quod notitia Mysteriorum Religionis non debeat communicari foeminis, lectione sacrorum librorum. Non ex foeminarum simplicitate, sed ex superba Virorum scientia, ortus est Scripturarum abusus, et natae sunt haereses._ (It is a mistake to believe that knowledge of the mysteries of religion ought not to be communicated to women by the reading of the holy books. Not from the simplicity of women, but from the haughty science of men has the abuse of the Scriptures arisen and have heresies been born.)

_84. Abripere e Christianorum manibus Novum Testamentum, seu eis illud clausum tenere, auferendo eis modum illud intelligendi, est illis Christi os obturare_ (To tear the New Testament from the hands of Christians or to keep it closed to them by depriving them of this mode of understanding, is to stop for them the mouth of Christ).

_85. Interdicere Christianis lectionem Sacrae Scripturae, praesertim Evangelii, est interdicere usum luminis filiis lucis, et facere ut patiantur speciem quondam excommunicationis_ (To forbid Christians the reading of Holy Scripture, especially of the Gospel, is to forbid the use of light to the children of light, and to make them suffer a certain form of excommunication).[230]

The Bull was accepted and published by the Parliament of Paris and by a majority of the faculty of the Sorbonne, and it was also published in the dioceses in the greater number of the bishoprics. The Cardinal Noailles, Archbishop of Paris, in making publication of the Bull, gives his general approval with certain reservations which were held by the Holy See to be invidious and as tending to schism. The Cardinal’s brief was itself condemned by the Inquisition. After the death of Louis XIV (September, 1715), the theological faculties of the Sorbonne and of the French universities made open declaration against the Bull, and no less than thirty bishops declared that they had accepted the Bull only on condition of certain reservations and explanations. The bishops made applications to the Regent to secure from the pope an interpretation of the full purport of the hundred and one propositions and an explanation of the precise grounds for the condemnation of these. In 1717, four of the French bishops made appeal to the general council for a decision in the matter. Later, other bishops, including Cardinal Noailles and a number of ecclesiastics and laymen, united in this appeal. This group were given the name of Appellants and their opponents were called Acceptants or constitutionals. The question as to whether the hundred and one propositions were or were not heretical or erroneous, fell more and more into the background and the issue finally took the shape as to whether a dogmatic Bull was to be accepted as a final decision of questions of doctrine, and whether such Bull was to be obeyed as an infallible and final judgment. The pope, however, so far from modifying in any way the decision presented in the original Bull, re-emphasised his position in a second Bull issued in 1719. In this, he presents the conclusion that the condemnation of the propositions was in itself final and authoritative and demanded from the Church unquestioning obedience. In 1720, an understanding was arrived at under which certain of the Appellants recalled their signatures to the original application while others repeated the first contention. These latter came to be known as Re-appellants.

In 1722, seven French bishops appealed to Innocent XIII to revoke the Bull and to summon a general council. Their letter was formally condemned by the Inquisition. Benedict XIII, in a Bull issued in 1724, declares that the doctrines of St. Augustine and St. Thomas Aquinas are not affected by the Bull _Unigenitus_. The Pope was personally inclined to enter into further explanations or definitions of the purport of the Bull, but a provincial council, held in Rome in 1725, had taken the ground that the Bull was to be accepted as a rule of faith, and, in 1727, the Pope confirmed the proceedings of a provincial council held at Embrunn, at which council Bishop Soanen of Sénez, one of the most active of the Appellants, had been suspended. As a result of this action of the council and of the approval given to the same by the Pope, the open opposition to the Bull on the part of the French bishops was for the time brought to a close, and in 1730, the faculty of the Sorbonne also gave in its submission. In 1734, the Dominican, Serry, published anonymously, under the title _Theologia Supplex_, an analysis of the purport of the Bull, with reference more particularly to the condemnation of certain of the one hundred and one propositions in which it had not proved practicable to indicate any heretical teaching. This treatise was promptly prohibited, as had been done with Serry’s previous volume on papal infallibility.

A letter of the Duchess of Orleans (Elizabeth Charlotte of the Palatinate) written during the last years of Louis XIV, contains the following reference to the Bull:

“_On avait fait au Roi une telle peur de l’enfer, qu’il
croyait que tout ceux qui n’avaient pas été instruits par les
Jesuites étaient damnés, et qu’il cragnait d’être damné aussi
s’il les fréquentait. Quand on voulait perdre quel qu’un,
on n’avait qu’à dire: il est Huguenot ou Janséniste; alors
l’affaire était faite._ The Maréchal d’Harcourt says that a
Jansenist is nothing else than a man that one desires to hang as
quickly as possible.”[231]

After 1731, the Parliament of Paris took action antagonistic to the position of the so-called Curialist bishops (the bishops who had given their adhesion to the full contentions of the Holy See) more particularly with reference to the policy pursued by these bishops in refusing to the Appellants the privilege of the sacraments and of burial in consecrated ground. The bishops had question among themselves in regard to the recognition of the authority of the Parliament to take action in a matter so purely ecclesiastical, and they made application to Rome for instructions. In a brief issued in October, 1756, Benedict XIV decided that the sacraments should be denied only to the more strenuous and noteworthy of the opponents of the Bull. This decision caused no little dissatisfaction to the more bitter of the antagonists of the Appellants, particularly because the Pope had referred to the Bull not as expressing a final and immutable conclusion of the Church, but simply as a papal utterance which was entitled to respectful acceptance.

The Indexes of Innocent XIII and Clement XII contain the titles of about one hundred works which had come into print as a result of the controversies concerning the Bull. The list includes twenty-two official publications (decrees, pastoral letters, appeals to Rome, etc.) of the French bishops, and four edicts of the Parliament of Paris. These official documents were for the greater part condemned under the authority of the Inquisition, but in a few instances, the condemnation was arrived at by a papal brief. In the case of Colbert, Bishop of Montpellier, and of Caylus, Bishop of Auxerre, the entire works were prohibited, on the ground, apparently, of certain utterances in sympathy with the Appellants. The hundred prohibited works comprised but a small proportion of the mass of literature in regard to the controversy that came into print. For the purpose of meeting the risk of the omission of controversial writings of importance, the Inquisition had, as early as February, 1717, prohibited all writings in which the Bull might be in any manner opposed or criticised, directly or indirectly. This prohibition, as worded, appears to cover not only works at that time in existence, but all others of the character specified which might later be printed or written.

This general prohibition was incorporated by Benedict XIV in the _Decreta Generalia_, ii., 61, with the addition of the following classes: all books written in support of the conclusions presented in the writings of Quesnel; all appeals from the authority of the Bull to a general council; all resolutions and decisions coming from the theological faculties or individual theologians or academies, in which were presented any criticisms of the papal authority or of the policy indicated in the Bull; all acts, decrees, letters, declarations and statements of any kind in which, under the pretence of the explanation of doctrines or of the analysis of the relations between the authority of the pope and that of civil government, or under any pretence whatsoever, the validity and conclusive authority of the Bull were in any way brought into question. This prohibition, as worded, was made to apply not only to writings at that time in existence but to any future writings of the character specified.

In the Spanish Index of 1747, the Bull _Unigenitus_ is printed in full, and all the writings of Quesnel are prohibited. The Spanish Index contains, however, but a small portion of the long series of works produced by the controversy which had been condemned in Rome. The Spanish compilers added the titles of some few works which had escaped the attention of the Roman Inquisition.

The Bull bearing the title _Unigenitus Dei Filius_ was signed by the Pope (Innocent XII) on the 8th of September, 1713. It begins with the statement that a work had been brought into print in Paris in 1699, which it had been found necessary to condemn.

This work is entered in the Index under the title _Abrégé et Testament_ (no reference is made by name to Quesnel). “On a first examination, the earnest reader may easily be attracted by the appearance of piety and of scholarship, but the volumes present in fact, intermingled with accepted Catholic doctrines, a series of lies and of pernicious errors.” The insidious teachings in these volumes had misled not a few of the faithful and had even secured the approval of certain of the French bishops. “It had therefore seemed to the Holy See to be essential to make clear to the Church the serious and pernicious nature of the doctrines that the writer of these volumes was attempting to maintain; and to this end would be presented, with the necessary interpretations, a series of propositions selected from the text.” The Pope felt assured “that a thorough exposition of the errors contained in these propositions should prove of service to the faithful throughout the world and ought to be of particular service in bringing to a close the unprofitable contests that had arisen in France. Such an authoritative exposition had in fact been applied for by the French bishops and by King Louis.” This statement is followed by the citation (given in both French and Latin) of one hundred and one propositions, with references in the margin to the pages of the original text from which they had been cited. These propositions are there described as “false, deceitful, injurious for pious ears, as tending to undermine the beliefs of the faithful, the creed of the Church, and the foundations of the civil power, as godless, blasphemous, and schismatic. They have for their purpose the strengthening of the influence of damnable heresies, and especially of those which have emanated from the Jansenists.”

The specific condemnation of these particular propositions is not to be understood as an approval by implication of the remaining text of the book. The whole work is pernicious and the reading of it is prohibited. The text itself of the New Testament that has been printed in connection with the commentary has been corrupted in the most abominable fashion. The reading, printing, or distribution of the book brings upon the delinquent the penalty of the _excommunicatio latae sententiae_ and the same penalty is made to apply, without further specification, to all works in existence or hereafter produced which may undertake the defence of the Quesnel volumes.

The Jesuit Daubenton, writing from Rome to Fénelon, says:

“No work has ever received a more thorough, comprehensive,
and conscientious examination. During a term of three years, a
group of the most able theologians in Rome, representatives of
the several schools of doctrine and of ecclesiastical thought,
gave their labour to this examination. The examiners included
Le Drou from the Augustinians, the master of the palace and the
secretary of the Index Congregation from the Thomists, Palermo
Santelia from the Scotists, Alfaro, for the Jesuits, the Bishop
of Lipari, a Benedictine, for the school of Anselm, Castelli for
the mission orders, etc.”

Writing to Fénelon after the publication of the Bull, Daubenton says:

“Everybody appears to have taken action to prevent this Bull
from being given out. A number of the cardinals have represented
that there was risk of serious dissension in the Church.
The Pope remained firm in his decision to meet the wishes
of the King. The Bull is finally accepted by the cardinals
only after a bitter contest. The Dominican cardinal, Ferrari,
felt at one time assured that he would be able to prevent the
publication.”[232]

Gieseler points out[233] that the one hundred and one propositions include a number for which conclusive authority can be found in the Scriptures themselves, while others are taken directly from the writings of St. Augustine and of others of the Fathers. The Bull fails to make clear, he says, the sense in which these are erroneous or the grounds on which they are to be condemned. Fénelon, who was much pleased at the publication of the Bull, writes that “the fear of a possibly unjust excommunication ought not to be permitted to deter us from doing our direct duty; but if the excommunication constitutes an injustice only in the conception of the person concerned and the duty is but putative or imaginary, or there is at least good ground for doubt in regard to it, then is the proposition false, and all the more dangerous because it bears the appearance of truth.”

The Jesuit Yves André (†1764) writes[234]:

“I perceive here propositions which are bad in purpose and
in conclusion, grouped together with others which represent
manifest truths. These two classes are condemned together with
a long string of invectives and no explanation is vouchsafed to
us as to the varying grounds for the condemnation of statements
which differ materially from each other.”

The Bull was referred by Louis XIV to a commission of bishops which decided that it should be published accompanied by a pastoral letter presenting explanations of the essential matters in question.

In March, 1714, the Sorbonne, after some stirring discussions, accepted the Bull by a bare majority. In 1714, at the special instance of the pope, the Congregation condemned the _Lettre Pastorale et Mandement_ of Cardinal Noailles, Archbishop of Paris, as heretical and tending to schism. Louis XIV had previously, in indignation at the “Jansenist views” of the Cardinal, indicated by his opposition to the Bull, forbidden him approach to the court.

In 1714, the King suggested to the pope the desirability of calling a national council of the French Church, for the general object of bringing to a close the remnants of the Jansenist dissensions, and with the special purpose of bringing discipline to bear on Cardinal Noailles. The pope gave favourable consideration to the plan, but the death of the King, in September, 1715, prevented its being carried out. The Duke of Orleans, who became Regent, was less sharply opposed to the Jansenist group. He prohibited, in 1716, the printing of certain censures that had been ordered by the Assembly of the Clergy for treatises by du Fouillon on the Bull _Unigenitus_, and on the Evidence of the True Faith. The Sorbonne, in modification of its previous conclusions, made in December, 1715, a renewed protest against the Bull, which protest was supported by the other theological faculties of the kingdom. Thirty bishops declared to the Regent that they had given their acceptance of the Bull only on condition that it should be published with explanations and specifications.

Clement XI demanded the immediate submission, under penalty of deposition, of Noailles and the protesting bishops. He declared that the bishops named by the Regent would be confirmed only after they had given in their assent to the publication and execution of the Bull; and he suspended, in November, 1716, by a brief, the privileges that had been conveyed by the Holy See to the Sorbonne. These briefs were, however, refused confirmation and publication by the Regent and the Parliament. During 1717, the Inquisition condemned, at the instance of the pope, a series of statements and letters from the French ecclesiastics, and of acts of the Parliament, and also certain decrees of the Sorbonne. In October, 1717, the Regent commanded that there should thereafter be absolute silence concerning these ecclesiastical issues, and the Parliament condemned and prohibited certain writings, including an appeal from Noailles and the decree of the Inquisition. Under Innocent XIII, who, in 1721, succeeded Clement XI, the contest and the controversies continued, and the lists of the Index were swelled with the titles of the controversial monographs, letters, etc.

In the Netherlands, the opposition to the Bull _Unigenitus_ was even stronger than in France, representing in fact a substantial unanimity on the part of the clergy. Under the direction of De Bossu, the successor of Precipiano as Archbishop of Mechlin, the Church of Utrecht took the lead in the contest. A series of the writings of the Netherland divines, which were important only in connection with the pending question, were placed on the Index promptly after publication.

In Italy, the Bishop of Orvieto was, in 1719, denounced as an opponent of the Bull, and was imprisoned. After he had formally recanted his declaration, he was confined for the remainder of his life in a monastery. In 1724, Innocent XIII was succeeded by Benedict XIII, a Dominican and a Thomist. The new Pope took steps to allay, through a more liberal interpretation of the Bull, the antagonisms that had arisen. A Roman provincial council, called in 1725, arrived, however, at the conclusion that the Bull must be respected by all the faithful.

In 1728, Noailles, at that time seventy-seven years old, apparently wearied of the long struggle, recalled his previous protests and accepted the Bull. He received from the Pope a jubilee Bull and letter of congratulation. He died the year following. In 1730, the Government secured the acceptance of the Bull on the part of the Sorbonne by means of the deprivation, for forty-eight of its antagonists, of the right to vote. This appears to have brought the matter to a close as far as France was concerned.

In 1727, died François Paris, a deacon of Paris, who was credited with having worked a series of miracles. Paris had been known in Rome as an active opponent of the Bull _Unigenitus_. The Inquisition took prompt action therefore in condemning, in 1731, the _Memoirs of Paris_, and various records of his miracles. He was described as a stubborn Jansenist, a schismatic, and a heretic, and his “false miracles” as calculated to injure the faith of believers, and to render them disobedient to the See.

Under Clement XII, were prohibited later a long series of writings on the miracles. Under Benedict XIV, were placed upon the Index, among other works on the same subject, a record of the life of Jean Soanen and his _Testament Spirituel_; a narrative of the miracles produced in the person of Marianne Pollet; the posthumous works of the Bishop of Babylon, on the ground of the consideration given in these to certain miracles that had been worked against the Archbishop of Sens. In 1755, a convention of the French clergy gave consideration to the question of the treatment to be given to the opponents of the Bull, more particularly with reference to the administration of the sacraments. The majority opinion was in favour of mild measures. The conclusions were submitted to Rome, and the decision given by Benedict XIV confirmed the policy of the mildest possible treatment of the minority party.

In connection with the controversies concerning the Bull _Unigenitus_, there arose in France further issues in regard to the relations between the several orders of the clergy. Writers like Nicholas le Gros (1675–1751) took the ground that the bishops had authority to give binding decisions in regard to such matters as the acceptance of a Bull, etc., only in connection with conclusions arrived at by the whole body of the clergy. Another writer took the ground that between bishops and priests there was no essential difference. A number of these writings were formally censured by the Sorbonne and by diocesan conventions, but no one of them found its way into the Index.

=3. Controversial Writings between 1665 and 1730 in Regard to Theological Morality.=--In September of 1665 and May of 1666, under edicts of Alexander VII, a long series (forty-five in all) of propositions of the Casuists were condemned without specification of the books in which these propositions had appeared. Similar edicts were published later under Innocent XI and Alexander VIII. Matthaeus de Moya, writing first under the name of Giumenus, undertook the defence of the Jesuit Casuists against the doctrines of Spanish theologians, chiefly Dominicans. This _Apologia_ of de Moya was, in 1665, sharply censured by the Sorbonne and was prohibited in 1666 by the Index Congregation, in 1675 by the Inquisition, and in 1680 by a special brief of Innocent XI. In Spain, the work of De Moya, so far from being prohibited, was held in general favour. In 1670 and 1672, under Clement X, were prohibited writings by Fabri and Baron. Fabri was one of the most noteworthy of the Dominican critics of the Jesuits, and Baron was one of the most learned of the Jesuit Casuists of his day. Neither of these volumes appears in the Spanish Index. One of the more important of the works on theological morality by a Jesuit, was printed in 1694 by Thyrsus Gonzalez, General of the Order, under the title of _Probabilissimus_. This treatise is described as taking strong ground against a number of the Jesuit contentions and theories. Gonzalez had apparently undertaken to correct certain moral principles maintained by his Order, principles which were in his judgment erroneous. In 1705, a treatise of the Jesuit Balthazar Francolinus, under the title of _Rigorismus_, was printed in Rome with the approval of Clement XI; a number of replies to this were prohibited.

END OF VOLUME I

FOOTNOTES:

[1] _Büchernachdruck_, 14.

[2] _Remains of Bishop Barlow_, London, 1693, 70–71.

[3] Mendham, 4.

[4] _De Jure_, etc., 328. Cited by Mendham, 283.

[5] _Ibid._, 320.

[6] _De Justa Hæreticorum Punitione._ Venice, 1549. p. 228.

[7] _Concil. di Trento_, v, 128.

[8] Mendham, 342.

[9] _Annales Typographici_, vii, 258.

[10] L. Graetz, _Gesch. der Juden_, viii, 112, 462.

[11] Milton’s _Areopagitica_, Lond., 1819., 17 _et seq._

[12] Acts xix, 19.

[13] Zeller, _Philosophie der Griechen_, i, 4, cited by Kapp, 523, 524.

[14] _Const. Apost._, lib. i, cviii, cited by Lea, 15.

[15] Thos. J. Shahan, in the _Catholic University Bulletin_, January, 1905.

[16] _Cod. Theod._, i, 16, tit. 5.

[17] _Prosper. Chron._ Paris, 1711, 749.

[18] _Conc. Gesch._, ii, 217.

[19] Mansi, viii, 1153.

[20] Ibid., xi, 582.

[21] Baillet, i, 26.

[22] Hefele, iv, 712.

[23] Hefele, v, 833.

[24] Cited by an anonymous writer in the Dublin _University Review_, Jan., 1906.

[25] Döllinger, 334.

[26] _Arg._, i a, 270.

[27] _Arg._, i a, 355.

[28] Wilkins, iii, 314.

[29] Harduin, ix, 1449.

[30] Schulte, _Gesch._, ii, 372.

[31] Graetz, _Gesch. der Jüden_, vii, 112, 462.

[32] Döllinger, _Beitr._, ii, 393.

[33] Wolf, _Biblioth. Hebr._ ii, 883.

[34] Eymeric, _App._ 119.

[35] Graetz, ix, 381.

[36] Graetz, ix, 39L.

[37] Reusch, i, 52.

[38] Hartzheim, _Podihomnus Hist. Univ. Col._, 8.

[39] Grasse, _Lit. Gesch._, iii, 317.

[40] Mendham, 13.

[41] Gudenus, _Cod. Diplom._, iv, 469.

[42] Hilgers, 327.

[43] Mansi, _Conc._, vi, 681.

[44] Gudenus, iv, 589.

[45] Labbe, xiv, 257.

[46] Strype, i, 1, 254.

[47] Wilkins, _Concil. Mag. Brit._, iii, 706.

[48] Blunt, i, 80.

[49] Wilkins, iii, 74.

[50] Wilkins, _Concil. Mag. Brit._, iii, 403.

[51] Dixon, _Hist. Ch. of England_, i, 34.

[52] _Ibid._, i, 39.

[53] _Ibid._, i, 40.

[54] Blunt, i, 92.

[55] Wilkins, _Concil._, Fox, iii, 403.

[56] Dixon, ii, 422.

[57] Wilkins, iv, 37.

[58] Labbe, xiv, 736.

[59] Wilkins, iv, 250.

[60] Wilkins, iv, 340.

[61] _Kerkh. Archief._, i, 10.

[62] Reusch, i, 99.

[63] Reusch, i, 100.

[64] _Ibid._ i, 100.

[65] Jourdain, _Index chronol._, Chart No. 1594.

[66] Jourdain, No. 1753.

[67] Reusch, i, 147.

[68] Fréville, _La police des livres du 16ème siècle_. Paris, 1853.

[69] _Arg._, ii, a, 164, 167.

[70] Maittaire, ii, 220.

[71] _Arg._, ii, 301.

[72] _Letters from the Nuncio of Pius IV at Paris_, i, p. 111.

[73] Llorente, i, 463.

[74] _Ibid._, i, 467.

[75] Ranke, _Deutsch. Gesch._, i, 341.

[76] Friedrich, 143.

[77] Le Plat, ii, 162.

[78] Hoffmann, _Gesch. der Bücher-censors_, 67.

[79] Hoffmann, 77.

[80] Lea, 26.

[81] Köstlin, _Luther_, i, 228.

[82] Blunt, _Ref. of the Ch. of Eng._, i, 81.

[83] Bull I, 264.

[84] _Ibid._, 507.

[85] _Promta. Biblioth: s. v. Libri Prohibiti_, n. 27

[86] Gretser, _De Jure Prohibendi_, Opera xiii, 97.

[87] Avanzini (13).

[88] Bull II, 496.

[89] Schulte, _Lehrbuch_, 70.

[90] _Constitutio S. D. N. Pii IX._

[91] Peignot, xxv.

[92] Mendham, 260.

[93] _Ibid._, 261.

[94] _Inquisition in the Middle Ages_, i, 305.

[95] _ibid._, i, 309.

[96] Lea, i, 311.

[97] Lea, i, 319.

[98] Lea, i, 322.

[99] Lea, i, 36.

[100] Reusch, i, 172.

[101] Reusch, i, 172.

[102] Mendham, 15.

[103] Reusch, i, 178.

[104] Cited by Soames, in the _History of the Reformation of the Church of England_, iv, 573.

[105] Catalanus, _De Magistro Sacri Palatii_, etc., Rome, 1751; Reusch, i, 432.

[106] _Ibid._, i, 433.

[107] _Script. Ord. Praed._, i, p. xxi.

[108] Hilgers, 32.

[109] _Erotem_, ii, sect. 465–471.

[110] Mendham, 12.

[111] _Annales Typog._, viii, 258.

[112] _Briefe_, Part I, Berlin, 1825, viii, 15–16.

[113] Reusch, 148.

[114] Michiels, Charles, _Collection concernant les Expurgations et Censures des Livres_. Anvers, 1781.

[115] Mendham, 39.

[116] Llorente, i, 464.

[117] Reusch, i, 219.

[118] Reusch, i, 225.

[119] Schelhorn, _Amoenitates historiae ecclesiasticae et literariae_. Frankfort and Leipsic, 1737.

[120] Cited by Mendham, 48.

[121] For further reference to the expurgated editions of the _Decameron_, see Chapter XXV, on the book-trade of Italy.

[122] In the Index of Trent, the permit of the bishop was required only for works on sacred subjects, _de rebus sacris_.

[123] Cited by Mendham, 53.

[124] _Historia Sui Temporis_, xi, 262.

[125] Cited by Reusch, i, 297.

[126] Huttinger, 9, 408.

[127] _Mémoires de la R. Acad. de Hist._, vii, 154.

[128] _Zeitsch. für Phil._, 26, 289.

[129] The translation is that of Townley, ii, 429–485.

[130] _Archiv. für Oester. Gesch._, 1, 268.

[131] _Archiv. für Deutsch. Buchh._, v, 147.

[132] _Beiträge_, ii, 63.

[133] _Arch. Stor. App._, viii, 199.

[134] Macchiavelli, ii, 412.

[135] _Renascence Portraits_, 135.

[136] M. xxviii.

[137] Dejob, 94.

[138] Dejob, 105.

[139] _Storia della Letteratura Italiana secolo 16_, chap. ii.

[140] Dejob, 312.

[141] Cited by Dejob, p. 77.

[142] Dejob, p. 78.

[143] Dejob, 59.

[144] Ibid. 60.

[145] This schedule is based upon Reusch.

[146] Bromato, ii, 186.

[147] Llorente, iii, 187.

[148] Carena, _Tr. de Off. S. Inq._

[149] Theiner, i, 667.

[150] _Arch. des Deutsch. Buchh._, ii, 6.

[151] _Ibid._, i, 176.

[152] Sugenheim, _Baierns Kirchen und Volkszustande_, 8^o, Munich, 1842.

[153] Reusch, i, 473.

[154] _Staats Archiv Münchens._

[155] Schroetschke, _Codex Nundinarius_, xix.

[156] Mendham, 114, 116.

[157] Cardona, Joh. Bapt., _De Expungendis, etc._, Rome, 1576.

[158] Reusch, i, 439.

[159] Mendham, 75.

[160] Reusch, i, 408.

[161] Reusch, i., 426.

[162] Mendham, 217.

[163] _Coll. de Documents inédits_, 41, 278.

[164] Mendham, 132.

[165] Llorente, i, 479.

[166] Mendham, 95.

[167] Llorente, i, 282.

[168] Cited by Reusch, ii, 234.

[169] Mendham, 114.

[170] Mendham, 105.

[171] Leti, Part II, Book IV, 385, cited by Mendham, 109.

[172] Mendham, 164.

[173] Mendham, 170.

[174] Reusch, ii, 26.

[175] _Discorso dell’ Origini dell’ Inquisitione_, 173, Venice, 1639.

[176] Mendham, 131.

[177] Reusch ii, 553.

[178] James, Thos., _A treatise on the corruption of Scripture, Councils and Fathers by the Prelates, Pastors and Pillars of the Church of Rome for the maintenance of Popery and Irreligion_. London, 1612.

[179] Mendham, 84.

[180] _Ep._, 95, Opus 2, 239.

[181] _Vindiciae Gregorianae_, Geneva, 1625.

[182] Reusch, ii, 559.

[183] Reusch, ii, 84.

[184] _Weitere Entwickelung der Thomistisch-Molinistischen Controverse_, 34.

[185] _Catalani de Secretario S. Cong. Indicis_, l, i, ix.

[186] Mendham, 143.

[187] Mendham, 146.

[188] 1827, i, 118 _et seq._

[189] Cited by Mendham, 135.

[190] Cited by Mendham, 161.

[191] Mendham, 239.

[192] _Hist. eccles. de España_, v, 263.

[193] Mendham, 151.

[194] White, i, 138.

[195] Mendham, 176.

[196] Mendham, 176.

[197] Cited by White, i, 160, from the original trial documents.

[198] Cited by White, i, 142, from _L’Epinois_.

[199] _Ibid._, i, 144.

[200] Cited by White, i, 157.

[201] _Histoire universelle_, xv, 483.

[202] II, 396.

[203] White, i, 156. Canton, xv, 483.

[204] White, 157.

[205] Mendham, 203.

[206] Reusch, ii, 34.

[207] W. H. Hutton, in the _Quarterly Review_, January, 1905.

[208] Schlottman, _Erasmus redivivus_, i, 156, 171.

[209] Erasmus, _Epist._, 193.

[210] Maurenbücher, _Gesch. der Kath._, Ref. i, 211.

[211] _Epp._, 1280.

[212] Vischer, _Erasimana_, 34.

[213] _Epp._, 782, 796, 798.

[214] Friedrich, _Die Briefe Aleanders_, 102, 111, 115.

[215] Jourdain, N, 1638, 1639.

[216] Buchholtz, 9, 685.

[217] Buchholtz, 9, 685, Sickel, 424.

[218] Mendham, 47.

[219] _Ibid._, 50.

[220] Drummond, i, 319.

[221] Drummond, i, 261; Erasmus, _Ep._, xxi.

[222] Eras., _Op._, iii, 1168.

[223] Lea, 36.

[224] Luther, _Briefe_.

[225] Gerdes, _Miscellanea_, Groning, i, 418.

[226] Strype, _Memorials of the Reformation: Records of Henry VIII_, ix.

[227] _Incurable Skepticism of the Church of Rome_, trans. by Timson, Lond., 1868, chap. v.

[228] _De Festis_, 2, 16, 8.

[229] Gachard, _Histoire de la Belgique_, i, 99.

[230] Mendham, 192.

[231] d’Aguesseau, _Mémoires_, 13, 123.

[232] _Corr. de Fénelon_, iv, 325–370.

[233] _Kirchengesch._, iv, 49.

[234] _Epp._, 163.

Transcriber’s Notes:

1. Obvious printers’, punctuation and spelling errors have been corrected silently.

2. Some hyphenated and non-hyphenated versions of the same words have been retained as in the original.

3. Superscripts are represented using the caret character, e.g. D^r. or X^{xx}.

4. Italics are shown as _xxx_.

5. Bold print is shown as =xxx=.